DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 of ‘709 states that the processor controls the display to display an image captured using an optical system of the lens unit on a screen. Claim 1 of ‘709 also states that the lens unit includes a plurality of optical systems. Therefore, according to claim 1 of ‘709, when the lens unit that includes the plurality of optical systems is used, the display would display an image capturing using the plurality of optical systems which would inherently include a plurality of image areas. Claim 1 of ‘709 also states that the displayed item indicating the tilt is displayed at different positions depending on whether the lens includes a plurality of optical systems. If the display is to display an image based on the plurality of optical systems when the plurality of optical systems is used, then the displayed item would also be displayed based on whether the display is displaying the image including the plurality of image areas of the plurality of optical systems as claimed in instant claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 2, claim 3 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 3, claim 4 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 4, claim 5 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 5, claim 6 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 6, claim 7 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 7, claim 8 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 8, claim 9 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 9, claim 10 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 10, claim 11 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 11, claim 12 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 12, claim 13 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 13, claim 14 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 13. Specifically, claim 14 of ‘709 states that the processor controls the display to display an image captured using an optical system of the lens unit on a screen. Claim 14 of ‘709 also states that the lens unit includes a plurality of optical systems. Therefore, according to claim 14 of ‘709, when the lens unit that includes the plurality of optical systems is used, the display would display an image capturing using the plurality of optical systems which would inherently include a plurality of image areas. Claim 14 of ‘709 also states that the displayed item indicating the tilt is displayed at different positions depending on whether the lens includes a plurality of optical systems. If the display is to display an image based on the plurality of optical systems when the plurality of optical systems is used, then the displayed item would also be displayed based on whether the display is displaying the image including the plurality of image areas of the plurality of optical systems as claimed in instant claim 13.
Claims 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,709.
Regarding claim 14, claim 15 of ‘709 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 14. Specifically, claim 15 of ‘709 states that the processor controls the display to display an image captured using an optical system of the lens unit on a screen. Claim 15 of ‘709 also states that the lens unit includes a plurality of optical systems. Therefore, according to claim 15 of ‘709, when the lens unit that includes the plurality of optical systems is used, the display would display an image capturing using the plurality of optical systems which would inherently include a plurality of image areas. Claim 15 of ‘709 also states that the displayed item indicating the tilt is displayed at different positions depending on whether the lens includes a plurality of optical systems. If the display is to display an image based on the plurality of optical systems when the plurality of optical systems is used, then the displayed item would also be displayed based on whether the display is displaying the image including the plurality of image areas of the plurality of optical systems as claimed in instant claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 2/7/2026