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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 6/15/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claims 1 and 13.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/153,162 filed on 1/11/2023 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havens et al. (US 2021/0348886, hereinafter, “Havens”) in view of Xie (US 2017/0139497, hereinafter, “Xie”).
Regarding claim 1, Havens discloses a viewing optic 14 comprising:
a body with a first end and a second end and having a center axis (Fig. 1E);
an objective lens system 16 disposed within the body (Fig. 1E, [0029], [0216]);
an eyepiece lens 18 disposed within the body (Fig. 1E, [0029], [0216]);
an erector lens system 25 disposed within the body (Fig. 1E, [0029], [0216]);
the objective lens system, eyepiece lens, and erector lens system forming an optical
system having a first focal plane 20, the first focal plane proximate the objective lens system and having a first reticle (Figs. 1E, 53, [0029]); and
a remote configured to control operations of the viewing optic ([0711])
Havens does not disclose the remote having an illumination source to emit at least one type of light to illuminate an outward scene.
Xie discloses a display system and a remote to control the operation of the display system (Abstract). In one embodiment, Xie discloses that a user points a remote 602 to display 601 to control the operation of the display. The remote has a light emitter 604 that may emit visible light (solid line) or invisible light having high frequency, e.g., IR (dotted line) (Fig. 7, [0097], [0100]).
Both Havens and Xie disclose remote controllers used to control optical systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Havens so that the remote points to the viewing optic and includes an illumination source that emits at least one type of light, as taught by Xie, for controlling the operation of the viewing optic ([0100] in Xie). In the above Havens/Xie viewing optic, the light emitted by the remote illuminates an outward scene, e.g., around the viewing optic.
Regarding claim 2, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the illumination source emits visible light or infrared light, or near infrared light or short wave infrared light ([0100] in Xie).
Regarding claim 3, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the illumination source emits visible light ([0086], [0100] in Xie. Here, in the modified viewing optic of Havens/Xie, the visible light emitted by the remote would make the viewing optic visible to the user).
Regarding claim 6, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the illumination source has an adjustable beam angle (Fig. 7 in Xie, the remote light emitter 604 may emit beams at different beam angles depending on the intended location in the screen for effectively reaching the desired target).
Regarding claim 7, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the illumination source can be adjusted to alter the wavelength of the emitted light ([0086] in Xie).
Regarding claim 8, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the illumination source emits more than one type of light ([0086] in Xie).
Regarding claim 9, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the remote and viewing optic interact through a physical interface ([0287] in Havens).
Regarding claim 10, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the remote and viewing optic interact through a wireless interface ([0287] in Havens).
Regarding claim 11, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 1,
wherein the illumination source is exchangeable to allow for different types of light to be emitted ([0086] in Xie).
Regarding claim 12, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 1.
Havens/Xie does not disclose the illumination source can be removed and is separable from the remote.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Havens/Xie so that the illumination source 604 of Havens/Xie can be removed and is separable from the remote 602 (Fig. 6, 7 of Xie) since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 13, Havens discloses a viewing optic 14 comprising:
an optical system with an objective lens system 16 that focuses a target image from an outward scene to a first focal plane 20 (Fig. 1E, [0029], [0216]), wherein
the first focal plane is located between the objective lens system and an erector system 25 that inverts the target image (Fig. 1E), and
an active display configured to generate a digital image that is projected to the first focal plane of the optical system (Fig. 15, [0364], [0403]); and
a remote configured to control operations of the viewing optic ([0711]).
Havens does not disclose the remote having an illumination source to emit at least one type of light to illuminate the outward scene.
Xie discloses a display system and a remote to control the operation of the display system (Abstract). In one embodiment, Xie discloses that a user points a remote 602 to display 601 to control the operation of the display. The remote has a light emitter 604 that may emit visible light (solid line) or invisible light having high frequency e.g., IR (dotted line) (Fig. 7, [0097], [0100]).
