CTNF 18/962,931 CTNF 70087 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 Claim s 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,486 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the two sets of claims are both directed to display devices having a second window disposed under a first window with differences between the nearly identical claim groups being only minor variations in scope and/or variations in the distribution of claim features between the dependent and independent claims, that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of persons of ordinary skill are taken into full consideration . Instant claim 1 recite: An electronic device comprising: a display device comprising, a display module on which a display area and a non-display area are defined, and a window module disposed on the display module, and an electronic module disposed under the display device, wherein the window module comprises: a first window; a second window disposed under the first window; and a bezel pattern overlapping the non-display area, wherein, when viewed from a plan view in a thickness direction of the display device, at least a portion of an edge of the second window does not overlap the bezel pattern, and wherein, the second window disposed under the first window. Patent claim 1 recites: a display device comprising, a display module on which a display area and a non-display area are defined, and a window module disposed on the display module, and an electronic module disposed under the display device, wherein the window module comprises: a first window; a second window disposed under the first window; and a bezel pattern overlapping the non-display area, wherein, when viewed from a plan view in a thickness direction of the display device, at least a portion of an edge of the second window does not overlap the bezel pattern, and wherein, the second window disposed under the first window. The above claims differ in the addition of “an electronic device comprising:” to the beginning of instant claims 1,6,8 and 10, with the classification of the display device as an electronic device not seen as an inventive step beyond the abilities of persons of ordinary skill in the art. The dependent claims of the patent address the limitations of the dependent claims of this Application and the new combinations of claim features, with an example being the optical signal limitations of instant claim 2 and the camera module limitations of instant claim 3 which are fully addressed by the recited limitations of claims 21 and 22. The folding display limitations in instant claims 6 and 8 are fully addressed by the presence of folding display design considerations in patent claims 3,16,18 and 23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN W JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00. 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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838 . 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. SWJackson June 12, 2026 /STEPHEN W JACKSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/962,931 Page 2 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/962,931 Page 3 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/962,931 Page 4 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/962,931 Page 5 Art Unit: 2838
Prosecution Insights