CTNF 18/930,188 CTNF 80707 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024, 02/19/2025, 06/23/2025, 12/05/2025, and 05/18/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 06-17 AIA 2. The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). Misnumbered claim s 7-20 have been renumbered as 6-19 . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 3. 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. 08-34 AIA 4. Claim s 1-19 (as renumbered) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-5, 7-12, 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,341 B2 (herein referred to as Fu) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Regarding claim 1, Fu discloses “A method, comprising: projecting, by a light engine, a first instance of an image along an optical path during a first period of time; capturing, by a detector, the first instance of the image; converting a first plurality of points on the first instance of the image captured by the detector into a first function; obtaining a first fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the first function” (claim 1 - col. 9, lines 2-19); projecting, by the light engine, a second instance of the image during a second period of time occurring after the first period of time, the second instance of the image projected from the light engine and along the optical path; capturing, by the detector, the second instance of the image from one or more optical devices positioned along the optical path between the light engine and the detector after the first period of time; converting a second plurality of points on the second instance of the image captured by the detector into a second function; obtaining a second FFT of the second function; and determining an optical device modulation transfer function (MTF) of the one or more optical devices, the optical device MTF determined by comparing the first FFT to the second FFT (claim 1 - col. 9, lines 20-32 – the second period of time being after disposing the one or more optical device on the stage); Regarding claim 2, claim 2 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 2 of Fu. Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 3 of Fu. Regarding claim 4, claim 4 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 4 of Fu. Regarding claim 5, claim 5 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 5 of Fu. Regarding claim 6, claim 6 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 7 of Fu. Regarding claim 7, claim 7 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 8 of Fu. Regarding claim 8, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 9 of Fu. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 10 of Fu. Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 11 of Fu. Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 12 of Fu. Regarding claim 12, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 14 of Fu. Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 15 of Fu. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 16 of Fu. Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 17 of Fu. Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 18 of Fu. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 19 of Fu. Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 20 of Fu. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as per claims 18 and 20 of Fu. The closest prior art(s) as cited (e.g. Liu, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0266287 A1; Riley et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,959726; and Brok, U.S. Patent No. 5,191,621) when considered alone or in combination do not teach "determining an optical device modulation transfer function (MTF) of the one or more optical devices, the optical device MTF determined by comparing the first FFT to the second FFT corresponding to the image" as recited in claims 1 and 9 in combination with other limitations, and, do not teach "determining an optical device MTF of the one or more optical devices, wherein the determining the optical device MTF comprises: dividing the second MTF by the first MTF; or dividing the second FFT by the first FFT" in combination with other limitations in claim 14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manav Seth whose telephone number is (571) 272-7456. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz, can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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:/Awww.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. /Manav Seth/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672 June 11, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/930,188 Page 2 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/930,188 Page 3 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/930,188 Page 4 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/930,188 Page 5 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/930,188 Page 6 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/930,188 Page 7 Art Unit: 2672
Prosecution Insights