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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12.436.620 as shown in the chart below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are covering essentially the same subject matter. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application (19/056.681) claim
US Patent 12.259.750 claim
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…third optical elements are surrounding by the first transparent region…” should read “surrounded by” for purposes of clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adachi (US 2018.0012942).
Regarding claim 1, Adachi disclose:
A display device, comprising: a first optical element, a second optical element and a third optical element, wherein the second optical element has a first edge extending along a first direction and a second edge extending along a second direction different from the first direction, the first optical element is disposed adjacent to the first edge, and the third optical element is disposed adjacent to the second edge; and a first transparent region, a second transparent region, a third transparent region and a fourth transparent region, wherein the first optical element, the second optical element and the third optical element are surrounding by the first transparent region, the second transparent region, the third transparent region and the fourth transparent region; wherein areas of the first transparent region, the second transparent region, the third transparent region and the fourth transparent region are greater than areas of the first optical element, the second optical element and the third optical element (see Fig. 6; [0046, 0050-0052]; first optical element LG; second optical element LR third optical element LB; first transparent region M11; second transparent region M13; third transparent region M12; fourth transparent region M14 surrounding LG, LR and LB; where M11, M12, M13, and M14 areas are greater than the areas of LG, LR, and LB).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Adachi further disclose:
the first transparent region, the first optical element, the second optical element and the third transparent region are arranged along the second direction (see Fig. 6; [0046, 0050-0052]; M11, LG, LR, M12 arranged along second direction X)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Adachi further disclose:
the second transparent region, the second optical element, the third optical element and the fourth transparent region are arranged along the first direction (see Fig. 6; [0046, 0050-0052]; M13, LR, LB, M14 arranged along first direction Y)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Adachi further disclose:
a sum of a width of the first optical element in the second direction and a width of the second optical element in the second direction is smaller than a width of the second transparent region in the second direction (see Fig. 6; [0046, 0050-0052]; sum of width of LG and LR smaller than width of M13 in second direction X)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Adachi further disclose:
a sum of a width of the first optical element in the second direction and a width of the second optical element in the second direction is smaller than a width of the fourth transparent region in the second direction (see Fig. 6; [0046, 0050-0052]; sum of width of LG and LR smaller than width of M14 in second direction X)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Adachi further disclose:
a sum of a width of the second optical element in the first direction and a width of the third optical element in the first direction is smaller than a width of the first transparent region in the first direction (see Fig. 6; [0046, 0050-0052]; sum of width of LR and LB smaller than width of M11 in first direction Y)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Adachi further disclose:
a sum of a width of the second optical element in the first direction and a width of the third optical element in the first direction is smaller than a width of the third transparent region in the first direction (see Fig. 6; [0046, 0050-0052]; sum of width of LR and LB smaller than width of M12 in first direction Y)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights