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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
The zoom optics structure 110 is not shown in Figs. 3B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 7C, 8A, 8B, 8C, and 8E
The laser-based rangefinding instrument 150 is not shown in Figs. 6A, 6B, 7B, 7C, and 8A
The display device 120 is not shown in Figs. 6A, 6B, and 7B
The zoom adjustment ring 105 is not shown in Fig. 6A
The laser-based rangefinding instrument 300 is not shown in Fig. 7B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
The eye cup 108, the mirror 122, the lenses 124 and 126, the beam splitter cube 128, and the roof prisms 130 and 132 in Fig. 4
The eye cup 108, the bi-convex lens 134, the bi-convex and plano-convex lens 136, the plano-concave doublet lens 138, and the structure focal plane 140 in Figs. 5A and 5B
The laser-based rangefinding instrument 100 in Fig. 8E.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On Page 5, Lines 3-6: "such that it selects and causes the display of the distance to a nearer object when the instrument's zoom is increased" is unsound grammar and it is unclear what is being said
On Page 11, Lines 1-4: “a simplified view of the beam pathway of the target and display device 120 views of the representative laser-based rangefinding instrument 150 of the preceding figures is shown” should omit "views" after "display device 120"
On Page 12, Line 5: "processor)," should read "processor,"
On Page 13, Lines 2-3: "isometric views of a representative laser-based rangefinding instruments 300" should read "isometric views of a representative laser-based rangefinding instrument 300".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton et al. (US 20200049455 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Hamilton teaches:
A laser-based rangefinder (Paragraph [0033]: “In one embodiment, the disclosure relates to a viewing optic…and a laser range finder”) comprising a processor and in in-sight display (Paragraph [0029]: “In one embodiment, the disclosure relates to a viewing optic comprising a main body with an optical system…and a base coupled to a bottom portion of the main body, the base having an active display for generating an image…and a processor in communication with the sensor”), the rangefinder comprising:
a zoom optics structure (Paragraph [0015]: “the disclosure relates to a viewing optic with a first optical system”), said structure comprising first and second lenses moveable with respect to each other (Paragraph [0263]: “The erector image system may include one or more movable optical elements, such as a focus lens that is movable along its optical axis…and a magnification lens movable along its optical axis”) and an ocular lens (Paragraph [0032]: “the disclosure relates to a viewing optic comprising: a main body…; an objective lens system disposed within the body; an eyepiece lens disposed within the body”) of said rangefinder, said first and second lenses being positionable in response to a zoom adjuster (Paragraph [0264]: “Variable magnification can be achieved by providing a mechanism for adjusting the position of the erector lenses in relationship to each other within the erector tube”) and wherein a position of said zoom adjuster is operatively communicated to said processor for control of said in-sight display (Paragraph [0321]: “a system to deliver the magnification setting of the optic to the microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor communicates with the active display of the integrated display system”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, which depend from rejected Claims 1 and 8 respectively, Hamilton further teaches:
The rangefinder of claim 1 wherein a reticle size of said in-sight display is responsive to said position of said zoom adjuster (Paragraph [0604]: “an active display of the integrated display system generates a reticle pattern based on magnification level. Depending on the magnification level, the active display system can generate different reticle patterns that are optimized for different optical magnification levels”).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamilton teaches:
A rangefinder (Paragraph [0033]: “In one embodiment, the disclosure relates to a viewing optic…and a laser range finder”) including a processor and in-sight display responsive to said processor (Paragraph [0321]: “an integrated display system, a micro-processor, and a system to deliver the magnification setting of the optic to the microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor communicates with the active display of the integrated display system”), said rangefinder comprising:
a zoom optics structure operatively coupled to a zoom adjuster for providing a magnified image of a target viewed through said rangefinder (Paragraph [0030]: “the disclosure relates to a viewing optic comprising: a main body having an objective lens system…; a magnification adjustment mechanism mounted within the body to adjust an optical magnification of the target image”), wherein a position of said zoom adjuster is operatively communicated to said processor for control of said in- sight display (Paragraph [0342]: “The processor may control operation of a display system and/or a reticle. The processor may also receive inputs from…a position encoder associated with the position of an adjustable component…, and/or from other sources”).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 15, Hamilton further teaches:
The rangefinder of claim 15 wherein a reticle size of said in-sight display is responsive to said position of said zoom adjuster (Paragraph [0604]: “an active display of the integrated display system generates a reticle pattern based on magnification level. Depending on the magnification level, the active display system can generate different reticle patterns that are optimized for different optical magnification levels”).
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 15, Hamilton further teaches:
The rangefinder of claim 15 wherein an image of range information indicated in said in-sight display (Figure 55; Paragraph [0617]: “a rangefinder designator displaying a hypothetical range to target are components generated by the active display”) is responsive to said position of said zoom adjuster (Paragraph [0335]: “Delivering the magnification setting to the microprocessor has many benefits including but not limited to changing a reticle pattern based on a magnification setting, and changing the font size of alpha-numeric information”).
Regarding Claim 18, Hamilton teaches:
An electronic instrument including a processor (Paragraph [0029: “a processor in communication with the sensor and capable of controlling power state of the viewing optic”), said instrument for providing a view of a target object (Paragraph [0024]: “an ocular lens system for viewing the target image”), said instrument further comprising:
an in-sight display responsive to said processor (Paragraph [0342]: “processor may control operation of a display system”), said in-sight display for superimposing one or more information images on said view of said target object (Paragraph [0375]: “generated images can be directed from the display optical axis A to a mirror in the base to a beam combiner in a main body of a riflescope for simultaneously superimposing or overlaying the generated images onto the images of the scene viewed by the viewer through an optics system of the main body”); and a control device coupled to said processor for manually selecting a size of said information images (Paragraph [0335]: “Delivering the magnification setting to the microprocessor has many benefits including but not limited to changing a reticle pattern based on a magnification setting, and changing the font size of alpha-numeric information”).
Regarding Claim 19, Hamilton teaches:
An electronic instrument for providing a view of a target object (Paragraph [0024]: “an ocular lens system for viewing the target image”), said instrument comprising:
a processor; an in-sight display responsive to said processor (Paragraph [0342]: “processor may control operation of a display system”), said in-sight display for superimposing one or more information images on said view of said target object (Paragraph [0375]: “generated images can be directed from the display optical axis A to a mirror in the base to a beam combiner in a main body of a riflescope for simultaneously superimposing or overlaying the generated images onto the images of the scene viewed by the viewer through an optics system of the main body”); and an optical zoom adjuster for providing a magnified view of said target object (Paragraph [0334]: “a magnification adjustment ring for adjusting the optical magnification of an image”), said processor operative to sense a position of said zoom adjuster and operatively control a display of said one or more information images on said in-sight display in response to said zoom adjuster (Paragraph [0335]: “Delivering the magnification setting to the microprocessor has many benefits including but not limited to changing a reticle pattern based on a magnification setting, and changing the font size of alpha-numeric information”).
Regarding Claim 21, which depends from rejected Claim 19, Hamilton further teaches:
The instrument of claim 19 wherein said display of said one or more information images on said in-sight display comprises changing a pixel width of said information images on said view of said target object (Paragraph [0312]: “When projecting a digital image onto the first focal plane it is necessary to scale that image with the scaling of the reticle to make the digital image usable”).
Regarding Claim 22, which depends from rejected Claim 19, Hamilton further teaches:
The instrument of claim 19 wherein said display of said one or more information images on said in-sight display comprises changing a position of said information images on said view of said target object (Paragraph [0182]: “As the erector tube is adjusted, the position of the reticle is modified against the image”).
Regarding Claim 23, which depends from rejected Claim 19, Hamilton further teaches:
The instrument of claim 19 wherein said display of said one or more information images on said in-sight display comprises changing a size of said information images on said view of said target object (Paragraph [0335]: “Delivering the magnification setting to the microprocessor has many benefits including but not limited to…changing the font size of alpha-numeric information”).
Regarding Claim 24, which depends from rejected Claim 19, Hamilton further teaches:
The instrument of claim 19 wherein said display of said one or more information images on said in-sight display comprises providing one or more additional images or text to said information images on said view of said target object (Paragraph [0394]: “In one embodiment, the active display can generate images including but not limited to text, alpha-numeric, graphics, symbols, and/or video imagery, icons, etc., including active target reticles, range measurements and wind information, GPS and compass information, firearm inclination information, target finding, recognition and identification (ID) information, and/or external sensor information (sensor video and/or graphics), or images for situational awareness, for viewing through the eyepiece along with the images of the view seen through optics”).
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Volkov (US 20220282954 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, which depend from rejected Claims 1 and 8 respectively, Hamilton teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Volkov teaches:
The rangefinder of claim 1 wherein said first lens comprises a bi-concave lens and said second lens comprises a plano-convex lens (Paragraph [0009]: “As shown in FIG. 1, a Galilean telescope typically has a positive focal length objective lens 101 (a plano-convex or biconvex lens) and a negative focal length eyepiece lens 102 (a plano-concave or biconcave lens)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser-based rangefinder in the viewing optic display system of Hamilton with the Galilean telescope lens system as taught by Volkov with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of achieving a telescopic optical system for the laser rangefinder that would generally be shorter, lighter, less bulky, and less expensive than Keplerian and other telescopes without sacrificing magnification.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Chen (EP 0655636 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, which depend from rejected Claims 1 and 8 respectively, Hamilton teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Chen teaches:
The rangefinder of claim 1 wherein said ocular lens comprises a bi-convex and plano-concave doublet (Paragraph [0014]: “The eyepiece 10' includes a first cemented doublet 12', a singlet 14' and a second cemented doublet 16'. The first cemented doublet comprises a plano-concave negative power lens and a double-convex positive power lens”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser-based rangefinder in the viewing optic display system of Hamilton with the improved eyepiece design as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of achieving a compact optical system for the laser rangefinder that maximizes eye relief relative to the effective focal length.
Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Scheja et al. (EP 3554063 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, which depend from rejected Claims 1 and 8 respectively, Hamilton teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Scheja teaches:
The rangefinder of claim 1 wherein a targeting mode of said rangefinder is determined by said position of said zoom adjuster as communicated to said processor (Paragraph [0019]: “An embodiment of the invention also relates to a method for targeting a target object with an electronic viewfinder system…This can be done with…digitally enlarging a central section of the digital image by a selectable zoom factor, in which section the target object is imaged”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser-based rangefinder in the viewing optic display system of Hamilton with the targeting mode operated by a zoom adjusting mechanism as taught by Scheja with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of achieving a laser rangefinder with a capability to identify and select specific targets using the native zoom controls.
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, which depend from rejected Claims 4 and 11 respectively, Scheja further teaches:
The rangefinder of claim 4 wherein said targeting mode selects a nearer target object of said rangefinder as said zoom adjuster increases magnification of said nearer target object (Paragraph [0019]: “wherein changing the zoom factor automatically, in particular by an electronic control unit, a modification of an aperture of an aperture stop of the image pickup device is performed, in which, for example, in a greater digital zooming, the opening of the aperture diaphragm”).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Song (CN 207440291 U).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, which depend from rejected Claims 1 and 8 respectively, Hamilton teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Song teaches:
The rangefinder of claim 1 further comprising:
a diopter adjustment ring for focusing a target image viewed through said rangefinder (Paragraph [0011]: “Further, the eyepiece may also include diopter adjusting ring, the diopter adjusting ring is connected with the telescopic knob, program for adjusting lens focusing degree of the measurement target.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser-based rangefinder in the viewing optic display system of Hamilton with an adjustment ring to focus images as taught by Song with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of achieving a convenient and ergonomic means to focus the images viewed through the rangefinder instrument.
Regarding Claim 20, which depends from rejected Claim 19, Hamilton teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1 but does not teach, whereas Song teaches:
The instrument of claim 19 wherein said zoom adjuster comprises an annular ring adjacent an eyepiece of said instrument (Paragraph [0011]: “Further, the eyepiece may also include diopter adjusting ring, the diopter adjusting ring is connected with the telescopic knob, program for adjusting lens focusing degree of the measurement target.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser-based rangefinder in the viewing optic display system of Hamilton with an annular adjustment ring near the eyepiece as taught by Song with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of achieving a convenient and ergonomic means to focus the images viewed through the electronic viewing instrument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C NATHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0331. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/KEVIN CHRISTOPHER NATHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights