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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on December 30, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Non-Final Office Action
The Response, filed on March 23, 2026, has been received and made of record. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated September 23, 2026, no claims have been amended, cancelled, or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 1, 4-7, 9 and 12-15, Applicant first argues that the Lintz reference does not teach a “redirection lens” (Remarks, p. 5). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Hammond reference was found to teach all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 9, except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the redirection element of Hammond being a redirection lens. In light of this, the Lintz reference was introduced. Lintz is found to teach a redirection lens configured to selectively redirect a first light beam toward an image sensor in response to a first command (e.g., fig. 2, element 36; [0022-27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lintz with the apparatus as taught by Hammond in order to eliminate the possible mechanical issues associated with a pivoting device, such as wear from pivoting or the possibility of getting stuck in a single position due to mechanical failure. In light of the element as taught by the Lintz reference, the recited limitations of the claimed subject matter are met by the teachings of the Lintz reference in combination with the primary teaching of the Hammond reference.
Applicant argues that the element taught by Lintz “does not refract light, does not have curved refractive surfaces, and does not redirect a light beam by refractive bending.” (Remarks, p. 6). The Examiner points out that the claim does not require the element of Lintz to have curved refractive surfaces or to redirect a light beam by refractive bending. Applicant’s original specification has not been found to teach or disclose that the claimed element has curved refractive surfaces or redirects a light beam by refractive bending. Further, the original specification has not been found to teach, disclose or require that the claimed element possess any specific refraction, diversion, bending, deviation, divergence, convergence or other disclosed light related/affecting features. Applicant has also not been found to present any evidence based on the original disclosure requiring that the claimed element possess any specific refraction, diversion, bending, deviation, divergence, convergence or any other light related/affecting features in support of their assertion that the recited element refract light, have curved refractive surfaces, or redirect a light beam by refractive bending. As the claim does not require the element taught by Lintz to refract light, have curved refractive surfaces, or redirect a light beam by refractive bending, but instead is only required by claim language to selectively redirect a first light beam toward an image sensor in response to a first command, therefore, regardless of the label employed by the Lintz reference, the Lintz reference is found to teach the structural deficiencies of the Hammond reference.
The Examiner also notes that while a frequency of light remains unchanged, light passing through a medium inherently results in a change in speed, a change in wavelength, and in a change of path, i.e., a change in the angle of refraction. The element as taught by Lintz is a medium passing light and thus a change in speed, wavelength and path, i.e., a change in the angle of refraction, would occur.
In light of the above, and as neither the claimed subject matter, nor the specification, recites or requires any specific optical properties beyond selectively redirect a light beam, the Examiner stands behind the teachings of the Litz reference.
Next, Applicant argues that “[t]he Motivation to Combine is Legally Insufficient” (Remarks, p. 8). More specifically, Applicant first argues that the Litz reference constitutes non-analogous art because “Lintz is directed to a fundamentally different technology and operating environment.” (Remarks, p. 8). Again, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument of non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). First, the current field of endeavor is Optics, which would encompass the instant application, the Hammond reference, the Lintz reference, and the other references employed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. Separate to this, the particular issue at hand is the selective redirection of light. One skilled in the art, when faced with a similar issue would look to the solutions of others faced with the task of selectively redirecting of light. The Lintz reference provides such a solution (e.g., ‘961 - fig. 2, element 36; [0022-27]). In light of at least the above, the Litz reference does not constitute non-analogous art.
Applicant then attempts to discredit the rationale for combination, arguing that “the Examiner provides no evidentiary basis for the proposition that wear or sticking of Hammond's pivoting mirror was a recognized problem in the relevant field, or that Lintz's polarization-switching light valve was known as a solution to that specific problem”, arguing “hindsight-driven rationale”, and arguing that the references cannot be structurally combined. (Remarks, p. 8).
As a reasoned explanation was provided, i.e., “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lintz with the apparatus as taught by Hammond in order to eliminate the possible mechanical issues associated with a pivoting device, such as wear from pivoting or the possibility of getting stuck in a single position due to mechanical failure”, a prima facia case of obviousness was established. As a prima facie case has been established, the burden shifts to the Applicant to provide evidence or argument demonstrating non-obviousness. Applicant has not been found to provide any contradictory evidence or specific discussion regarding the merits of the provided mechanical issues, such as wear or sticking due to mechanical failure.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Finally, in response to Applicant's argument that the element of Litz “is not a drop in substitute for a mechanical pivoting mirror” (Remarks, p. 8), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, the teachings of the references suggested a means to redirect light while avoid mechanical issues associated with a pivoting device (e.g., Non-Final Action, p. 3, lines 9-15).
