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
In order to expedite prosecution even though the claims have not been allowed, a double patenting rejection is provided below for applicant consideration.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,436,725.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The instant application claims 1 and 3-20, include all of the limitations of the patent claims 1-20. Note, the claims of the instant application are taken to be broader than the claims of the patent and therefore all of the limitations of the patent claims are taken to be included in the claims of the instant application.
Note, the dependent claims:
Claims 3-13 are met by patent claims 2-12; and
Claims 15-20 are met by patent claims 14-20.
The instant application claims therefore taken to be generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art Under 35 USC 102/103
No applicable rejection under 35 USC 102/103 over the prior art of record have been found for Claims 1 and 3-20.
The following is an Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter, and Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter Not Withstanding the Obvious Double Patenting Rejection Above:
Regarding claims 1 and 3-20
The reasons for indicating allowability for claims 1 and 3-20 over the prior art of record are based on the amendment and applicant remarks filed on 07/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/22/2026 directed to the non-statutory double patenting rejections over claims amended claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that double patenting rejection of claim 2 is moot and the rejection of amended claims 1 and 3-20 are believed to be overcome by the amendment, which incorporate the limitations of claim 2 into claims 1 and 14. This is not convincing because dependent claim 2, which includes the limitations of original claim 1, was also rejected with obvious double patenting along with claims 1 and 3-20. Also, applicant did not provide any arguments or reasons why the current claims are not met by the patent claims.
The non-statutory double patenting of claims 1 and 3-20, noted above, are taken to be necessitated by amendment and will be made final, see below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Geng et al. (US 2019/0384070), taken to be the closest prior art, shows the display device comprising:
a display (105/305) configured to output a screen output along a first direction (see Figs. 1-3); and
a lens assembly (101/300) including at least three lenses (347, 330, 311, 309, or 141, 114, 109) arranged sequentially along an optical axis and configured to focus or guide the screen output in a predetermined direction or to a predetermined position (see Figs. 1-3), and
wherein the lens assembly is configured to reflect the screen output at least twice between a first lens (see Fig. 3, lens 347, 330 and 311), among the at least three lenses, disposed farthest from the display and a nth lens, among the at least three lenses, disposed closest to the display (see Fig. 3).
Watson et al. (US 2017/0322410), shows a display device having a display to output a screen output and a lens assembly having a plurality of lenses including the reflecting the output in path of the lens assembly (see the abstract, Figs. and para. ).
Nishi (US 2007/0075917), shows a display device having a display to output a screen output and a lens assembly having a plurality of lenses including the reflecting the output in path of the lens assembly (see the abstract, Figs. and para. ).
Oami et al. (US 2020/0286259), shows a display device having a display to output a screen output and a lens assembly having a plurality of lenses including the reflecting the output in path of the lens assembly (see the abstract, Figs. and para. ).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD N EDUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:30.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. 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.
/MUHAMMAD N EDUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
