Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/972,660

IMAGING LENS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 06, 2024
Priority
Jan 28, 2022 — provisional 63/304,468 +1 more
Examiner
REISNER, NOAM S
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
65%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
575 granted / 776 resolved
+14.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -9% lift
Without
With
+-8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
797
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
55.0%
+15.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 776 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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. Claims 1-61 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-61 of U.S. Patent No. 12,206,970 (hereafter ‘970). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1, 20, and 36 of the ‘970 patent recite all of the claim limitations called for in claim 1, 20, and 36, respectively, of the instant application. The claims are not statutory double patenting because the ‘970 patent has additional limitations not recited in the instant application, but all of the limitations of the instant application are met by the ‘970 patent. Claims 2-19, 21-35, and 37-61 of the ‘970 patent are identical to claims 2-19, 21-35, and 37-61 of the instant application. Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art Pub. No. US 2020/0174167 A1 to Chu et al. discloses a light-blocking sheet with nanocrystals formed thereon. Prior art Pub. No. US 2018/0246260 A1 to Chou et al. discloses a light-blocking sheet with a tapered edge and curved portions on the inner ring. Prior art Pub. No. US 2015/0103226 A1 to Takahashi et al. discloses a light-blocking sheet with nanostructures formed thereon. Prior art Pub. No. US 2023/0204828 A1 to Chang et al. is not effective prior art because, as demonstrated in the parent application 17/878,843, the Chang reference names another inventor and was effectively filed prior to the instant application, but was published after the instant application was filed and was owned or subject to assignment to the same assignee at the effective filing date of the instant application. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM. 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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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. /NOAM REISNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 9/15/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 06, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12748343
ACTUATOR LOCKING MECHANISM FOR IMAGE CAPTURE DEVICE
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12717217
CAMERA STABILIZATION APPARATUS
3y 2m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12710132
SMA ACTUATORS FOR OPTICAL IMAGE STABILISATION
5y 4m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12699113
Wheel Speed Sensor
3y 5m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12698983
Method and Circuit Arrangement for Determining an Inductance of a Measuring Coil
1y 11m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
65%
With Interview (-8.7%)
2y 4m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 776 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month