In light of the above response to arguments regarding the combination of Hammond in view of Lintz, the Examiner stands behind the teachings of the art as applied in the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 4 and 12, Applicant argues that the combination fails to teach claims 4 and 12 (Remarks, p. 9). Again, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, dependent claims 4 and 12 provide that the redirection lens is further configured to allow the first light beam to pass toward the at least one first prism when the first command is not transmitted. Comparatively, the combination of Hammond and Lintz teach a redirection lens that allows a first light beam to pass toward the at least one first prism when the first command is not transmitted, as the element as taught by Lintz in the rejection of the independent claims provides for a switchable light path, either passing or reflecting, based on a controllable state, which replaces the reflex mirror as provide by Hammond, but retains the remaining functionality, including the paths of light direction, as taught by Hammond. In light of at least the above, the Examiner stands behind the teachings of Hammond in view of Lintz as applied to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 4 and 12.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 5-7 and 13-15, Applicant is not found to specifically argue the individual merits of the teaching of the rejections as presented. Instead, Applicant argues the rejections based on their dependence on an independent claim. In view of the responses to arguments, supra, the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections to claims 5-7 and 13-15, as well as to any claims argued based on their dependence from an independent claim.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 2, 3, 10 and 11, Applicant argues that “Enomoto does not disclose a microlens array anywhere in its specification.” (Remarks, p. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Enomoto teaches at least multiple small lens systems in alignment (e.g., fig. 17, elements 170 and 172), focusing light onto an image sensor (e.g., element 186), Enomoto teaches a microlens array associated with an image sensor and configured to focus and concentrate, when taken in combination with the teachings of Hammond and Lintz, the first light beam onto a surface of the image sensor so that the image sensor captures an image. As the claim requires focusing of light onto a surface of the image sensor, and not individual pixel photodetector light focus, the Examiner stands behind the teachings of the art as applied to the claims as currently written.
Applicant also argues “Enomoto's Mirror Does Not Supply the Claimed "Redirection Mirror" Functional Chain” (Remarks, p. 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 3 and 11 provide “a redirection mirror configured to receive the redirected first light beam from the redirection lens and reflect the first light beam toward the microlens array.” As Enomoto teaches a redirection mirror (e.g., '209 - fig. 17, element 184; [0233]) configured to receive a redirected first light beam from a redirection lens and reflect the first light beam toward the microlens array (e.g., '209 - fig. 17). In light of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Enomoto with the apparatus as taught by Hammond, Lintz and Enomoto in order to create a more optimal and smaller spaced apparatus that allows for placement of the image sensor and microlens array without widening the overall body, by taking advantage of the space between lens barrels.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments related solely to the operation and structural disclosure of Enomoto, and not the combination of the references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further regarding an attack on the operation and structural disclosure of Enomoto, not also in view of the teachings of the Hammond and Lintz references, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Enomoto's Own Solution in the Same Technical Field Counsels Against Obviousness” (Remarks, p. 12), Applicant has not been found to recite any express teaching away or counselling against. Applicant is reminded that “teaching away” involves criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the solution claimed. See MPEP §2141.02, VI. In light of a lack of criticism, discredit or discouragement by Enomoto (or by Hammond or Lintz), Enomoto is not found to “teach away” as asserted by Applicant.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that a “Three-Reference Motivation to Combine Is Insufficient”, Applicant asserts that “The Examiner has not articulated a legally sufficient motivation for a POSITA to combine three separate references - Hammond, Lintz, and Enomoto - drawing from distinct technology areas and architectural designs. A multi-reference obviousness rejection requires separate, non-hindsight-driven motivations for each step of the combination.” (Remarks, p. 13). As motivation for the combination of each reference has been provided at each necessary point of inclusion and/or combination, based on the teachings of the references in view of each other or what was previously taught, the standards for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been met. The Examiner notes that Applicant provided a general assertion, absent specific support or specific claim-by-claim “insufficiency”, relating to motivation and/or combination, and therefore a specific, claim-by-claim response cannot be responded to.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 8 and 16, Applicant argues that “Wu Does Not Disclose a "Shutter Button Formed on a Chassis of the Viewing Optic” (Remarks, pp. 13-16). The Examiner disagrees. Claims 3 and 8 recite the viewing optic “further comprising a shutter button formed on a chassis of the viewing optic, wherein a user pressing the shutter button generates the first command.” Correspondingly, Wu has been found to teach a similar apparatus that includes a shutter button formed on a chassis of a viewing optic, wherein a user pressing the shutter button generates a command (e.g., fig. 1, element 40; [0014]). In light of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Wu with the apparatus as taught by Hammond and Lintz to provide express means for a user to physically signal and effect image capture functionality and control.