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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Brace (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0167703).
Regarding claim 1, Brace discloses (Figs.) an articulating bridge system comprising: a bridge body (300) comprising a mounting point (320); a first panoramic mounting arm (304) comprising a mounting plate (flat part at 402); a second panoramic mounting arm (302) comprising a mounting plate (flat part at 366); a first hinge (at 312) rotatably coupling the bridge body to the first panoramic mounting arm; and a second hinge (at 308) rotatably coupling the bridge body to the second panoramic mounting arm.
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lasky (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0025567) in view of Moody et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0238724).
Regarding claim 2, Lasky discloses (Figs.) a panoramic night vision system comprising: a first tube subassembly (104a) comprising a first tube, the first tube subassembly having an outer side; a second tube subassembly (104b) comprising a third tube, the second tube subassembly having an outer side; an articulating bridge system comprising: a bridge body (100) comprising a mounting point (113); a first arm (130) comprising a mounting plate (at 135) coupled to the first tube subassembly; a second arm (140) comprising a mounting plate (at 145) coupled to the second tube subassembly; a first hinge (134) rotatably coupling the bridge body to the first arm and configured to rotate the first tube subassembly from its outer side; and a second hinge (144) rotatably coupling the bridge body to the second arm and configured to rotate the second tube subassembly from its outer side. Lasky does not disclose the first tube subassembly having a second tube and the second tube subassembly having a fourth tube. Lasky further discloses ([0073]) using other monoculars. Moody et al. teach (Figs.) a monocular subassembly having first and second tubes or third and fourth tubes. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such monoculars in the apparatus of Lasky in view of Moody et al. to obtain a wider view as known and predictable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,032,152. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘152 claim is simply a broader version (inclusive of) of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, the ‘152 patent claims (claim 1) a panoramic night vision system comprising: a first tube subassembly (“first tube subassembly”) comprising a first tube (“first tube”) and a second tube (“second tube”), the first tube subassembly having an outer side (“outer side”); a second tube subassembly (“second tube subassembly”) comprising a third tube (“third tube”) and a fourth tube (“fourth tube”), the second tube subassembly having an outer side (“outer side”); an articulating bridge system (“articulating bridge system”) comprising: a bridge body (“bridge body”) comprising a mounting point (“mounting point”); a first arm (“first arm”) comprising a mounting plate (“mounting plate”) coupled to the first tube subassembly; a second arm (“second arm”) comprising a mounting plate (“mounting plate”) coupled to the second tube subassembly; a first hinge (“first hinge”) rotatably coupling (“rotatably coupling”) the bridge body to the first arm and configured to rotate (“rotate”) the first tube subassembly from its outer side (“its outer side”); and a second hinge (“second hinge”) rotatably coupling (“rotatably coupling”) the bridge body to the second arm and configured to rotate (“rotate”) the second tube subassembly from its outer side (“its outer side”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878