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
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 10/30/2025.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10 and 14 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 12 was/were cancelled; Claim(s) 16-18 has/have been added; Claim(s) 1 and 16-18 is/are independent claims. Claims 1-11 and 13-18 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The objection of claim 6 is withdrawn because of the amendment as suggested.
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn because of the amendment and the persuasive argument in the remarks (page 7).
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in the remarks (pages 7-8) with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding "telescope having … at least one display, which at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel" have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant is also arguing that “nothing in Khoshnevis (or Hansen and Mogamiya) describes at least "a mode selection wheel for calling up at least one function of the telescope, wherein different functions are called up in different positions of the mode selection wheel, wherein at least one position of the mode selection wheel can be assigned a function that can be freely selected by a user, and wherein the freely selectable function is one of functions that are transmitted from an external electronic terminal to the telescope" (quoting from amended claims 1). In particular, neither Hansen, Mogamiya, Khoshnevis (either alone or in combination) appear to describe at least a mode selection wheel as defined by the features described in claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that Yamamoto does teach a mode selection wheel (mode setting dial 105 or navigation display changing switch 107) for calling up at least one function of the telescope, wherein different functions are called un in different positions of the mode selection wheel, wherein at least one position of the mode selection wheel can be assigned a function that can be freely selected by a user (Figs. 4-5, 7, 9; paras. 0065-0067) and Hansen does teach wherein the freely selectable function is one of functions that are transmitted from an external electronic terminal to the telescope (Figs. 1-2; para. 0052: “at least one data port 78. The port may be a wired or wireless port. The port may be used for downloading and/or uploading data. For example, the port may be used to download instructions to controller 50, such as to provide a software update or to add additional functional capabilities to the controller”). Yamamoto and Hansen are now combined with new reference Hammond to address features as claimed in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments in the remarks (page 9) with respect to new claim(s) 16-18 regarding new feature "telescope having … at least one display, which at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel" have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The remaining features are taught by previous presented references where the details can be reviewed in the rejection sections.
Regarding claim 17, the Applicant is also arguing that “Claim 5 was previously rejected as being unpatentable in view of Hansen in combination with Watanabe et al or Enomoto et al. As noted above, new claim 17 further defines, inter alia, "the controller is configured to calculate, ... based on a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope, an achievable image sharpness ...." Applicant submits that Hansen, Watanabe, and/or Enomoto fail to disclose or render obvious at least the features of claim 17 cited herein”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that Watanabe/Enomoto does teach wherein the controller is configured to calculate, upon actuation of an actuator element (a half-press on the shutter button 61 at S306) based on a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope, an achievable image sharpness for an image to be captured with the camera and to indicate to the user whether the image can be taken with the desired image sharpness and/or to indicate to the user whether the achievable image sharpness is suitable for automatic object recognition (Watanabe: Figs. 3-5, paras. 0064, 0076-0079, 0095; steps S306, S308, S406: “In S406, based on the determined indicator distance L, the motion component N, and the reference direction D, the system control unit 50 displays one or more indicators at least including the blur indicator”; Enomoto: Fig. 9; paras. 0140-0142; release switch 118). The claim claims “upon actuation of an actuator element based on a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope” which is read as that actuation of an actuator element happens when a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope happens. Both references teach this since they both can have a release switch actuated when telescope is moving. The rest of the features is taught as presented above. The Examiner respectfully submits that both references do teach the features as claimed.
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 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.
Claim 1-4, 8-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al (US 20180227503 A1) in view of Hansen et al (US 20120098972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches A telescope having at least one viewing channel (observation telescope 10) and at least one display (display device 26), which at least one display is reflected in in the at least one viewing channel, the telescope (Fig. 1) comprising:
a controller (image processor 25);
an energy storage (there is a power source to power everything);
a mode selection wheel (selector dial 27) for calling up at least one function of the telescope, wherein different functions are called un in different positions of the mode selection wheel, wherein at least one position of the mode selection wheel can be assigned a function that can be freely selected by a user (para. 0043: “The selector dial 27 is operated so as to enable the image processor 25 to switch among built-in functional modes according to need and, in addition, to set extraction temperatures according to which part of the whole image cast on the infrared light sensor device 23 is to be partially extracted as will be described in detail later. The built-in functional modes include at least, for instance, a partial image display mode in which the thermal image cast on the infrared light sensor device 23 is extracted partially according to set temperatures and displayed on the visible image display device 26 and a non-display mode in which an on-screen image disappears from the screen of the visible image display device 26, in addition to a normal display mode which is conventional”; the user can freely switch to different functions using the selector dial 27), and
but fails to teach
a data interface for data exchange; and wherein the freely selectable function is one of functions that are transmitted from an external electronic terminal to the telescope.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hansen teaches
a data interface for data exchange; and wherein the freely selectable function is one of functions that are transmitted from an external electronic terminal to the telescope (Figs. 1-2; para. 0052: “at least one data port 78. The port may be a wired or wireless port. The port may be used for downloading and/or uploading data. For example, the port may be used to download instructions to controller 50, such as to provide a software update or to add additional functional capabilities to the controller”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hansen in Ando to have a data interface for data exchange; and wherein the freely selectable function is one of functions that are transmitted from an external electronic terminal to the telescope for allowing functionalities of the telescope to be updated and improved over time yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ando and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Ando teaches further comprising: at least one camera (camera 16) (para. 0041).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ando and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 2. In addition, Ando teaches characterized in that the controller is equipped with an image recognition program that is configured to recognize objects in images captured by the camera (para. 0041).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ando and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, Ando teaches characterized in that the controller is configured to generate a virtual marking frame and to represent it on the display, wherein the controller is further configured to recognize at least one object represented within the marking frame of the display (Figs. 2-3; paras. 0041-0042, 0054).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ando and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 3. In addition, Ando teaches characterized in that a field of view of the camera is larger than a field of view of the at least one viewing channel, wherein a field-side image section captured by an image capturing sensor of the camera is larger than a field-side image section captured by the at least one viewing channel (Fig .1; paras. 0053-0054: “infrared sighting device 20 is equipped with a field of view 40R almost double as large as the field of view 40 of the observation telescope 10 so as to make the sighting field 40R comparative to the envisioned forward observation sight 45 as shown in FIG. 3(A)”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ando and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Ando teaches characterized in that the controller is configured to provide an object imaged at a current position and orientation of the telescope with a virtual marker and to store the virtual marker (Figs. 1-3; paras. 0054-0058; sighting marker 42R).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ando and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 9. In addition, Ando teaches characterized in that the controller is configured to display at least one indication showing a user a direction in which the virtual marker is located in case of a change of an orientation of the telescope with respect to the position at which the virtual marker is set (Figs. 3; paras. 0054-0058).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites features which correspond to features included in the combination of claims 1, 9 and 10. These features are also rejected for the same reasons as presented for the combination of claims 1, 9 and 10.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (US 20030231393 A1) in views of Hammond (US 20190376764 A1) and Hansen et al (US 20120098972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches A telescope having at least one viewing channel and
a controller (CPU 601);
an energy storage (power supply from the battery box 108);
a mode selection wheel (mode setting dial 105 or navigation display changing switch 107) for calling up at least one function of the telescope, wherein different functions are called un in different positions of the mode selection wheel, wherein at least one position of the mode selection wheel can be assigned a function that can be freely selected by a user (Figs. 4-5, 7, 9; paras. 0065-0067), and
but fails to teach
at least one display, which at least one display is reflected in in the at least one viewing channel,
a data interface for data exchange; and wherein the freely selectable function is one of functions that are transmitted from an external electronic terminal to the telescope.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hammond teaches
at least one display, which at least one display is reflected in in the at least one viewing channel (Fig. 10; para. 0077: “digital processing circuit 724 may provide image data to the microdisplay 726, which may provide the image data to the prism 1026 to direct the digital data toward the viewing lenses 702”; paras. 0005, 0077-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hammond in Yamamoto to have at least one display, which at least one display is reflected in in the at least one viewing channel for providing an internal display for providing a reflected display configuration enabling the system to operate in different modes including a low-power mode yielding a predicted result.
Moreover, in the same field of endeavor Hansen teaches
a data interface for data exchange; and wherein the freely selectable function is one of functions that are transmitted from an external electronic terminal to the telescope (Figs. 1-2; para. 0052: “at least one data port 78. The port may be a wired or wireless port. The port may be used for downloading and/or uploading data. For example, the port may be used to download instructions to controller 50, such as to provide a software update or to add additional functional capabilities to the controller”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hansen in the combination to have a data interface for data exchange; and wherein the freely selectable function is one of functions that are transmitted from an external electronic terminal to the telescope for allowing functionalities of the telescope to be updated and improved over time yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yamamoto, Hammond and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Hammond teaches further comprising: at least one camera (Fig. 10; paras. 0005, 0045, 0071, 0077-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hammond in the combination to have further comprising: at least one camera for enabling a digital night vision mode improving functionalities of the device yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yamamoto, Hammond and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Yamamoto teaches characterized in that the mode selection wheel is arranged on a user-side end face of the telescope (Figs. 4-5, 7, 9; paras. 0065-0067; mode setting dial 105 or navigation display changing switch 107).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yamamoto, Hammond and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Hansen teaches An observation and image capturing system, comprising: at least one telescope according to claim 1 and at least one electronic terminal, wherein the at least one telescope and the at least one electronic terminal (an external device connected via data port 78) are coupled to one another via a connection at least temporarily (Figs. 1-2; para. 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hansen in the combination to have An observation and image capturing system, comprising: at least one telescope according to claim 1 and at least one electronic terminal, wherein the at least one telescope and the at least one electronic terminal are coupled to one another via a connection at least temporarily for uploading and downloading data allowing software updates and image sharing yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al (US 20180227503 A1) in view of Hansen et al (US 20120098972 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al (US 20230254578 A1) or Enomoto et al (US 20030063209 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ando and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
the telescope further comprising an actuator element, wherein the controller is configured to calculate, upon actuation of the actuator element based on a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope, an achievable image sharpness for an image to be captured with the camera and to indicate to the user whether the image can be taken with the desired image sharpness and/or to indicate to the user whether the achievable image sharpness is suitable for automatic object recognition.
However, in the same field of endeavor Watanabe/Enomoto teaches
the telescope further comprising an actuator element (a half-press on the shutter button 61 at S306), wherein the controller is configured to calculate, upon actuation of the actuator element based on a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope, an achievable image sharpness for an image to be captured with the camera and to indicate to the user whether the image can be taken with the desired image sharpness and/or to indicate to the user whether the achievable image sharpness is suitable for automatic object recognition (Watanabe: Figs. 3-5, paras. 0064, 0076-0079, 0095; steps S306, S308, S406: “In S406, based on the determined indicator distance L, the motion component N, and the reference direction D, the system control unit 50 displays one or more indicators at least including the blur indicator”; Enomoto: Fig. 9; paras. 0140-0142; release switch 118 to perform AF mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Watanabe/Enomoto in the combination to have the telescope further comprising an actuator element, wherein the controller is configured to calculate, upon actuation of the actuator element based on a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope, an achievable image sharpness for an image to be captured with the camera and to indicate to the user whether the image can be taken with the desired image sharpness and/or to indicate to the user whether the achievable image sharpness is suitable for automatic object recognition for providing a shutter switch with multiple functionalities for obtaining better focused images yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites features which correspond to features included in the combination of claims 1 and 5. These features are also rejected for the same reasons as presented for the combination of claims 1 and 5.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al (US 20180227503 A1) in view of Hansen et al (US 20120098972 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khoshnevis et al (US 20020034004 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ando and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
characterized in that it has at least one memory information on locally occurring animal species and/or field names and/or mountain names and/or points of interest (POIs) and/or that data interface is configured for data exchange with at least one external memory with information on locally occurring animal species and/or field names and/or mountain names and/or points of interest (POIs).
However, in the same field of endeavor Khoshnevis teaches
characterized in that it has at least one memory information on locally occurring animal species and/or field names and/or mountain names and/or points of interest (POIs) and/or that data interface is configured for data exchange with at least one external memory with information on locally occurring animal species and/or field names and/or mountain names and/or points of interest (POIs) (para. 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Khoshnevis in the combination to have characterized in that it has at least one memory information on locally occurring animal species and/or field names and/or mountain names and/or points of interest (POIs) and/or that data interface is configured for data exchange with at least one external memory with information on locally occurring animal species and/or field names and/or mountain names and/or points of interest (POIs) for enabling accessing exotic bird library allowing matching bird's identity in real time yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (US 20030231393 A1) in views of Hammond (US 20190376764 A1) and Hansen et al (US 20120098972 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Francois et al (US 20120162775 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yamamoto, Hammond and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Yamamoto teaches at least one focusing lens arranged in the viewing channel (Fig. 1; paras. 0060, 0064).
Moreover, Hammond teaches
further comprising: at least one camera focusing lens and at least one focusing lens arranged in the viewing channel (Fig. 10; paras. 0045, 0071, 0077-0078, 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hammond to have further comprising: at least one camera focusing lens and at least one focusing lens arranged in the viewing channel for optimizing camera and display focus yielding a predicted result.
However, in the same field of endeavor Francois teaches
wherein the controller is configured to determine a relative position of an image center of a camera image relative to an image center of an image displayed in the at least one viewing channel based on a movement of the focusing lenses (Figs. 3-4; paras. 0003, 0036-0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Francois in the combination to have wherein the controller is configured to determine a relative position of an image center of a camera image relative to an image center of an image displayed in the at least one viewing channel based on a movement of the focusing lenses for reducing parallax effects introduced by difference in positioning between the sensors and the eyes for better viewing images yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites features which correspond to features included in the combination of claims 1 and 7. These features are also rejected for the same reasons as presented for the combination of claims 1 and 7.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (US 20030231393 A1) in views of Hammond (US 20190376764 A1) and Hansen et al (US 20120098972 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mogamiya (US 7164528 B2).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yamamoto, Hammond and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 2. In addition, Yamamoto teaches
characterized in that it is a binocular (Figs. 1-6),
but fails to teach
characterized in that it is a binocular with a first tube and with a second tube, wherein a first viewing channel extends through the first tube and a second viewing channel extends through the second tube,
- wherein the two tubes are connected to each other by a hinged bridge,
- wherein the two tubes are pivotable about a hinge axis of the hinged bridge to adjust an interpupillary distance,
- and wherein the camera has a camera beam path,
- wherein the hinge axis and an optical axis of the camera beam path are arranged coaxially to each other,
- and wherein a camera tube containing the camera beam path forms the hinge axis of the hinged bridge.
However, in the same field of endeavor Mogamiya teaches
characterized in that it is a binocular with a first tube and with a second tube (Figs. 1-6), wherein a first viewing channel extends through the first tube and a second viewing channel extends through the second tube (Figs. 1-3),
- wherein the two tubes are connected to each other by a hinged bridge (Figs. 1-6),
- wherein the two tubes are pivotable about a hinge axis of the hinged bridge to adjust an interpupillary distance (Figs. 1-6),
- and wherein the camera has a camera beam path (Figs. 1-6),
- wherein the hinge axis and an optical axis of the camera beam path are arranged coaxially to each other (Figs. 1-6),
- and wherein a camera tube containing the camera beam path forms the hinge axis of the hinged bridge (Figs. 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Mogamiya in the combination to have characterized in that it is a binocular with a first tube and with a second tube, wherein a first viewing channel extends through the first tube and a second viewing channel extends through the second tube, - wherein the two tubes are connected to each other by a hinged bridge, - wherein the two tubes are pivotable about a hinge axis of the hinged bridge to adjust an interpupillary distance, - and wherein the camera has a camera beam path, - wherein the hinge axis and an optical axis of the camera beam path are arranged coaxially to each other, - and wherein a camera tube containing the camera beam path forms the hinge axis of the hinged bridge for providing binoculars that can horizontally level the inclined images indicated on the image-indicating device, without using a complicated mechanism, when the ocular units are rotated to adjust an inter-pupillary distance yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yamamoto, Hammond and Hansen teaches everything as claimed in claim 13. In addition, Mogamiya teaches characterized in that the controller is configured to detect a pivot angle when adjusting an interpupillary distance by pivoting the first and the second tubes against each other, and to perform a position correction of information shown on the display based on the detected pivot angle (Fig. 14; col. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Mogamiya in the combination to have characterized in that the controller is configured to detect a pivot angle when adjusting an interpupillary distance by pivoting the first and the second tubes against each other, and to perform a position correction of information shown on the display based on the detected pivot angle for providing binoculars that can horizontally level the inclined images indicated on the image-indicating device, without using a complicated mechanism, when the ocular units are rotated to adjust an inter-pupillary distance yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US 20120098972 A1) in view of Hammond (US 20190376764 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hansen teaches A telescope (Figs. 1-3, 11) having at least one viewing channel (dual channels) and at least one display (displays 632),
a controller (para. 0049),
wherein the controller is configured to provide an object imaged at a current position and orientation of the telescope with a virtual marker and to store the virtual marker (para. 0068), and
wherein the controller is configured to display at least one indication showing a user a direction in which the virtual marker is located in case of a change of an orientation of the telescope with respect to the position at which the virtual marker is set (para. 0068),
but fails to teach
at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hammond teaches
at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel (Fig. 10; para. 0077: “digital processing circuit 724 may provide image data to the microdisplay 726, which may provide the image data to the prism 1026 to direct the digital data toward the viewing lenses 702”; paras. 0005, 0077-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hammond in Hansen to have at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel for providing a reflected display configuration enabling the system to operate in different modes including a low-power mode yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US 20120098972 A1) in views of Hammond (US 20190376764 A1) and [Watanabe et al (US 20230254578 A1) or Enomoto et al (US 20030063209 A1)].