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments related solely to the operation and structural disclosure of Wu, and not the combination of the references, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further regarding an attack on the operation and structural disclosure of Wu, not also in view of the teachings of the Hammond and Lintz references, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Wu's Purpose Is Directed to a Narrow Usability Problem Unrelated to the Claimed Invention” (Remarks, p. 15), Applicant specifically argues that that the rationale “does not identify why a POSITA would incorporate Wu's specific focusing-drive-mounted press member into the context of the Hammond/Lintz combination, or how doing so would result in "a shutter button formed on a chassis of the viewing optic, wherein a user pressing the shutter button generates the first command". As Wu teaches a similar apparatus that includes a shutter button formed on a chassis of a viewing optic, wherein a user pressing the shutter button generates a command (e.g., fig. 1, element 40; [0014]), and neither Hammond nor Lintz were found to provide said teaching, it would have been obvious to provide said a shutter button so that a user could initiate image capture and the related functionality necessary (i.e., physically signal and effect image capture functionality and control). Further and again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 17, Applicant again argues that Lintz does not disclose a “redirection lens”. Please see the response to arguments for the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 1, 4-7, 9 and 12-15, supra. Applicant also argues that “The Final Step of Claim 17 Is Not Taught by Any Reference” (Remarks, p. 16). Again, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hammond clearly teaches capturing a light beam using optical elements of a viewing optic and delivering the light beam to a viewer’s eye via a primary optical path (e.g., fig. 2) as well as teaches using the redirection element to allow the light beam to again pass to the user’s eye along the primary optical path after the image sensor captures the image (e.g., figs. 7 and 8; [0037], pivoted to eye 58), as provided in the Non-Final rejection. In view of the above, the Examiner stands behind the teachings of the art.
Further the Examiner notes that Applicant once again attempts to address the specific operation and structural teachings of each reference individually, and is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that a “Three-Reference Motivation to Combine Is Insufficient”, Applicant asserts that “The Examiner has not articulated why a POSITA would combine Hammond's binoculars with Lintz's vehicular rearview imaging system and then further look to Kobu's SLR shutter mechanism. Each reference addresses a distinct problem in a distinct context, and the combination is the product of hindsight reconstruction using Applicant's own disclosure as a roadmap.” This appears to be a hybrid argument involving non-analogous art and hindsight rationale.
In response to applicant's argument that Applicant determined “technical fields” of the combined references lend to being is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the current field of endeavor is Optics, which would encompass the instant application, the Hammond reference, the Lintz reference, and the Kobu reference. Separate to this, the particular issues at hand are the selective redirection of light and functionality in response to shutter commands. One skilled in the art, when faced with similar issues would look to the solutions of others faced with the tasks of selectively redirecting of light and of functionality in response to shutter commands. The Lintz and the Kobu references provides such solutions (e.g., ‘961 – fig. 2, element 36; [0022-27]; ‘907 – fig. 2; [0010]).). In light of at least the above, the Litz and the Koby references do not constitute non-analogous art.
In response to applicant's arguments toward hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, as motivation for the combination of each reference has been provided at each necessary point of inclusion and/or combination, based on the teachings of the references in view of each other or what was previously taught, the standards for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been met.
In light of the above response to arguments, the Examiner stands behind the teachings of the art as applied in the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
* * * * * * * *
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-7, 9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0128426 to Hammond in view of WIPO PCT Publication No. WO 2020/251996 A1 to Lintz et al. (hereinafter “Lintz”).
Regarding claim 1, Hammond teaches a viewing optic comprising a first barrel comprising (e.g., fig. 1, barrel 12; fig. 7), at least one first objective lens (e.g., [0029], element 20; fig. 7, lens to the left of element 154; [0035-38]), at least one first ocular lens (e.g., fig. 1; fig. 7, lens to the rightmost of element 154; [0033], [0035-38]), at least one first prism (e.g., fig. 2, element 28; [0032]; fig. 7, unlabeled prism; [0035-38]), an image sensor configured to capture an image (e.g., fig. 7, element 70; [0041]), and a redirection element configured to selectively redirect a first light beam toward the image sensor in response to a first command (e.g., [0037]), and a second barrel (e.g., fig. 1, barrel 14) comprising at least one second objective lens (e.g., fig. 1, element 22) at least one second ocular lens (e.g., fig. 1, element 34; [0033]), and at least one second prism. Hammond, however, has not been found to expressly disclose the redirection element being a redirection lens.