Both Havens and Xie disclose remote controllers used to control optical systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Havens so that the remote points to the viewing optic and includes an illumination source that emits at least one type of light, as taught by Xie, for controlling the operation of the viewing optic ([0100] in Xie). In the above Havens/Xie viewing optic, the light emitted by the remote illuminates the viewing optic (under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, the light emitted by the remote towards the viewing optic also illuminates the outward scene where the viewing optic of the rifle is located).
Regarding claim 14, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 13, wherein
the illumination source emits visible light or infrared light, or near infrared light or short wave infrared light ([0100] in Xie).
Regarding claim 15, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 13, wherein
the illumination source emits visible light ([0420] in Havens discloses the various types of illumination light used for displays ([0086], [0100] in Xie. Here, in the modified viewing optic of Havens/Xie, the visible light emitted by the remote would make the viewing optic visible to the user).
Regarding claim 18, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 13,
wherein the illumination source has an adjustable beam angle (Fig. 7 in Xie, the remote light emitter 604 may emit beams at different beam angles depending on the intended location in the screen for effectively reaching the desired target).
Regarding claim 19, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 13.
Havens/Xie does not disclose the illumination source can be removed and is separable from the remote.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Havens/Xie so that the illumination source 604 of Havens/Xie can be removed and is separable from the remote 602 (Fig. 6, 7 of Xie) since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 20, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 13, wherein
the active display is selected from the group consisting of: a transmissive active matrix LCD display (AMLCD), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, a Light-Emitting Diode (LED) display, a e-ink display, a plasma display, a segment display, an electroluminescent display, a surface-conduction electron-emitter display, and a quantum dot display ([0415] in Havens).
Claim 4-5, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havens, Xie, in view of Tong (US 2021/0147198, hereinafter, “Tong”).
Regarding claim 4, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 1.
Havens/Xie does not disclose wherein the illumination source has at least one Light Emitting Diode.
Tong discloses a remote controller (Abstract). In describing the related art, Tong discloses that remote controllers emit light waves transmitted by infrared diodes (e.g., LEDs), [0003].
Both Havens and Tong disclose remote controllers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Havens/Xie so that the illumination source of the remote of Havens/Xie is an LED, as taught by Tong, for a less costly device.
Regarding claim 5, Havens/Xie/Tong discloses the viewing optic of claim 4.
Havens/Xie/Tong does not disclose wherein the intensity or brightness of the LED is adjustable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Havens/Xie/Tong so that the illumination source has adjustable intensity or brightness, because it has been held that a claimed property of a feature that represents an adjusted property of a disclosed feature is not an inventive feature (MPEP 2144.04(V)(D).
Regarding claim 16, Havens/Xie discloses the viewing optic of claim 13.
Havens/Xie does not disclose wherein the illumination source has at least one Light Emitting Diode.
Tong discloses a remote controller (Abstract). In describing the related art, Tong discloses that remote controllers emit light waves transmitted by infrared diodes (e.g., LEDs), [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Havens/Xie so that the illumination source of the remote of Havens/Xie is an LED, as taught by Tong, for a less costly device.
Regarding claim 17, Havens/Xie/Tong discloses the viewing optic of claim 16.
Havens/Xie/Tong does not disclose wherein the intensity or brightness of the LED is adjustable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Havens/Xie/Tong so that the illumination source has adjustable intensity or brightness, because it has been held that a claimed property of a feature that represents an adjusted property of a disclosed feature is not an inventive feature (MPEP 2144.04(V)(D).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claims 1, 13, Applicant stated that “Claims 1 and 13 each require, inter alia, a remote configured to control operations of the viewing optic and having an illumination source to emit at least one type of light to illuminate an outward scene. The Examiner acknowledges that Havens does not disclose this limitation. To supply it, the Examiner turns to Richards under Rationale D, applying a "known technique" from Richards to the known device of Havens. For Rationale D to support a rejection, the "known technique" identified in the secondary reference must be applicable to the known device in the manner claimed, and there must be a reason, grounded in the prior art, not in the Applicant's disclosure, to make the specific modification at issue. The rejection fails on both counts, as set forth in detail below.”, see pp. 5, 6 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s above arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Xie (re claims 1 and 13).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus, the rejection of independent claims 1, 12 (and their dependents) is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, Stephone Allen, can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights