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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-4 and 6-18 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 claim 1, the limitation “the enabler interface” lacks clarity because the claim previously recites “one or more enabler interfaces.” Therefore, it is unclear which particular enabler interface the imaging device is coupled to.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the limitation “configured to affect at least one operation” is indefinite because it is unclear what degree or type of interaction constitutes “affecting” an operation. The claim does not clearly define whether “affect” requires direct control, indirect influence, activation, adjustment, communication, or some other interaction. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the limitation “control component” is indefinite because the claims encompass a broad range of structures including buttons, knobs, displays, speakers, microphones, touchscreens, and other interfaces, but the claims fail to clearly define which structures actually perform the recited control functionality and how such structures affect operations of both the viewing optic and the imaging device. Therefore, the scope of the claimed “control component” is unclear.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. In light of the above, the claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 2019/0324260 A1) in view of York (US 11,402,175 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hamilton discloses a system comprising: a viewing optic (viewing optic 3700) having a main body with one or more enabler interfaces located on a top portion of the main body (thermal imaging unit 3705 coupled to the top of body 210, Fig. 37), an imaging device coupled to the enabler interface (thermal imaging unit 3705, Fig. 37), and at least one control component (existing control knob, button, or other control on the viewing optic used to turn on or activate the imager and navigate imager menu selections; magnification dial corresponding to digital zoom of the imager). Hamilton further discloses buttons, keys, knobs, touchscreens, displays, speakers, and microphones as control components of the viewing optic (user interface controls).
Hamilton does not explicitly disclose the at least one control component of the viewing optic configured to affect at least one operation of the viewing optic and at least one operation of the imaging device.
York discloses a viewing optic including controller 240, brightness control 162, inclinometer 270, LEDs 214/224/234, and printed circuit board 168 configured to control operation of the riflescope reticle and displayed optical information (Figs. 9-10). York further discloses brightness control 162 coupled to controller 240 thereby allowing the user to manipulate operation of reticle 200.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hamilton to incorporate the integrated electronic controller arrangement of York so that the control component affects operation of both the viewing optic and the imaging device because integrated shared controls simplify operation of combined optical and imaging systems and reduce the need for separate imaging-device controls.
Regarding claim 2, Hamilton discloses the one or more enabler interfaces comprises a first enabler interface and a second enabler interface (thermal imaging unit 3705 and laser rangefinder 3830 coupled to viewing optic 3700, Fig. 37).
Regarding claim 3, Hamilton discloses the first enabler interface is located forward of an etched reticle elevation adjustment knob (thermal imaging unit 3705 mounted on mount 4730 located forward of elevation turret 12, Fig. 36).
Regarding claim 4, Hamilton discloses the second enabler interface is located behind the etched reticle elevation adjustment knob (laser rangefinder 3830 mounted rearward of elevation turret 12, Fig. 38).
Regarding claim 6, Hamilton discloses the imaging device is a thermal imaging device (thermal imaging unit 3705, Fig. 37).
Regarding claim 7, Hamilton discloses the control component is selected from the group consisting of: a button, a key, a knob, a touchscreen, a display, a speaker, and a microphone (user interface controls including buttons, keys, knobs, touchscreens, displays, speakers, and microphones).
Regarding claim 8, Hamilton discloses the control component is a button (user interface buttons).
Regarding claim 9, Hamilton discloses the control component is a knob (control knob used to activate and operate the imager).
Regarding claim 10, Hamilton discloses a system comprising: a viewing optic (viewing optic 3700) having a main body with a first and a second enabler interface located on a top portion of the main body (thermal imaging unit 3705 coupled to body 210 and additional sensors including laser rangefinder 3830, Fig. 37), the first enabler interface located forward of an etched reticle elevation adjustment knob (thermal imaging unit 3705 mounted on mount 4730 located forward of elevation turret 12, Fig. 36), and the second enabler interface located behind the etched reticle elevation adjustment knob (laser rangefinder 3830 mounted rearward of elevation turret 12, Fig. 38), and at least one control component configured to affect at least one operation of an imaging device (existing control knob, button, or other control on the viewing optic used to turn on or activate the imager and navigate imager menu selections), and a first enabler device coupled to the first enabler interface and a second enabler device coupled to the second enabler interface (thermal imaging unit 3705 and laser rangefinder 3830, Fig. 37), wherein at least one of the first and second enabler devices are operated by the at least one control component of the viewing optic (viewing optic controls used to operate the imaging system).
Hamilton does not explicitly disclose the at least one control component configured to affect at least one operation of the viewing optic and at least one operation of the imaging device.
York discloses controller 240, brightness control 162, inclinometer 270, LEDs 214/224/234, and printed circuit board 168 configured to control operation of the riflescope reticle and displayed optical information (Figs. 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hamilton to incorporate the integrated controller arrangement of York so that the control component affects operation of both the viewing optic and the imaging device because integrated electronic controls improve coordinated operation of optical and imaging systems while simplifying user interaction.
Regarding claim 11, Hamilton discloses the first enabler device is a first imaging device (thermal imaging unit 3705, Fig. 37).
Regarding claim 12, Hamilton discloses the first imaging device is a first thermal imaging device (thermal imaging unit 3705, Fig. 37).
Regarding claim 13, Hamilton discloses the second enabler device is a second imaging device (laser rangefinder 3830 and additional imaging/sensor devices coupled to viewing optic 3700, Fig. 37).
Regarding claim 14, Hamilton discloses the second imaging device is a second thermal imaging device (multiple thermal imagers and multispectrum imagers).
Regarding claim 15, Hamilton discloses the control component is selected from the group consisting of: a button, a key, a knob, a touchscreen, a display, a speaker, and a microphone (user interface controls including buttons, keys, knobs, touchscreens, displays, speakers, and microphones).
Regarding claim 16, Hamilton discloses the control component is a button (user interface buttons).
Regarding claim 17, Hamilton discloses the control component is a knob (control knob used to activate and operate the imager).
Regarding claim 18, Hamilton discloses the second enabler device is a laser rangefinder (laser rangefinder 3830, Fig. 38).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-3737 and whose email address is michael.david@uspto.gov*. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
*Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Applicant is welcome to file an electronic communication authorization (sb439) form at any time if he/she would like to communicate via e-mail:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdfWithout a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights