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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/13/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments were sufficient to overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action of 05/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the limitation “so that said one eye looking through the electronic watchmaker magnifier can remain focused at infinity when the user both looks at the observed subject and receives images from the display screen” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
This limitation is unclear because it is reciting an intended manner of use by a user rather than defining a structural characteristic of the Fresnel lens. An eye will naturally focus at infinity when looking at an object at a sufficient distance. This is indefinite because the limitation is not directed to the actual system, but rather to actions of the user (where the user is looking and how far the observed subject is during use), which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs, see MPEP 2173.05(p). Additionally, there are no metes and bounds or any ranges or structural details provided for how the Fresnel lens achieves this effect.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “configured so that the at least one image of the observed subject and the at least one image from the display screen are in focus at the one eye simultaneously.”
Claims 2-12 and 18-17 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the prior art rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that there is “I. No Motivation to Combine Birnkrant, Blackmon, and Xiao.” Specifically, applicant argues that Xiao mentions Fresnel lenses only in passing, without articulating any technical advantage of technical effect achieved by their use, and therefore that the combination can only be reached using impermissible hindsight. However, the motivation to combine, as stated in the rejection, is for the purpose of shaping the display light from the display screen (¶0018 of Xiao). Xiao states that a lens can be used for this purpose, and that a Fresnel lens is one of the lenses that can be used to achieve this technical effect, therefore a Fresnel lens is an art-recognized equivalent. Further, it is well-known in the art that Fresnel lenses can be used to replace conventional lenses1. The substitution of art-recognized equivalents is obvious and the results would have been predictable, see MPEP §§ 2144.06 and 2143(I)(B). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that “II. Xiao and Birnkrant Teach Away from the Use of Fresnel Lenses.” Specifically, applicant argues that because a different reference, Wikipedia, mentions a drawback of using Fresnel lenses, that one of ordinary skill in the art would be dissuaded to use a Fresnel lens in Birnkrant’s device. However, examiner notes that Wikipedia was not applied in the rejection. Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (MPEP §2124). In this case, the examiner finds that none of the applied references – Birnkrant, Blackmon, or Xiao (Wikipedia is not an applied reference) – criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. In fact, Xiao specifically states that Fresnel lenses can be used. Examiner additionally notes applicant’s argument that “Fresnel lenses are well-established in the art as degrading imaging quality” and one “seeking to preserve the high-precision viewing that…watchmaking tasks demand would have been dissuaded from introducing such optical aberrations” and questions if the device of the instant application is intended to perform with low-precision viewing and compromised image quality. Applicant is respectfully invited to explain why this would not be the case due to the inclusion of a Fresnel lens in the instant application device, given the same structure and function.
Applicant argues that “III. Xiao is Not Suitable for the Glasses of Birnkrant” and “IV. Xiao Disqualifies Blackmon.” Specifically, applicant argues that Xiao’s device is more materially complex than Birnkrant, rendering Xiao’s device unsuitable for Birnkrant’s loupe, and that Xiao is directed towards AR devices which cover both eyes of the user and therefore would not have considered Blackmon with Xiao, since Blackmon leaves one eye free. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” and in addition it has been further held that "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" and taking into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007), see MPEP 2141. Additionally, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Birnkrant and Blackmon are in a similar field of endeavor as they both teach head-worn loupes comprising a single magnifying objective lens, and one would have been motivated to combine Blackmon with Birnkrant for the purpose of being able to look through the lens and view the entire field of view simultaneously. Xiao is also in a similar field of endeavor to the inventor's endeavor, since it is directed towards a head-mounted display. Further, it is used to solve a particular problem - specifically instant application states that the Fresnel lens is used to focus light from the display. Xiao's Fresnel lens is to shape the beam from the projection source (i.e., focus the light from the display) (¶0018). Therefore, regardless of whether each device is used for two-eyed viewing or one-eyed viewing, each reference would have been considered by one of ordinary skill in the art and they do not disqualify each other.
Applicant argues “V. The Combination of References Fails to Teach an Eye Focused at Infinity.” Specifically, applicant argues that none of the cited references teach the new limitation that the said one eye looking through the electronic watchmaker magnifier can remain focused at infinity when the user both looks at the observed subject and receives imaged from the display screen. Examiner first notes this limitation causes a lack of clarity as to when infringement occurs, see 112(b) rejection above. Further, Xiao teaches the Fresnel lens is used for shaping the light from the display. Configuring the lens to have a certain focus is determining a workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05 and see 103 rejection below. Examiner further notes there are no ranges or metes and bounds given for the Fresnel lens to cause this “infinity-focusing benefit.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a communication module, to receive and/or send data in claim 1
communication module in claims 1-2, 4-7, and 11
a holder in claim 11
a measurement device in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnkrant et al. (US 20140146153 A1), hereinafter Birnkrant, in view of Blackmon (US 5128807 A) and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 20200371362 A1), hereinafter Xiao.
Regarding independent claim 1, Birnkrant discloses an electronic watchmaker magnifier, intended to observe [an] observed subject, in particular a watch mechanism (this recitation in the preamble is directed to intended use of the device and has not been given any patentable weight since it has been held "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81, see MPEP 2111.02), provided with
a magnifying objective lens (402; Fig. 6; ¶0026) to observe the observed subject (¶0026),
communication module (416; Fig. 6; ¶0030), to receive and/or send data (¶0030),
a display screen (410; Fig. 6; ¶0025), to display the data (¶0027),
a beam splitter (408; Fig. 6; ¶0026), provided to simultaneously direct towards a user's eye at least one image of the observed subject coming from the magnifying objective lens (402) and at least one image from the display screen (410) (Fig. 6),
configured so that the at least one image of the observed subject and the at least one image from the display screen (410) are in focus at the one eye simultaneously (inherent given the structure and function in Fig. 6 and ¶0026-¶0027, in order for the device to work both the images coming from 402 and from 410 must be in focus at the user’s eye).
Birnkrant does not disclose the electronic watchmaker magnifier with one eye looking through the electronic watchmaker magnifier and for leaving one free eye, and wherein the electronic watchmaker magnifier is provided with a single magnifying objective lens; and a Fresnel lens, provided between the display screen and the beam splitter, wherein the Fresnel lens is configured so that the at least one image of the observed subject and the at least one image from the display screen are in focus at the one eye simultaneously.
However, Blackmon teaches a similar magnifier (Figs. 3-4) provided with a single magnifying objective lens (Figs. 3-4) with one eye looking through the magnifier and for leaving one eye free (Figs. 3-4; col. 1 line 54 – col. 2 line 9).
Blackmon does not teach a Fresnel lens, provided between the display screen and the beam splitter, wherein the Fresnel lens is configured so that the at least one image of the observed subject and the at least one image from the display screen are in focus at the one eye simultaneously.
However, Xiao teaches a similar head-mounted device comprising a display screen (124, 122; Fig. 15; ¶0139), a beam splitter (20, 50; Fig. 15; ¶0139. ¶0142), and a Fresnel lens (144, 142; Fig. 15; ¶0139) provided between the display screen (124, 122) and the beam splitter (20) (Fig. 15; ¶0139). Xiao further teaches light from the observed subject (real scene ambient light AL) that passes through the beam splitter (50) and enters the eye (Fig. 15; ¶0094), therefore the display light and the observed subject light are simultaneously directed towards a user’s eye by a beam splitter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the configuration of Birnkrant in a single magnifying objective lens for one eye to look through the magnifier and the other eye free for the purpose of being able to look through the magnifying objective lens and being able to view the entire field of view simultaneously (col. 1 line 54 – col. 2 line 9). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birnkrant in view of Blackmon to incorporate a Fresnel lens between the display screen and the beam splitter as taught by Xiao for the purpose of shaping the display light from the display screen (¶0018 of Xiao).
Xiao does not disclose the Fresnel lens is configured so that the at least one image of the observed subject and the at least one image from the display screen are in focus at the one eye simultaneously. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Birnkrant in view of Blackmon and further in view of Xiao has all the claimed features of an electronic magnifier, including a magnifying objective lens, a communication module, a display screen, a beam splitter, and a Fresnel lens between the display screen and the beam splitter, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the Fresnel lens be configured so that the at least one image of the observed subject and the at least one image from the display screen are in focus at the one eye simultaneously for the purpose of displaying important data to the user while the user is working on the observed subject (¶0004 of Birnkrant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the device of Birnkrant in view of Blackmon and further in view of Xiao to have the Fresnel lens be configured so that the at least one image of the observed subject and the at least one image from the display screen are in focus at the one eye simultaneously for the purpose of displaying important data to the user while the user is working on the observed subject (¶0004 of Birnkrant).
Regarding claim 19, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon discloses the electronic magnifier according to claim 1, as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses an acquisition camera (406; Fig. 6; ¶0026), to acquire at least one image of the observed subject (¶0026), and wherein the beam splitter (408) is provided to simultaneously direct towards a user's eye and towards the acquisition camera (406) at least one image of the observed subject coming from the magnifying objective lens (402) (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon discloses the electronic magnifier according to claim 1, as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses the communication module (416) are provided to send to a remote user the image of the observed subject acquired by the acquisition camera (406) (¶0030), the beam splitter (408) being provided to simultaneously direct towards the acquisition camera (406) at least one image of the observed subject coming from the magnifying objective lens (402) and at least one image from the display screen (410) (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon discloses the electronic magnifier according to claim 2, as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses the beam splitter (408) comprises a semi-reflecting mirror (408; Fig. 6; ¶0026) to split the image of the display screen (410) into a first refracted portion directed towards the acquisition camera (406) and a second reflected portion directed towards the eye of the user (Fig. 6; ¶0027), and/or to split the image of the observed subject coming from the magnifying objective lens (402), into a first refracted portion directed towards the eye of the user and a second reflected portion directed towards the acquisition camera (406) (Fig. 6; ¶0026).
Regarding claim 4, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon discloses an electronic watchmaker magnifier assembly, intended to observe a observed subject, in particular a watch mechanism (this recitation in the preamble is directed to intended use of the device and has not been given any patentable weight since it has been held "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81, see MPEP 2111.02), as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses
a data processing unit (900; Fig. 9; ¶0034), having data (¶0034), and
the electronic magnifier (Fig. 6), according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), the communication module (416) of the electronic magnifier communicating with the data processing unit (900) (¶0030, ¶0033, ¶0034), to receive the data and/or to send to the data processing unit (900) the image of the observed subject acquired by the acquisition camera (406) (¶0030, ¶0033, ¶0034).
Regarding claim 5, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon discloses the magnifier assembly according to claim 4, as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses a controller (¶0034) to control the electronic magnifier (implicit from ¶0034), the communication module (416) of the electronic magnifier communicating with the controller (implicit from ¶0034, ¶0036).
Regarding claim 9, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon discloses the magnifier assembly according to claim 4, as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses the data processing unit (900) comprises a computer-type machine (900; Fig. 9; ¶0034-¶0035) connected with a server (¶0035).
Regarding claim 10, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon discloses the magnifier assembly according to claim 9, as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses the computer-type machine (900) is connected to an external computer network (¶0007).
Regarding claim 11, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon discloses the magnifier assembly according to claim 4, as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses a wireless router (implicit from ¶0033), forming an interface between the communication module (416) of the electronic magnifier, and/or the data processing unit (900) (implicit from ¶0033-¶0034) and/or a holder and/or a measurement device.
Regarding claim 12, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon discloses the magnifier assembly according to claim 4, as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses wherein the data comprise in particular
information identifying the observed subject (¶0030), and/or
technical information about the observed subject (¶0030), and/or
information identifying a subset of the observed subject, and/or
information identifying a component of the observed subject, and/or
information identifying a stage of mounting the observed subject.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnkrant (US 20140146153 A1) in view of Blackmon (US 5128807 A), further in view of Xiao (US 20200371362 A1), and further in view of Tsujino et al. (US 5257199 A), hereinafter Tsujino.
