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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: amended claims: 1, 3, 17; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang as a primary reference previously used in the rejection of claims 9-11.
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 17 recites the limitation "the focal length" in L14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the infrared objective lens" in L14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the diagonal size" in L14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the target surface" in L14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the focal length" in L14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the infrared detector" in L15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the collimating lens" in L17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the diagonal size" in L17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the display region" in L17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the OLED" in L17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the target surface" in L18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the position" in L22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 9-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0030163 A1; pub. Mar. 14, 2002) in view of Blackham (US 2007/0103768 A1; pub. May 10, 2007).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses: A dual-light front sighting device (fig.1B), comprising an infrared lens assembly (11) (fig.2 item 124a) configured to acquire infrared light signals in a target scene (para. [0048]), an image processing module (12) configured to convert the infrared light signals into electrical signals (para. [0083]), a display module (13) configured to receive the electrical signals sent from the image processing module (12) and display a corresponding infrared image based on the electrical signals (para. [0083]), and a beamsplitter (15) (fig.2 item 126); the infrared lens assembly (11) (fig.2 item 124a) is disposed in a reflected light direction of the first light entering surface (151) of the beamsplitter (15), an incident light path of the infrared light signals is coaxial with an incident light path of the visible light signals when the infrared light signals and the visible light signals are incidented to the dual-light front sighting device (para. [0048]); the visible light signals and the infrared light signals enter the first light-entering surface (151) along a same incident light path, the infrared light signals are reflected by the first light- entering surface faces (151) towards the infrared lens assembly (11) (para. [0048], [0051]-[0052]), the infrared lens assembly (11) receives the reflected infrared light signals, the image processing module (12) converts the infrared light signals received by the infrared lens assembly (11) into electrical signals and sends the electrical signals to the display module (13), the display module (13) displays the corresponding infrared image based on the electrical signals (para. [0048], [0051]-[0054]).
Zhang is silent about: the beamsplitter (15) comprises a first light-entering surface (151) and a second light-entering surface (152) which are arranged opposite to each other; the first light-entering surface faces (151) an incident direction of visible light signals, the second light-entering surface (152) faces an incident direction of light signals of the infrared image on the display module, and the visible light signals at least partially pass through the beamsplitter (15) to be fused with the light signals of the infrared image, and then enter a sight (20) behind the beamsplitter (15); and the infrared image displayed by the display module (13) enters the second light-entering surface (152) of the beamsplitter (15) in a form of light signals, and the visible light signals pass through the beamsplitter (15) to be fused with the light signals of the infrared image.
In a similar field of endeavor Blackham disclose: the beamsplitter (15) comprises a first light-entering surface (151) and a second light-entering surface (152) which are arranged opposite to each other; the first light-entering surface faces (151) an incident direction of visible light signals, the second light-entering surface (152) faces an incident direction of light signals of the infrared image on the display module, and the visible light signals at least partially pass through the beamsplitter (15) to be fused with the light signals of the infrared image, and then enter a sight (20) behind the beamsplitter (15); and the infrared image displayed by the display module (13) enters the second light-entering surface (152) of the beamsplitter (15) in a form of light signals, and the visible light signals pass through the beamsplitter (15) to be fused with the light signals of the infrared image (para. [0017],[0030]) motivated by the benefits for imaging both daylight scenes and night scenes (Blackham para. [0005]).
In light of the benefits for imaging both daylight scenes and night scenes as taught Blackham, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang with the teachings of Blackham.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses: an operation assembly (14), wherein the operation assembly (14) comprises a mode button, and the image processing module (12) is switched to a corresponding image enhancement mode based on an operation performed on the mode button, performs enhancement on the infrared image according to the corresponding image enhancement mode, and sends the enhanced infrared image to the display model (13) for display (para. [0086]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses: an operation assembly (14), wherein the operation assembly (14) further comprises a position calibration operation button configured to calibrate a position of the infrared image, and the position calibration operation button is configured to adjust movement of an image display region in horizontal and vertical directions in the display module (13) (para. [0086], the auto-focus switch adjusts the display region in all directions)).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses: an operation assembly (14), wherein the operation assembly (14) further comprises an image height calibration operation button configured to calibrate an image height of the infrared image, and the image height calibration operation button is configured to adjust an image display scale in the display module (13) (para. [0086], the auto-focus switch calibrates the display region in all directions).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang and Blackham disclose: the infrared lens assembly (11), the beamsplitter (15), the display module (13) are integrated into a whole that is separated and independent from the sight (20) (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0030163 A1; pub. Mar. 14, 2002) in view of Blackham (US 2007/0103768 A1; pub. May 10, 2007) and further in view of Barrow et al. (US 10,067,350 B1; pub. Sep. 4, 2018).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang and Blackham disclose: an incident light path of the infrared light signals is parallel to an incident light path of the visible light signals when the infrared light signals and the visible light signals are incidented to the dual-light front sighing device; and wherein the visible light signals enter the first light-entering surface (151), the infrared light signals enter the infrared lens assembly (11), the image processing module (12) converts the infrared light signals received by the infrared lens assembly (11) into the electrical signals and sends the electrical signals to the display module (13), the display module (13) displays the corresponding infrared image based on the electrical signals, the infrared image displayed by the display module (13) enters the second light-entering surface (152) of the beamsplitter (15) in a form of light signals, and the visible light signals pass through the beamsplitter (15) to be fused with the light signals of the infrared image (see rejection of claim 1).
The combined references are silent about: the first light-entering surface (151) of the beamsplitter (15) is plated with a visible light anti-reflection coating, the second light-entering surface (152) is plated with a visible light semi-transmission semi-reflection coating.
In a similar field of endeavor Barrow et al. disclose: the first light-entering surface (151) of the beamsplitter (15) is plated with a visible light anti-reflection coating, the second light-entering surface (152) is plated with a visible light semi-transmission semi-reflection coating (col.3 L13-20, col.4 L44-46) motivated by the benefits for multimodal imaging (Barrow et al. col.1 L29-31).
In light of the benefits for multimodal imaging as taught Barrow et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang and Blackham with the teachings of Barrow et al.
Regarding claim 3, the combined references are silent about: the first light-entering surface (151) of the beamsplitter (15) is plated with a beam-splitting coating allowing for transmission of visible light and reflection of infrared light, and the second light- entering surface (152) is plated with a visible light semi-transmission semi-reflection.
In a similar field of endeavor Barrow et al. disclose: the first light-entering surface (151) of the beamsplitter (15) is plated with a beam-splitting coating allowing for transmission of visible light and reflection of infrared light, and the second light- entering surface (152) is plated with a visible light semi-transmission semi-reflection (col.3 L13-20, col.4 L44-46) motivated by the benefits for multimodal imaging (Barrow et al. col.1 L29-31).
In light of the benefits for multimodal imaging as taught Barrow et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang and Blackham with the teachings of Barrow et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0030163 A1; pub. Mar. 14, 2002) in view of Blackham (US 2007/0103768 A1; pub. May 10, 2007) and further in view of Christine et al. (US 2020/0049486 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2020).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: a first protective window (161) is disposed in front of the beamsplitter (15), and the visible light signals enter the first light-entering surface (151) through the first protective window (161), or, the infrared light signals and the visible light signals pass through the first protective window (161) and enter the first light-entering surface (151); or a second protective window (162) is disposed behind the beamsplitter (15), the visible light signals passing through the beamsplitter (15) are fused with the light signals of the infrared image, then pass through the second protective window (162), and then enter the sight (20).
In a similar field of endeavor Christine et al. disclose: a first protective window (161) is disposed in front of the beamsplitter (15), and the visible light signals enter the first light-entering surface (151) through the first protective window (161), or, the infrared light signals and the visible light signals pass through the first protective window (161) and enter the first light-entering surface (151); or a second protective window (162) is disposed behind the beamsplitter (15), the visible light signals passing through the beamsplitter (15) are fused with the light signals of the infrared image, then pass through the second protective window (162), and then enter the sight (20) (para. [0047]) motivated by the benefits for a dust and contaminant free beamsplitter.
In light of the benefits for a dust and contaminant free beamsplitter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang and Blackham with the teachings of Christine et al.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0030163 A1; pub. Mar. 14, 2002) in view of Blackham (US 2007/0103768 A1; pub. May 10, 2007) in view of Christine et al. (US 2020/0049486 A1; pub. Feb. 13, 2020) and further in view Moghadam (US 2016/0006951 A1; pub. Jan. 7, 2016).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: the sight (20) is a visible-light sight, and the dual-light front sighting device is fixed in front of the visible-light sight by means of an installation assembly.
