Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/087,234

MANUFACTURING LIGHT FIELD PRINTS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 21, 2025
Examiner
BANH, DAVID H
Art Unit
2853
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fathom Optics Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
597 granted / 840 resolved
+3.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
872
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
52.3%
+12.3% vs TC avg
§102
26.6%
-13.4% vs TC avg
§112
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 840 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, 14 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,280,587. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as demonstrated below: Regarding claims 1, 14 and 17 of the present invention: Claims 1 and 8 of ‘587 teaches a method of manufacturing a light field print, the comprising (see column 62, lines 41-42), identifying at least one characteristic of the printing press at least in part by printing at least one calibration pattern using the printing press (column 62, lines 43-45); obtaining content to be rendered using the light field print, the content comprising a plurality of scene views (column 63, lines 38-40); generating, based at least in part on the content and the at least one characteristic of the printing press, a front target pattern and a back target pattern (column 62, lines 45-49) ; and using the printing press to: print the front target pattern on a first side of a substrate; and print the back target pattern on a second side of the substrate (see column 62, lines 50-54). Claims 1-6, 8, 12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,280,587 in view of Baran et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0085867). Regarding claims 1, 14 and 17 of the present invention: Claim 1 teaches a method of manufacturing a light field print, the comprising (see column 62, lines 41-42), identifying at least one characteristic of the printing press at least in part by printing at least one calibration pattern using the printing press (column 62, lines 43-45); generating, based at least in part on the content and the at least one characteristic of the printing press, a front target pattern and a back target pattern (column 62, lines 45-49) ; and using the printing press to: print the front target pattern on a first side of a substrate; and print the back target pattern on a second side of the substrate (see column 62, lines 50-54). Claim 1 does not teach obtaining content to be rendered using the light field print, the content comprising a plurality of scene views. However, Baran et al. teaches obtaining content to be rendered using the light field print, the content comprising a plurality of scene views (see claim 1, line 13, and lines 28-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of claim 1 to incorporate content obtained from scene views to generating of controls for the purpose of accommodating the system to specific data. For claims 2-6 of the present invention, claims 2-6 of ‘587 teach the respective additional limitations. For claim 8 of the present invention, claim 7 of ‘587 teaches the additional limitations. For claim 12 of the present invention, claim 8 of ‘587 teaches the additional limitations. For claims 16 and 20 of the present invention, claim 9 of ‘587 teaches the additional limitations. Regarding claims 18 and 19 of the present invention, claim 16 of ‘587 in combination with Baran et al. teaches claim 17 of the present invention, and claims 17 and 18 of ‘587 teach the additional limitations of claim 18 and 19 of the present invention. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7, 9-13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H BANH whose telephone number is (571)270-3851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8PM. 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571)272-2149. 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. /DAVID H BANH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602007
DEVELOPING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602000
IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM AND POST-PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING BOOKLET BY BONDING PLURALITY OF SHEETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596322
THICKNESS DETECTION DEVICE, SHEET PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591195
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585221
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD FOR IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 840 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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