Regarding claim 6, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon and further in view of Xiao discloses the magnifier assembly according to claim 4. Birnkrant further discloses the communication module (416) of the electronic magnifier receiving information to display information on the display device (410) (¶0027, ¶0030). Neither Birnkrant, Blackmon, nor Xiao disclose a holder to recognize a tool to be used with the observed subject, to select from the data concerning the observed subject at least one information relating to the tool, the communication module of the electronic magnifier communicating with the holder to receive the selected information relating to the tool, so as to display the information relating to the tool on the display screen of the electronic magnifier.
Applicant’s stated problem is wanting a way to recognize the tool and receive information relating to the tool.
Tsujino teaches an holder for identifying tools (col. 2 lines 47-64) which includes data about the tools (col. 2 lines 40-46), and transmits the tool data (col. 2 lines 47-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birnkrant in view of Blackmon to include the tool identifying holder of Tsujino for the purpose of being able to quickly identify the tool, receive data about the tool, and ensure the correct tool is being used.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnkrant (US 20140146153 A1) in view of Blackmon (US 5128807 A), further in view of Xiao (US 20200371362 A1), further in view of Tsujino (US 5257199 A), and further in view of Lumera et al. (US 20170344958 A1), hereinafter Lumera.
Regarding claim 7, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon and further in view of Xiao discloses the magnifier assembly according to claim 4, as set forth above. Birnkrant further discloses the communication module (416) of the electronic magnifier receiving information to display information on the display device (410) (¶0027, ¶0030). Neither Birnkrant, Blackmon, nor Xiao disclose a holder to recognize at least one component of the observed subject, to select from data concerning the observed subject at least one information relating to the component, the communication module of the electronic magnifier communicating with the holder to receive the selected information relating to the component, so as to display the information relating to the component on the display screen of the electronic magnifier.
Applicant’s stated problem is wanting a way to recognize the component and receive information relating to the component.
Tsujino teaches an holder for identifying tools (col. 2 lines 47-64) which includes data about the tools (col. 2 lines 40-46), and transmits the tool data (col. 2 lines 47-64).
Lumera teaches a device for identifying components (¶0003-¶0008) which includes data about the components (¶0007), and transmits the component data to a display device (¶0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birnkrant in view of Blackmon to include the holder of Tsujino and for the holder to recognize components of the observed subject as taught by the component identifying device of Lumera for the purpose of being able to quickly identify the component, receive data about the component, and ensure the correct component is being used.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnkrant (US 20140146153 A1) in view of Blackmon (US 5128807 A), further in view of Xiao (US 20200371362 A1), and further in view of Reese (US 3892124 A).
Regarding claim 8, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon and further in view of Xiao discloses the magnifier assembly according to claim 4, as set forth above. Neither Birnkrant, Blackmon, nor Xiao disclose a sensor.
However, Reese discloses a sensor (col. 1 lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birnkrant to incorporate the sensor of Reese for the purpose of determining how fast or slow a watch is operating so that proper tolerance can be restored.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birnkrant (US 20140146153 A1) in view of Blackmon (US 5128807 A), further in view of Xiao (US 20200371362 A1), and further in view of Matharu (US 20150331258 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Birnkrant in view of Blackmon and further in view of Xiao discloses the electronic magnifier according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Birnkrant, Blackmon, nor Xiao disclose lighting module to illuminate or light the observed subject.
However, Matharu teaches a similar magnifying loupe comprising a lighting module (114; Fig. 1; ¶0028) to illuminate or light the observed subject (Fig. 1, ¶0015, ¶0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Birnkrant to include the lighting module as taught by Matharu for the purpose of illuminating and being able to better see the observed subject.
Conclusion
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 1st, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 “Advantages of Fresnel Lenses | Edmund Optics.” Www.Edmundoptics.Com, https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowledge-center/application-notes/optics/advantages-of-fresnel-lenses/. (21 Feb. 2020).
Prosecution Insights