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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 11/21/2025. In that response, Applicant amended claims 5 and 17.
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 Objections
The objection to claims 5 and 17 has been overcome.
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 1-10, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havens et al. (US 2021/0348886, hereinafter, “Havens”) in view of Richards (US 2016/0169625, hereinafter, “Richards”).
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.
Richards discloses a scope in a firearm (Abstract, Fig. 1). In one embodiment, Richards discloses that when the user moves the gun so that the target indicator 1008 coincides with the center of the crosshairs 1006, some portions of the reticle may, i.e., 1004, 1008, change color, i.e., the wavelength of the illumination source-emitted light may be adjusted (Fig. 10B, [0062]).
In other words, the scope includes an illumination source to provide a better operation, for example, better accuracy for the rifle. Richards discloses using visible means, like illumination light, to notify/inform the user about operational conditions of the viewing optic.
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 also includes an illumination source to emit at least one type of light, as taught by Richards, for effectively notifying the user of the viewing optic about conditions of the viewing optic, e.g., a target of the rifle is perfectly pointed.
Here, the light source being located in the remote instead of the scope provides improved efficiency for the user since the user can adjust the lighting of the region of interest (ROI) indicator 1004 and the crosshairs 1006 without being distracted (thus missing the target) by adjusting the light source located in the scope itself.
Regarding claim 2, Havens/Richards 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 ([0420] in Havens discloses the various types of illumination light used for displays).
Regarding claim 3, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the illumination source emits visible light ([0420] in Havens discloses the various types of illumination light used for displays).
Regarding claim 4, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the illumination source has at least one Light Emitting Diode ([0418], [0420] in Havens discloses the various types of illumination light used for displays).
Regarding claim 5, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1.
Havens/Richards 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/Richards 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), for effectively notifying the user of the viewing optic about conditions of the viewing optic in various conditions of the environment.
Regarding claim 6, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1.
Havens/Richards does not disclose wherein the illumination source has an adjustable beam angle (Figs. 14, 15, [0402]-[0403] ).
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/Richards so that the illumination source has an adjustable beam angle, 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), for effectively reaching the user of the viewing optic regardless of the position of the remote.
Regarding claim 7, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1.
Havens/Richards does not disclose wherein the illumination source can be adjusted to alter the wavelength of the emitted light.
Richards discloses a scope in a firearm (Abstract, Fig. 1). In one embodiment, Richards discloses that when the user moves the gun so that the target indicator 1008 coincides with the center of the crosshairs 1006, some portions of the reticle may, i.e., 1004, 1008, change color, i.e., the wavelength of the illumination source-emitted light may be adjusted (Fig. 10B, [0062]).
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/Richards so that the illumination source may change the wavelength of its emitted light, as taught by Richards, for effectively notifying the user of the viewing optic that a certain condition is satisfied, e.g., a target of the rifle is perfectly pointed.
Regarding claim 8, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1.
Havens/Richards does not disclose wherein the illumination source emits more than one type of light.
Richards discloses a scope in a firearm (Abstract, Fig. 1). In one embodiment, Richards discloses that the scope can be used with natural light illumination, or artificial illumination, e.g., infrared light ([0032]).
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/Richards so that the illumination source emits more than one type of light, as taught by Richards, for being able to adjust to various light conditions of the environment, for a more effective use.
Regarding claim 9, Havens/Richards 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 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.
Richards discloses a scope in a firearm (Abstract, Fig. 1). In one embodiment, Richards discloses that when the user moves the gun so that the target indicator 1008 coincides with the center of the crosshairs 1006, some portions of the reticle may, i.e., 1004, 1008, change color, i.e., the wavelength of the illumination source-emitted light may be adjusted (Fig. 10B, [0062]). In other words, the scope includes an illumination source to provide a better operation, for example, better accuracy for the rifle. Richards discloses using visible means, like illumination light, to notify/inform the user about operational conditions of the viewing optic.
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 also includes an illumination source to emit at least one type of light, as taught by Richards, for effectively notifying the user of the viewing optic about conditions of the viewing optic, e.g., a target of the rifle is perfectly pointed.
Here, the light source being located in the remote instead of the scope provides improved efficiency for the user since the user can adjust the lighting of the region of interest (ROI) indicator 1004 and the crosshairs 1006 without being distracted (thus missing the target) by adjusting the light source located in the scope itself.
Regarding claim 14, Havens/Richards 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 ([0420] in Havens discloses the various types of illumination light used for displays).
Regarding claim 15, Havens/Richards 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).
Regarding claim 16, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1, wherein
the illumination source has at least one Light Emitting Diode ([0418], [0420] in Havens discloses the various types of illumination light used for displays).
Regarding claim 17 Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 16.
Havens/Richards 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/Richards 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), for effectively notifying the user of the viewing optic about conditions of the viewing optic in various conditions of the environment.