Nevertheless, Lintz teaches a redirection lens configured to selectively redirect a first light beam toward the image sensor in response to a first command (e.g., fig. 2, element 36; [0022-27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lintz with the apparatus as taught by Hammond in order to eliminate the possible mechanical issues associated with a pivoting device, such as wear from pivoting or the possibility of getting stuck in a single position due to mechanical failure.
Regarding claim 4, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 1, supra) including teaching the viewing optic wherein the redirection lens is further configured to allow the first light beam to pass toward the at least one first prism when the first command is not transmitted (e.g., ‘426 - [0037]).
Regarding claim 5, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 1, supra) including teaching the viewing optic further comprising a processor (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13, element 108) and memory (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13, element 104).
Regarding claim 6, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 5, supra) including teaching wherein the processor is configured to receive signals from the image sensor (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13; [0042]), generate the image from the signals (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13; [0042]), and store the image in the memory (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13; [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 5, supra) including teaching the viewing optic further comprising a wired or wireless connection interface (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13, element 110; [0042]) configured to transmit the image to a separate device in response to a second command from the processor (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13; [0042], element 108 controls the circuits in the camera).
Regarding claim 9, Hammond teaches a viewing optic comprising at least one first objective lens (e.g., [0029], element 20; fig. 7, lens to the left of element 154; [0035-38]), at least one first ocular lens (e.g., fig. 1; fig. 7, lens to the rightmost of element 154; [0033], [0035-38]), at least one first prism (e.g., fig. 2, element 28; [0032]; fig. 7, unlabeled prism; [0035-38]), an image sensor configured to capture an image (e.g., fig. 7, element 70; [0041]), and a redirection element configured to selectively redirect a first light beam toward the image sensor in response to a first command (e.g., [0037]). Hammond, however, has not been found to expressly disclose the redirection element being a redirection lens.
Nevertheless, Lintz teaches a redirection lens configured to selectively redirect a first light beam toward the image sensor in response to a first command (e.g., fig. 2, element 36; [0022-27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lintz with the apparatus as taught by Hammond in order to eliminate the possible mechanical issues associated with a pivoting device, such as wear from pivoting or the possibility of getting stuck in a single position due to mechanical failure.
Regarding claim 12, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 12 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 9, supra) including teaching wherein the redirection lens is further configured to allow the first light beam to pass toward the at least one first prism when the first command is not transmitted (e.g., ‘426 - [0037]).
Regarding claim 13, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 13 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 9, supra) including teaching the viewing optic further comprising a processor (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13, element 108) and memory (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13, element 104).
Regarding claim 14, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 13, supra) including teaching wherein the processor is configured to receive signals from the image sensor (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13; [0042]), generate the image from the signals (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13; [0042]), and store the image in the memory (e.g., fig. 13; [0042]).
Regarding claim 15, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 13, supra) including teaching the viewing optic further comprising a wired or wireless connection interface (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13, element 110; [0042]) configured to transmit the image to a separate device in response to a second command from the processor (e.g., ‘426 - fig. 13; [0042], element 108 controls the circuits in the camera).
Claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond and Lintz in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0063209 to Enomoto et al. (hereinafter “Enomoto”).
Regarding claim 2, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 1, supra) except for being found to expressly disclose the viewing optic further comprising a microlens array associated with the image sensor and configured to focus and concentrate the first light beam onto a surface of the image sensor so that the image sensor captures an image.
Nevertheless, the use of a microlens array is well-known and accepted in the imaging arts. For example, Enomoto teaches a similar viewing optic that includes a microlens array (e.g., fig. 17, at least elements 170 and 172; [0229-230]) associated with an image sensor (e.g., fig. 17, element 186; [0235]) and configured to focus and concentrate the first light beam onto a surface of the image sensor so that the image sensor captures an image (e.g. fig. 17; [0230]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Enomoto with the apparatus as taught by Hammond and Lintz to provide a better focused image onto the image sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Hammond, Lintz and Enomoto teach all the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 2, supra) including teaching the viewing optic further comprising a redirection mirror (e.g., ‘209 – fig. 17, element 184; [0233]) configured to receive a redirected first light beam from a redirection lens and reflect the first light beam toward the microlens array (e.g., ‘209 – fig. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Enomoto with the apparatus as taught by Hammond, Lintz and Enomoto in order to create a more optimal and smaller spaced apparatus that allows for placement of the image sensor and microlens array without widening the overall body, by taking advantage of the space between lens barrels.
Regarding claim 10, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 10 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 9, supra) except for being found to expressly disclose the viewing optic further comprising a microlens array associated with the image sensor and configured to focus and concentrate the first light beam onto a surface of the image sensor so that the image sensor captures an image.
Nevertheless, the use of a microlens array is well-known and accepted in the imaging arts. For example, Enomoto teaches a similar viewing optic that includes a microlens array (e.g., fig. 17, at least elements 170 and 172; [0229-230]) associated with an image sensor (e.g., fig. 17, element 186; [0235]) and configured to focus and concentrate the first light beam onto a surface of the image sensor so that the image sensor captures an image (e.g. fig. 17; [0230]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Enomoto with the apparatus as taught by Hammond and Lintz to provide a better focused image onto the image sensor.
Regarding claim 11, Hammond, Lintz and Enomoto teach all the limitations of claim 11 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 10, supra) including teaching the viewing optic further comprising a redirection mirror (e.g., ‘209 – fig. 17, element 184; [0233]) configured to receive a redirected first light beam from a redirection lens and reflect the first light beam toward the microlens array (e.g., ‘209 – fig. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Enomoto with the apparatus as taught by Hammond, Lintz and Enomoto to create a more optimal and smaller spaced apparatus that allows for placement of the image sensor and microlens array without widening the overall body.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond and Lintz in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0012681 to Wu.
Regarding claim 8, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 1, supra) except for being found to expressly disclose the viewing optic further comprising a shutter button formed on a chassis of the viewing optic, wherein a user pressing the shutter button generates the first command.
Nevertheless, Wu teaches a similar apparatus that includes a shutter button formed on a chassis of a viewing optic, wherein a user pressing the shutter button generates a command (e.g., fig. 1, element 40; [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Wu with the apparatus as taught by Hammond and Lintz to provide express means for a user to physically signal and effect image capture functionality and control.
Regarding claim 16, Hammond and Lintz teach all the limitations of claim 16 (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 9, supra) except for being found to expressly disclose the viewing optic further comprising a shutter button formed on a chassis of the viewing optic, wherein a user pressing the shutter button generates the first command.
Nevertheless, Wu teaches a similar apparatus that includes a shutter button formed on a chassis of a viewing optic, wherein a user pressing the shutter button generates a command (e.g., fig. 1, element 40; [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Wu with the apparatus as taught by Hammond and Lintz to provide express means for a user to physically signal and effect image capture functionality and control.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond and Lintz in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2000-101907 to Kobu.
Regarding claim 17, Hammond teaches a method comprising capturing a light beam using optical elements of a viewing optic and delivering the light beam to a viewer’s eye via a primary optical path (e.g., fig. 2), redirecting the light beam with a redirection element toward a secondary optical path toward an image sensor response to receiving a command (e.g., fig. 7; [0037], pivoted to image sensor 70), capturing an image with an image sensor based on the light beam (e.g., fig. 7, via element 70; [0041]), and using the redirection element to allow the light beam to again pass to the user’s eye along the primary optical path after the image sensor captures the image (e.g., figs. 7 and 8; [0037], pivoted to eye 58). Hammond has not been found to expressly disclose the redirection element being a redirection lens, or the reception of a command from a user to capture an image and effect the change in optical path.
Nevertheless, Lintz teaches a redirection lens configured to selectively redirect a first light beam toward the image sensor in response to a first command (e.g., fig. 2, element 36; [0022-27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Lintz to replace the pivoting in the method as taught by Hammond to eliminate the possible mechanical issues associated with a pivoting device, such as wear from pivoting or the possibility of getting stuck in a single position due to mechanical failure.
Further, Kobu teaches an example of a single-lens reflex camera (SLR), and its functionality of effecting a change in the optical path from a view that allows a user to see through the lens, to a path that allows capture of an image in response to the reception of a shutter command from the user (e.g., fig. 2; [0010]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the functionality as taught by Kobu into the method as taught by Hammond and Lintz in order to effect control the redirection lens, and therefore capture an image when desired by a user (e.g., [0037]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights