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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/6/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,864. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,864.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,025,831. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,025,831.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,478. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,652,478.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,382,702. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,382,702.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,918,017. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,918,017.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,167,169. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,167,169.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,160,936. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,160,936.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,137,455. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,137,455.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 37 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 37 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 122 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 122 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 123 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 123 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 124 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 124 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 125 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 125 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 126 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 126 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 127 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 127 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 129 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 129 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,736.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 95 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 95 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,736.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 134 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 134 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,736.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,736.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 31 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 31 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 33 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 33 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 38 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 38 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 39 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 39 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 44 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 44 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 49 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 49 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,744.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 127 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 127 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 162 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 162 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 162 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 162 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 162 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 162 of U.S. Patent No. 12,401,911.
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMahon et al. US 2013/0147979.
Re claim 1, McMahon discloses an apparatus (array camera and image sensor array) (figures 4-4JA), comprising: an image sensor including a plurality of cells including: a first cell having a first photodiode generating a first analog signal, and a second cell having a second photodiode generating a second analog signal, for being utilized to generate at least a portion of one or more line analog signals (pixel array 410 includes a plurality of cells including first and second cells) (figures 4-4JA; paragraphs 109-117, 140); a line in communication with the plurality of cells, the line communicating the one or more line analog signals (column circuit 414 selects pixels from which analog image information is read out) (figures 4-4JA; paragraphs 109-117, 140); at least one analog-to-digital channel (418, 419) in communication with the line, the at least one analog-to-digital channel capable of receiving at least one of the one or more line analog signals for conversion thereof to a first line digital signal (figures 4-4JA; paragraphs 109-117, 140); and electronic circuitry in communication with the at least one analog-to-digital channel (418,419), the circuitry capable of receiving the first line digital signal for image generation (interface circuitry is configured to transmit digital image data to an external device) (figures 1,1B; paragraphs 65-69).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly L. Jerabek whose telephone number is (571) 272-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (571) 273-7300. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the Examiner at (571) 273-7312.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KELLY L JERABEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