In a similar field of endeavor Moghadam discloses: the sight (20) is a visible-light sight, and the dual-light front sighting device is fixed in front of the visible-light sight by means of an installation assembly (para. [0117], [0234]) motivated by the benefits for a modular system.
In light of the benefits for a modular system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang, Blackham and Christine et al. with the teachings of Moghadam.
Claims 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0030163 A1; pub. Mar. 14, 2002) in view of Blackham (US 2007/0103768 A1; pub. May 10, 2007) and further in view of Gerber (US 5,451,765; pub. Sep. 19, 1995).
Regarding claim 6, the combined references are silent about: the beamsplitter (15) comprises a first prism and a second prism, longitudinal cross-sections of the first prism and the second prism are right-trapezoidal, a slope of the first prism fits a slope of the second prism, the slope of the first prim function as the first light-entering surface (151) of the beam-splitter (15), and the slope of the second prism function as the second light-entering surface (152) of the beamsplitter (15); or the beamsplitter (15) is a flat mirror and forms a specified angle of inclination with respect to an optical axis of visible light, a slope of the flat mirror facing the incident direction of the visible light signals function as the first light-entering surface (151), and a slope of the flat mirror away from the incident direction of the visible light signals function as the second light-entering surface (152).
In a similar field of endeavor Gerber discloses: the beamsplitter (15) comprises a first prism and a second prism, longitudinal cross-sections of the first prism and the second prism are right-trapezoidal, a slope of the first prism fits a slope of the second prism, the slope of the first prim function as the first light-entering surface (151) of the beam-splitter (15), and the slope of the second prism function as the second light-entering surface (152) of the beamsplitter (15); or the beamsplitter (15) is a flat mirror and forms a specified angle of inclination with respect to an optical axis of visible light, a slope of the flat mirror facing the incident direction of the visible light signals function as the first light-entering surface (151), and a slope of the flat mirror away from the incident direction of the visible light signals function as the second light-entering surface (152) (fig.1 items 30 & 32, claim 1) motivated by the benefits for precise light control.
In light of the benefits for precise light control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang and Blackham with the teachings of Gerber.
Regarding claim 14, the combined references are silent about: the beamsplitter (15) is a flat mirror and forms a specified angle of inclination with respect to an optical axis of visible light, a slope of the flat mirror facing the incident direction of the visible light signals function as the first light-entering surface (151), and a slope of the flat mirror away from the incident direction of the visible light signals function as the second light-entering surface (152).
In a similar field of endeavor Gerber discloses: the beamsplitter (15) is a flat mirror and forms a specified angle of inclination with respect to an optical axis of visible light, a slope of the flat mirror facing the incident direction of the visible light signals function as the first light-entering surface (151), and a slope of the flat mirror away from the incident direction of the visible light signals function as the second light-entering surface (152) (fig.1 items 30 & 32, claim 1) motivated by the benefits for precise light control.
In light of the benefits for precise light control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang and Blackham with the teachings of Gerber.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0030163 A1; pub. Mar. 14, 2002) in view of Blackham (US 2007/0103768 A1; pub. May 10, 2007) in view of in view of Brillhart (US 2012/0316783 A1; pub. Dec. 12, 2012) and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 2012/0098972 A1; pub. Apr. 26, 2012).
Regarding claim 7, the combined references are silent about: the infrared lens assembly (11) comprises an infrared objective lens and an infrared detector, and a focal length of the infrared objective lens and a diagonal size of a target surface of the infrared detector are determined depending on magnitudes required by a field of view; and the display module (13) includes an OLED, the dual-light front sighting device further comprises a collimating lens (18) between the OLED and the beamsplitter (15), and a focal length of the collimating lens (18) and a diagonal size of a display region of the OLED are determined depending on a relation among the focal length of the infrared objective lens, the diagonal size of the target surface of the infrared detector, and a visual magnification.