Regarding claim 17, Hansen teaches A telescope (Figs. 1-3, 11) having at least one viewing channel (dual channels) and at least one display (displays 46/632), in the at least one viewing channel (Figs. 1-3, 11; paras. 0029, 0094-0095), the telescope further comprising:
a controller (para. 0049);
at least one camera (Fig. 1; paras. 0043-0046); and
but fails to teach
at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel,
an actuator element, wherein the controller is configured to calculate, upon actuation of an actuator element based on a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope, an achievable image sharpness for an image to be captured with the camera and to indicate to the user whether the image can be taken with the desired image sharpness and/or to indicate to the user whether the achievable image sharpness is suitable for automatic object recognition.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hammond teaches
at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel (Fig. 10; para. 0077: “digital processing circuit 724 may provide image data to the microdisplay 726, which may provide the image data to the prism 1026 to direct the digital data toward the viewing lenses 702”; paras. 0005, 0077-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hammond in Hansen to have at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel for providing a reflected display configuration enabling the system to operate in different modes including a low-power mode yielding a predicted result.
However, in the same field of endeavor Watanabe/Enomoto teaches
an actuator element, wherein the controller is configured to calculate, upon actuation of an actuator element (a half-press on the shutter button 61 at S306) based on a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope, an achievable image sharpness for an image to be captured with the camera and to indicate to the user whether the image can be taken with the desired image sharpness and/or to indicate to the user whether the achievable image sharpness is suitable for automatic object recognition (Watanabe: Figs. 3-5, paras. 0064, 0076-0079, 0095; steps S306, S308, S406: “In S406, based on the determined indicator distance L, the motion component N, and the reference direction D, the system control unit 50 displays one or more indicators at least including the blur indicator”; Enomoto: Fig. 9; paras. 0140-0142; release switch 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Watanabe/Enomoto in the combination to have an actuator element, wherein the controller is configured to calculate, upon actuation of an actuator element based on a detected instantaneous movement of the telescope, an achievable image sharpness for an image to be captured with the camera and to indicate to the user whether the image can be taken with the desired image sharpness and/or to indicate to the user whether the achievable image sharpness is suitable for automatic object recognition for providing a blur indicator guiding the user for obtaining better captured images yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US 20120098972 A1) in views of Hammond (US 20190376764 A1) and Francois et al (US 20120162775 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hansen teaches A telescope (Figs. 1-3, 11) having at least one viewing channel (dual channels) and at least one display (displays 632),
a controller (para. 0049);
at least one camera with at least one camera focusing lens (Fig. 1; paras. 0043-0046); and
at least one focusing lens arranged in the viewing channel (Fig. 1; paras. 0043-0046),
but fails to teach
at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel,
wherein the controller is configured to determine a relative position of an image center of a camera image relative to an image center of an image displayed in the at least one viewing channel based on a movement of the focusing lenses.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hammond teaches
at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel (Fig. 10; para. 0077: “digital processing circuit 724 may provide image data to the microdisplay 726, which may provide the image data to the prism 1026 to direct the digital data toward the viewing lenses 702”; paras. 0005, 0077-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Hammond in Hansen to have at least one display is reflected in the at least one viewing channel for providing a reflected display configuration enabling the system to operate in different modes including a low-power mode yielding a predicted result.
Moreover, in the same field of endeavor Francois teaches
wherein the telescope is configured to determine a relative position of an image center of a camera image relative to an image center of an image displayed in the at least one viewing channel based on a movement of the focusing lenses (Figs. 3-4; paras. 0003, 0036-0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Francois in the combination to have wherein the telescope is configured to determine a relative position of an image center of a camera image relative to an image center of an image displayed in the at least one viewing channel based on a movement of the focusing lenses for reducing parallax effects introduced by difference in positioning between the sensors and the eyes for better viewing images yielding a predicted result.
Alternative Rejections
Lancaster et al (US 20090303457 A1) also teaches at least one display (display 25), which at least one display is reflected in in the at least one viewing channel (of a Binocular). Lancaster can also be used in place of Hammond (US 20190376764 A1) to address the feature for the same reason.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637