Regarding claim 18, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 13.
Havens/Richards does not disclose wherein the illumination source has an adjustable beam angle (Figs. 14, 15, [0402]-[0403] ).
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/Richards so that the illumination source has an adjustable beam angle, 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), for effectively reaching the user of the viewing optic regardless of the position of the remote.
Regarding claim 20, Havens/Richards 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havens, Richards, in view of Mironichev et al. (US 2012/0020063, hereinafter, “Mironichev”).
Regarding claim 11, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1.
Havens/Richards does not disclose wherein the illumination source is exchangeable to allow for different types of light to be emitted.
Mironichev discloses a flashlight for a rifle (Abstract, Fig. 1A). In one embodiment, Mironichev discloses that the flashlight can be exchangeable to have different modules 41, 43, 44, for various light functions, e.g., various colors, UV function, IR function (Fig. 1J, [0042]).
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/Richards so that the illumination source is exchangeable to allow for different types of light to be emitted, as taught by Mironichev, for being able to adjust to various light conditions of the environment, for a more effective use (see [0006] in Mironichev).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havens, Richards in view of Jancic et al. (US 2009/0111454, hereinafter, “Jancic”).
Regarding claim 12, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 1.
Havens/Richards does not disclose the illumination source can be removed and is separable from the remote.
Jancic discloses an illumination source 102 on a rifle 106 (Fig. 1, [0025]). In one embodiment, the illumination source 102 has longitudinal projections 138 that can slide along grooves 130 of the rifle body, which means that it can be removed from the rifle body ([0026]). In addition, the illumination source 102 is separable from a remote 104 controlling it (Fig. 4, [0038]).
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/Richards so that the illumination source is removable and separable from the remote, as taught by Jancic, ([0005] in Jancic), for easier use by the user, for example, cleaning the illumination source.
Regarding claim 19, Havens/Richards discloses the viewing optic of claim 13.
Havens/Richards does not disclose the illumination source can be removed and is separable from the remote.
Jancic discloses an illumination source 102 on a rifle 106 (Fig. 1, [0025]). In one embodiment, the illumination source 102 has longitudinal projections 138 that can slide along grooves 130 of the rifle body, which means that it can be removed from the rifle body ([0026]). In addition, the illumination source 102 is separable from a remote 104 controlling it (Fig. 4, [0038]).
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/Richards so that the illumination source is removable and separable from the remote, as taught by Jancic, ([0005] in Jancic), for easier use by the user, for example, cleaning the illumination source.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, Applicant stated that “while the Examiner has correctly stated the test, Applicants' position is that the Examiner has not properly established the underlying facts regarding (1) the scope and content of the prior art and (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.”, see p. 6 of the Remarks.
Unlike the Applicant’s assertion, the Office established both the scope and content of the prior art (i.e., Havens) and the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, see pages 4, 5 of the Office Action of 5/27/2025.
Applicant also stated “Upon reviewing the Examiner's analysis in the Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner appears to be employing rationale (A). If the Examiner is not relying upon rationale (A), Applicant requests that the Examiner clearly identify the rationale, as described in the Examination Guidelines, being employed by the Examiner in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.”, see p. 7 of the Remarks.
Unlike the Applicant’s assertion, the Office did not employ rationale (A), but rather, rationale (D). In particular, by combining Havens and Richards, a known technique (i.e., using a light source to illuminate some portions of the reticle of a scope) is applied to a known device (i.e., a scope).
Next, Applicant stated “the Federal Circuit has consistently held against using hindsight in judging the obviousness of claimed inventions, and in particular, the Federal Circuit has held that it is impermissible to use the inventor's disclosure as a road map for selecting and combining prior art disclosures. Contrary to gleaning facts from the references, it appears that the Examiner has taken each element of Applicant's claims as a template to make piecemeal rejections, gleaning information only from Applicant's disclosure”, see p. 8 of the remarks.
In response to Applicant's above 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).
Finally, Applicant stated “At page 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner stated "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 also includes an illumination source to emit at least one type of light, as taught by Richards for effectively notifying the user of the viewing optic about conditions of the viewing optic, e.g., a target of the rifle is perfectly pointed." However, the Examiner provides no rationale as to why one of skill in the art would configure a remote to have a light source. The Examiner articulates a plausible reason for why a light source may have utility, but the claims require a remote with a light source, not just an optic with any light source. Nowhere does Richards discuss options for placement of a light source. In fact, as recognized by the Examiner, the light source disclosed by Richards is internal for illumination of the display of the optic”, see p. 9 of the Remarks.
Even though the light source in Richards is located in the scope, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to have the light source located in the remote, instead of the scope, since this would provide improved efficiency for the user, as the user could adjust the lighting of the region of interest (ROI) indicator 1004 and the crosshairs 1006 without being distracted (thus missing the target) by adjusting the light source located in the scope itself.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 (and their dependents) is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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