In a similar field of endeavor Brillhart discloses: the infrared lens assembly (11) comprises an infrared objective lens and an infrared detector, and a focal length of the infrared objective lens and a diagonal size of a target surface of the infrared detector are determined depending on magnitudes required by a field of view; and the display module (13), the dual-light front sighting device further comprises a collimating lens (18) between the display module and the beamsplitter (15), and a focal length of the collimating lens (18) and a diagonal size of a display are determined depending on a relation among the focal length of the infrared objective lens, the diagonal size of the target surface of the infrared detector, and a visual magnification (para. [0003], [0006], [0016]-[0018]) motivated by the benefits for an improved scene viewing system (Brillhart para. [0006]).
In light of the benefits for an improved scene viewing system as taught by Brillhart, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang and Blackham with the teachings of Brillhart.
Brillhart is silent about: the display module (13) includes an OLED.
In a similar field of endeavor Hansen et al. disclose: the display module (13) includes an OLED (para. [0037]) motivated by the benefits for a display that is light weight with a faster response time.
In light of the benefits for a display that is light weight with a faster response time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang, Blackham and Brillhart with the teachings of Hansen et al.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0030163 A1; pub. Mar. 14, 2002) in view of Blackham (US 2007/0103768 A1; pub. May 10, 2007) and further in view of Mansell (US 2008/0225370 A1; pub. Sep. 18, 2008).
Regarding claim 12, the combined references are silent about: a first protective window (161) is disposed in front of the beamsplitter (15), and the visible light signals enter the first light-entering surface (151) through the first protective window (161), or, the infrared light signals and the visible light signals pass through the first protective window (161) and enter the first light-entering surface (151); and a second protective window (162) is disposed behind the beamsplitter (15), the visible light signals passing through the beamsplitter (15) are fused with the light signals of the infrared image, then pass through the second protective window (162), and then enter the sight (20).
In a similar field of endeavor Mansell discloses: a first protective window (161) is disposed in front of the beamsplitter (15), and the visible light signals enter the first light-entering surface (151) through the first protective window (161), or, the infrared light signals and the visible light signals pass through the first protective window (161) and enter the first light-entering surface (151); and a second protective window (162) is disposed behind the beamsplitter (15), the visible light signals passing through the beamsplitter (15) are fused with the light signals of the infrared image, then pass through the second protective window (162), and then enter the sight (20) (para. [0022]) motivated by the benefits for a dust and contaminant free beamsplitter.
In light of the benefits for a dust and contaminant free beamsplitter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang and Blackham with the teachings of Mansell.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0030163 A1; pub. Mar. 14, 2002) in view of Blackham (US 2007/0103768 A1; pub. May 10, 2007) in view of Mansell (US 2008/0225370 A1; pub. Sep. 18, 2008) and further in view Moghadam (US 2016/0006951 A1; pub. Jan. 7, 2016).
Regarding claim 13, the combined references are silent about: the sight (20) is a visible-light sight, and the dual-light front sighting device is fixed in front of the visible-light sight by means of an installation assembly (17) (para. [0008]-[0009] teaches a night vision goggle).
In a similar field of endeavor Moghadam discloses: the sight (20) is a visible-light sight, and the dual-light front sighting device is fixed in front of the visible-light sight by means of an installation assembly (para. [0117], [0234]) motivated by the benefits for a modular system.
In light of the benefits for a modular system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang, Blackham and Mansell with the teachings of Moghadam.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2002/0030163 A1; pub. Mar. 14, 2002) in view of Blackham (US 2007/0103768 A1; pub. May 10, 2007) and further in view Moghadam (US 2016/0006951 A1; pub. Jan. 7, 2016).
Regarding claim 16, the combined references are silent about: a visible-light sight and the dual-light front sighting device of claim 1 assembled in front of the visible-light sight.
In a similar field of endeavor Moghadam discloses: a visible-light sight and the dual-light front sighting device of claim 1 assembled in front of the visible-light sight (para. [0117], [0234]) motivated by the benefits for a modular system.
In light of the benefits for a modular system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang, and Blackham with the teachings of Moghadam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: the value of the focal length focularof the collimating lens (18), and the value of the diagonal size lOLED of the selected OLED display region are determined according to the matching requirements of the dual-light field of view, the visual magnification is set to
PNG
media_image1.png
49
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights