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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 21, 2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim(s) 14 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,001,013. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 and 18 - 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naftali (US 2017/0214893) in Allen et al (US 2005/0052621, hereafter Allen).
As per claim 1, Naftali discloses a visual perception device (¶ 7) comprising:
a beam modulator, wherein the beam modulator includes:
a video data digital-to-analog converter (VDAC) that receives video data including multiple pixels (¶ 70);
a gain digital-to-analog converter (GDAC) having an input for receiving a gain setting and an output connected to the VDAC to set a gain on the VDAC (¶ 61 and 62);
a pixel counter (¶ 56 - 58); and
a multiplier connected to relational data to modify, based on pixels in the relational data determined by the pixel counter, an output of the VDAC on a per-basis (¶ 65 and 66).
However, Naftali does not explicitly teach a pixel counter that counts the pixels; and modify an output of the VDAC on a per-pixel basis determined by the count of the pixels.
In the same field of field, Allen teaches a pixel counter that counts the pixels; and modify an output of the VDAC on a per-pixel basis determined by the count of the pixels (¶ 51 and 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Naftali in view of Allen. The advantage is increasing the effective contrast ratio and brightness yields.
As per claim 2, Naftali discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the multiplier multiplies the gain that is provided to the GDAC with modifying values of pixels to modulate the gain that is provided to the GDAC (¶ 65).
As per claim 3, Naftali discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the multiplier multiplies the gain that is provided to the VDAC with modifying values of pixels to modulate the gain that is provided to the VDAC (¶ 65 and 66).
As per claim 4, Naftali discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the VDAC is a first VDAC, further comprising: a second VDAC, wherein the multiplier multiplies the gain that is provided to the second VDAC with the modifying values of the pixels to modulate the gain that is provided to the VDAC ; and first and second current sources connected to and driven by the first and second VDAC's respectively, the current sources being connected in parallel (¶ 65 and 85).
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 – 17 and 22 - 34 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487