DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “recording device” in claims 4 and 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bay (2014/0110482).
In reference to claim 4, Bay discloses a system, comprising:
a rangefinder (paragraphs 17, 190, and 192; figure 9B, infrared laser beam 615 of infrared laser range finder 20); and
a recording device operatively coupled to the rangefinder (figures 2A and 2B, elements 10+30+40 = a recording device, since elements 10 and 40 control camera 30; alternatively, the entirety of system 100B can be considered a recording device, wherein the rangefinder 20 is integrally housed therein),
wherein the rangefinder is configured to determine a distance to an object and provide the determined distance to the recording device (figure 2B, rangefinder 20),
wherein the rangefinder is an infrared positioning device (paragraph 17; laser range finder 20); and
wherein the recording device is configured to automatically increase a field of view in response to the object becoming relatively larger in the field of view (paragraphs 119, 213, 214, 217, 220, and 256-258; also see figures 9A and 9B, field of view 740B gets bigger if the vehicle 710 gets closer and vice versa, in a manner identical Applicant’s).
In reference to claim 5, Bay discloses the claimed invention (paragraph 17).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (2016/0069644) in view of Gordon (7194204).
In reference to claim 4, Bell discloses a system comprising:
a rangefinder (paragraph 285, “rangefinder”);
a scope operatively coupled to the rangefinder (figures, e.g. figure 14C-2; paragraph 285, “scope”)
wherein the rangefinder is configured to determine a distance to an object and provide the distance information to the scope; and
wherein the scope is configured to automatically adjust focus and zoom based on the distance information (paragraph 285).
Thus, Bell discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the scope constitutes a recording device, wherein the recording device is capable of increasing a field of view as claimed, and wherein the rangefinder is an infrared positioning device.
Regarding the scope being a recording device, Gordon teaches that it is known to configure a scope as a combination scope and recording device, in order to allow a user to capture still images and video of the field of view of the scope (abstract; column 6, second paragraph). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the scope of Bell as a combination scope and recording device, in order to allow a user to capture still images and video of the field of view of the scope.
Regarding the functionality to increase a field of view, Bell fails to explicitly disclose automatically increasing and decreasing a field of view angle, as claimed. However, it is noted that a field of view can be changed via zooming, and Bell discloses a programmable auto-zoom function (paragraph 285). Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to configure auto-zoom functions such that they automatically increase and decrease field of view angles (i.e., field of view) as claimed, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system made obvious by Bell in view of Gordon with the functionality to automatically increase and decrease a field of view angle as claimed, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed.
Regarding the infrared positioning device, Bell discloses that the rangefinder transmits a beam of energy, but doesn’t specify infrared energy (paragraph 196). However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to form a rangefinder an infrared range finder, in order to render the beam of energy invisible to the naked eye. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the rangefinder of Bell in view of Gordon as an infrared rangefinder, in order to render the beam of energy invisible to the naked eye.
In reference to claim 5, Bell in view of Gordon makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (5631699) in view of Kang (KR 20080112757 A).
In reference to claim 4, Saito discloses a system, comprising:
a rangefinder (column 5, last two lines, to column 6, lines 1-3); and
a recording device operatively coupled to the rangefinder (paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6; camera 10),
wherein the rangefinder is configured to determine a distance to an object and provide the determined distance to the recording device (paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6),
wherein the recording device is configured to automatically increase a field of view in response to the object becoming relatively larger in the field of view, i.e., wherein the recording device is configured to automatically increase a field of view in response to the object getting closer to the recording device (paragraphs bridging columns 5 and 6; figures 11(a) and 11(b)).
Thus, Saito discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the rangefinder is an infrared positioning device, i.e., an infrared rangefinder. Saito does mention that the rangefinder (distance measurement sensor) can be shared with an autofocus (AF) mode/function of the camera. Kang teaches it is known to form such a rangefinder as an infrared rangefinder, in order to provide a cost-effective, ubiquitous, and widely available option that also provides strong performance in dark conditions (see provided translation, page 3, line 12, to page 4, line 7). Kang discloses that such a rangefinder is commonly found in current phone cameras, i.e., they are extremely well-known. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rangefinder of Saito as an infrared rangefinder, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a cost-effective, ubiquitous, and widely available option that also provides strong performance in dark conditions.
In reference to claim 5, Saito in view of Kang makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above (see cited portions of Kang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the examiner relies on a conclusory statement regarding the proposed modification to the scope of Bell to render said scope as a combination of a scope and recording device. However, the examiner’s rejection presents a clear teaching by Gordon that it is known to configure a scope as a combination scope and recording device, and clear motivation for doing so—in order to allow a user to capture still images and video of the field of view of the scope. Thus, it is clear that the examiner does rely upon a mere conclusory statement. Further, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a scope, but the examiner notes that the transitional phrase “comprising,” found in claim 4, does not preclude the prior art from disclosing a scope as relied upon in the rejection.
Applicant also argues that the examiner improperly relies upon Official Notice in the rejection of claim 4 under Bell in view of Gordon. However, the examiner notes that the Official Notice was originally asserted in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01 July 2024. Further, Applicant did NOT traverse the examiner’s assertions of Official Notice in the reply to said Non-Final Rejection. Thus, the well-known in the art statements were taken to be admitted prior art. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.
Specifically, the statement that it is well-known to configure auto-zoom functions such that they automatically increase and decrease field of view angles (i.e., field of view) as claimed, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed, was taken to be admitted prior art. Also, the statement that it is well-known to form a rangefinder an infrared range finder, in order to render the beam of energy invisible to the naked eye, was taken to be admitted prior art.
Further, Applicant was clearly informed of the above information in the Final Rejection mailed 03 January 2025. Thus, the examiner’s reliance upon Official Notice in said Final Rejection was clearly proper, since Applicant failed to traverse said Official Notice in response to said Non-Final Rejection. Nevertheless, Applicant now traverses the previously untraversed assertions of Official Notice. In response, the examiner provides the following as documentary evidence to the statements of Official Notice.
Regarding the assertion pertaining to auto-zoom functions, Applicants attention is directed to the above-cited prior art references to Bay and Saito, which both disclose auto-zoom functions that automatically increase and decrease field of view angles (i.e., field of view) as claimed, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed.
Regarding the assertion pertaining to a rangefinder as an infrared range finder to render the beam of energy invisible to the naked eye, Applicant attention is directed to the above-cited prior art references to Bay and Kang, which both discloses such.
Thus, Applicant’s newly asserted traversal of the examiner’s reliance on Official Notice is now moot, considering the provided documentary evidence. The examiner asserts that the above-rejections, including that which relies upon Bell in view of Gordon, either disclose or render obvious the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 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 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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641