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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 30, there is no antecedent basis for “the transparent electro-optical device”. The claim sets forth only “an electro-optical device”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 13, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sheydayi (US 2023/0266578 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 13, and 29, Shendayi discloses: an image intensifier assembly and associated method of assembly having: an image intensifier tube (204) having an optical element, the optical element having an emitting surface (output side, where images are displayed to a user, par. [0046]) the optical element having an outer dimension; a first power supply comprising a first circuit board having a first inner dimension defining an opening (flex circuit, 240), a first outer dimension and a first thickness (shown in Fig. 3, outer edge and thickness of flex circuit 240 surrounding 204), the first inner dimension surrounding the outer dimension of the optical element (flex circuit surrounds intensifier module and output side 207, Fig. 3, 5), the first outer dimension within the image intensifier assembly (shown assembled in Fig. 8), the first circuit board further having a component surface (Fig. 5, with surfaces having thereon supply conductors 244/246 and LEDs 260/261), the component surface extending from the first inner dimension to the first outer dimension (top of flex circuit, Fig. 5), the first circuit board having power supply components mounted on the component surface (LED 260/261 and supply conductors 244/246 function as part of power supply, par. [0049]).
With respect to claim 2, Sheydayi discloses the claimed device wherein the first power supply is electrically coupled to the image intensifier tube to operate the image intensifier tube (par. [0043]).
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.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheydayi, in view of Sigler (US 2014/0286039 A1).
With respect to claim 31, Sheydayi is silent with regard to the use of a clear potting material. Sigler, from the same field of endeavor (visible LED indicators) discloses the use of a clear potting resin over LED indicators (par. [0042]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a clear potting material in the manner of Sigler, in order to increase durability of the device while maintaining visibility of the LED element for a user.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typo in the limitation “electro=optical device”. It appears that this should read “electro-optical device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-28 are allowed.
Claims 3-12, 14-23, and 30 are 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, and/or to overcome any other rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 3-12 and 30, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed transparent electro-optical device, optically coupled in co-focus to, and adjacent to the emitting surface of the optical element, as claimed.
With respect to claims 14-17 and 19-28, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed backplate.
With respect to claim 18, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed fiber-optic inverter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 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 MAKIYA can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 21 January 2026