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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/26 have been fully read and considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to line 4 on page 7 of Applicant’s remarks about claim 1, Applicant disagrees with the motive to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
By shifting the location of the parts by utilizing Schmidt’s eyepiece cup with Beijing Bofei’s digital display since Schmidt discloses that the purpose of using the eyepiece cup is for blocking or shielding unwanted ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, as disclosed in paragraph [13], wherein Schmidt discloses utilizing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup. Since Schmidt’s use of a eyecup provides an obvious result of shielding the ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, by simple shifting of parts or rearrangement of parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Also, upon perusal of court case, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the shifting or rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since shifting or rearranging the location of parts to achieve a result would not have modified the operation of the device. Specifically, the shifting of location of the parts (ie. implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece into Beijing Bofei’s device) would not have modified the operation of the Beijing Bofei’s device since Schmidt’s eyepiece would provide the obvious effect and result of “blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece” and permit the user to clearly view “the display of image data”. And also, peruse In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein the placement of the part would be held to be an obvious matter of design choice as it provides the an obvious result. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece. Thus, the combination of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt is considered to be reasonable and valid.
With regards to lines 9-11 on page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that modifying Beijing Bofei’s device with Schmidt’s eyecup would require substantial redesign by relocating parts and rearranging internal components. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
By shifting the location of the parts by utilizing Schmidt’s eyepiece cup with Beijing Bofei’s digital display since Schmidt discloses that the purpose of using the eyepiece cup is for blocking or shielding unwanted ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, as disclosed in paragraph [13], wherein Schmidt discloses utilizing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup. Since Schmidt’s use of a eyecup provides an obvious result of shielding the ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, by simple shifting of parts or rearrangement of parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Also, upon perusal of court case, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the shifting or rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since shifting or rearranging the location of parts to achieve a result would not have modified the operation of the device. Specifically, the shifting of location of the parts (ie. implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece into Beijing Bofei’s device) would not have modified the operation of the Beijing Bofei’s device since Schmidt’s eyepiece would provide the obvious effect and result of “blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece” and permit the user to clearly view “the display of image data”. And also, perusal of court case, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein the placement of the part would be held to be an obvious matter of design choice as it provides the an obvious result. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece. Thus, the combination of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt is considered to be reasonable and valid.
With regards to lines 12-13 and 19 on page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that modifying Beijing Bofei’s teaching with Schmidt’s eyecup would prevent Beijing Bofei’s device from operating as intended, and undermine Beijing Bofei’s fundamental mode of operation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that modifying Beijing Bofei’s teaching with Schmidt’s eyecup would prevent Beijing Bofei’s device from operating as intended and undermine Beijing Bofei’s fundamental mode of operation, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
By shifting the location of the parts by utilizing Schmidt’s eyepiece cup with Beijing Bofei’s digital display since Schmidt discloses that the purpose of using the eyepiece cup is for blocking or shielding unwanted ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, as disclosed in paragraph [13], wherein Schmidt discloses utilizing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup. Since Schmidt’s use of a eyecup provides an obvious result of shielding the ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, by simple shifting of parts or rearrangement of parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Also, upon perusal of court case, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the shifting or rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since shifting or rearranging the location of parts to achieve a result would not have modified the operation of the device. Specifically, the shifting of location of the parts (ie. implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece into Beijing Bofei’s device) would not have modified the operation of the Beijing Bofei’s device since Schmidt’s eyepiece would provide the obvious effect and result of “blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece” and permit the user to clearly view “the display of image data”. And also, perusal of court case, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein the placement of the part would be held to be an obvious matter of design choice as it provides the an obvious result. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece. Thus, the combination of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt is considered to be reasonable and valid. And thus, the implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece cup would not render Beijing Bofei’s device inoperable since the combination would provide the obvious result of permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained. Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected for at least similar reasons as stated above for claim 1, and in the rejection below. Peruse the rejection below.
With regards to lines 17-19 on page 8 of Applicant’s remarks about claim 10, Applicant asserts that, for similar reasons as stated for claim 1, it is not obvious to combine Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together because it would require a substantial redesign of Beijing Bofei’s teaching to incorporate Schmidt’s eyepiece cup. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previous stated above for claim 1, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
By shifting the location of the parts by utilizing Schmidt’s eyepiece cup with Beijing Bofei’s digital display since Schmidt discloses that the purpose of using the eyepiece cup is for blocking or shielding unwanted ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, as disclosed in paragraph [13], wherein Schmidt discloses utilizing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup. Since Schmidt’s use of a eyecup provides an obvious result of shielding the ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, by simple shifting of parts or rearrangement of parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Also, upon perusal of court case, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the shifting or rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since shifting or rearranging the location of parts to achieve a result would not have modified the operation of the device. Specifically, the shifting of location of the parts (ie. implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece into Beijing Bofei’s device) would not have modified the operation of the Beijing Bofei’s device since Schmidt’s eyepiece would provide the obvious effect and result of “blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece” and permit the user to clearly view “the display of image data”. And also, perusal of court case, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein the placement of the part would be held to be an obvious matter of design choice as it provides the an obvious result. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece. Thus, the combination of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt is considered to be reasonable and valid.
With regards to lines 20-21 on page 8 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that modifying Beijing Bofei’s teaching with Schmidt’s eyepiece cup would prevent Beijing Bofei’s device from operating as intended. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previous stated above for claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that modifying Beijing Bofei’s teaching with Schmidt’s eyecup would prevent Beijing Bofei’s device from operating as intended and undermine Beijing Bofei’s fundamental mode of operation, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
By shifting the location of the parts by utilizing Schmidt’s eyepiece cup with Beijing Bofei’s digital display since Schmidt discloses that the purpose of using the eyepiece cup is for blocking or shielding unwanted ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, as disclosed in paragraph [13], wherein Schmidt discloses utilizing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup. Since Schmidt’s use of a eyecup provides an obvious result of shielding the ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, by simple shifting of parts or rearrangement of parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Also, upon perusal of court case, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the shifting or rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since shifting or rearranging the location of parts to achieve a result would not have modified the operation of the device. Specifically, the shifting of location of the parts (ie. implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece into Beijing Bofei’s device) would not have modified the operation of the Beijing Bofei’s device since Schmidt’s eyepiece would provide the obvious effect and result of “blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece” and permit the user to clearly view “the display of image data”. And also, perusal of court case, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein the placement of the part would be held to be an obvious matter of design choice as it provides the an obvious result. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece. Thus, the combination of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt is considered to be reasonable and valid. And thus, the implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece cup would not render Beijing Bofei’s device inoperable since the combination would provide the obvious result of permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Thus, the rejection of claim 10 is maintained. Dependent claims 11-16 are rejected for at least similar reasons as stated above for claim 10, and in the rejection below. Peruse the rejection below.
With regards to lines 11-13 on page 9 of Applicant’s remarks about claim 17, Applicant asserts that, for similar reasons as stated for claim 1, it is not obvious to combine Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together because it would require a substantial redesign of Beijing Bofei’s teaching to incorporate Schmidt’s eyepiece cup. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previous stated above for claim 1, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
By shifting the location of the parts by utilizing Schmidt’s eyepiece cup with Beijing Bofei’s digital display since Schmidt discloses that the purpose of using the eyepiece cup is for blocking or shielding unwanted ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, as disclosed in paragraph [13], wherein Schmidt discloses utilizing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup. Since Schmidt’s use of a eyecup provides an obvious result of shielding the ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, by simple shifting of parts or rearrangement of parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Also, upon perusal of court case, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the shifting or rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since shifting or rearranging the location of parts to achieve a result would not have modified the operation of the device. Specifically, the shifting of location of the parts (ie. implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece into Beijing Bofei’s device) would not have modified the operation of the Beijing Bofei’s device since Schmidt’s eyepiece would provide the obvious effect and result of “blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece” and permit the user to clearly view “the display of image data”. And also, perusal of court case, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein the placement of the part would be held to be an obvious matter of design choice as it provides the an obvious result. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece. Thus, the combination of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt is considered to be reasonable and valid.
With regards to lines 14-15 on page 9 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts that modifying Beijing Bofei’s teaching with Schmidt’s eyepiece cup would prevent Beijing Bofei’s device from operating as intended. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previous stated above for claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that modifying Beijing Bofei’s teaching with Schmidt’s eyecup would prevent Beijing Bofei’s device from operating as intended and undermine Beijing Bofei’s fundamental mode of operation, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
By shifting the location of the parts by utilizing Schmidt’s eyepiece cup with Beijing Bofei’s digital display since Schmidt discloses that the purpose of using the eyepiece cup is for blocking or shielding unwanted ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, as disclosed in paragraph [13], wherein Schmidt discloses utilizing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup. Since Schmidt’s use of a eyecup provides an obvious result of shielding the ambient light from interfering with the user from viewing the digital display, by simple shifting of parts or rearrangement of parts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Also, upon perusal of court case, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), wherein the shifting or rearrangement of parts is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since shifting or rearranging the location of parts to achieve a result would not have modified the operation of the device. Specifically, the shifting of location of the parts (ie. implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece into Beijing Bofei’s device) would not have modified the operation of the Beijing Bofei’s device since Schmidt’s eyepiece would provide the obvious effect and result of “blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece” and permit the user to clearly view “the display of image data”. And also, perusal of court case, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), wherein the placement of the part would be held to be an obvious matter of design choice as it provides the an obvious result. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece. Thus, the combination of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt is considered to be reasonable and valid. And thus, the implementation of Schmidt’s eyepiece cup would not render Beijing Bofei’s device inoperable since the combination would provide the obvious result of permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Thus, the rejection of claim 17 is maintained. Dependent claims 18-20 are rejected for at least similar reasons as stated above for claim 17, and in the rejection below. Peruse the rejection below.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Bofei Instrument Co. Ltd. (CN 205263401 U, see English translation of document as submitted by Applicant’s IDS) in view of Schmidt (US 2014/0226055).
Regarding claim 1, Beijing Bofei discloses an eyepiece for a telescope (paragraph [35], fig.1, Beijing Bofei discloses element 2 is an eyepiece for a telescope 1), the eyepiece comprising:
a body including a first end having a mounting barrel extending therefrom and a second end (paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel), opposite the first end (paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel);
a digital display disposed within the body (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 14 is digital display that is disposed within the body near the outer part of the barrel to permit display of image data to a user);
a camera disposed within the body adjacent to the mounting barrel (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera that is disposed within the body near the barrel, wherein paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel); and
a controller operably coupled to the digital display and to the camera (paragraph [52], fig.4, Beijing Bofei discloses U1 is STM32F103ZET6 controller or processor for controlling the processing of the captured image data and output to display the captured image data, wherein paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera, and element 14 is the digital display), the controller configured to actuate the camera to capture an image (paragraph [52], fig.4, Beijing Bofei discloses U1 is STM32F103ZET6 controller or processor for controlling the processing of the captured image data and output to display the captured image data, wherein paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera for capturing images, and element 14 is the digital display for displaying captured images) and further configured to depict the image on the digital display in near real time (paragraph [4], Beijing Bofei discloses the image data is displayed in real-time).
Beijing Bofei does not disclose supporting an eyepiece cup, a digital display disposed within the body adjacent to the eyepiece cup. However, Schmidt teaches supporting an eyepiece cup (paragraph [13], Schmidt discloses implementing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup in that the eyepiece (eye) cup is supported within the barrel for holding the eyepiece cup in place for preventing ambient light from interfering when viewing the display), a digital display disposed within the body adjacent to the eyepiece cup (paragraph [13], Schmidt discloses implementing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Bofei Instrument Co. Ltd. (CN 205263401 U, see English translation of document as submitted by Applicant’s IDS) and Schmidt (US 2014/0226055) in view of Takei (US 2022/0124243).
Regarding claim 2, Beijing Bofei discloses wherein the eyepiece is configured to support viewing through the telescope (paragraph [35], fig.1, Beijing Bofei discloses element 2 is an eyepiece for a telescope 1, wherein paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 14 is digital display that is disposed within the body near the outer part of the barrel to permit display of image data to a user through the telescope via the eyepiece).
Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the eyepiece is configured to support viewing through the telescope without a physical line of sight through the eyepiece. However, Takei teaches wherein the eyepiece is configured to support viewing through the camera without a physical line of sight through the eyepiece (paragraph [71], Takei discloses that the line-of-sight input is disabled for permitting the eyepiece unit to provide the user the display of an image without the use of a physical line of sight through the eyepiece). Since Beijing Bofei discloses “wherein the eyepiece is configured to support viewing through the telescope”, and Takei discloses “wherein the eyepiece is configured to support viewing through the camera without a physical line of sight through the eyepiece”, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Takei together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “wherein the eyepiece is configured to support viewing through the telescope without a physical line of sight through the eyepiece” in order to provide the user with a clear display of image data regardless of the presence of the physical line of sight through the eyepiece.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Bofei Instrument Co. Ltd. (CN 205263401 U, see English translation of document as submitted by Applicant’s IDS) and Schmidt (US 2014/0226055) in view of Agarawala (US 2019/0313059).
Regarding claim 3, Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the controller includes software configured to process images captured by the camera. However, Agarawala teaches wherein the controller includes software configured to process images captured by the camera (paragraph [215], Agarawala discloses computer system 4400 has memory or computer readable medium that stores instructions from logic software so that a processor or processing devices can execute the software instructions with control logic, paragraph [285], Agarawala discloses that images captured by cameras are sent to a remote location, and paragraph [79], Agarawala discloses pictures or images are automatically stacked). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Agarawala together as a whole for providing multiple viewpoint images of a scene so that uses can view and experience an interactive 3D environment (Agarawala’s paragraph [339]).
Regarding claim 4, Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the software is configured to stack the images. However, Agarawala teaches wherein the software is configured to stack the images (paragraph [215], Agarawala discloses computer system 4400 has memory or computer readable medium that stores instructions from logic software so that a processor or processing devices can execute the software instructions with control logic, paragraph [285], Agarawala discloses that images captured by cameras are sent to a remote location, and paragraph [79], Agarawala discloses pictures or images are automatically stacked). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Agarawala together as a whole for providing multiple viewpoint images of a scene so that uses can view and experience an interactive 3D environment (Agarawala’s paragraph [339]).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Bofei Instrument Co. Ltd. (CN 205263401 U, see English translation of document as submitted by Applicant’s IDS) and Schmidt (US 2014/0226055) in view of Monari (US 10,509,213).
Regarding claim 5, Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose further comprising a connectivity module configured to operably couple the controller with a remote device. However, Monari teaches a connectivity module configured to operably couple the controller with a remote device (col.93, ln.13-18, Monari discloses each mobile apparatus comprises a system controller with a WiFi module for transmitting and receiving data, and col.95, ln.52-61, Monari discloses that video imagery can be captured by mobile apparatus, and sent to an audience or numerous people for viewing remotely in a wireless manner via RF (radio frequency), and col.6, ln.65 to col.7, ln.6, Monari discloses that mobile apparatus can comprise a network of electronic circuits module for enabling the transmission of electronically captured image data from image sensor array to the observer located at a remote location, and that col.7, ln.10-19, Monari discloses mobile apparatus can transmit video data with RF (radio frequency) wirelessly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Monari together as a whole for transmitting video images remotely to an audience in real-time with no latency (Monari’s col.7, ln.31-37).
Regarding claim 6, Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the connectivity module includes a WiFi module configured to provide a wireless connection between the controller and the remote device. However, Monari teaches wherein the connectivity module includes a WiFi module configured to provide a wireless connection between the controller and the remote device (col.93, ln.13-18, Monari discloses each mobile apparatus comprises a system controller with a WiFi module for transmitting and receiving data, and col.95, ln.52-61, Monari discloses that video imagery can be captured by mobile apparatus, and sent to an audience or numerous people for viewing remotely in a wireless manner via RF (radio frequency), and col.6, ln.65 to col.7, ln.6, Monari discloses that mobile apparatus can comprise a network of electronic circuits module for enabling the transmission of electronically captured image data from image sensor array to the observer located at a remote location, and that col.7, ln.10-19, Monari discloses mobile apparatus can transmit video data with RF (radio frequency) wirelessly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Monari together as a whole for transmitting video images remotely to an audience in real-time with no latency (Monari’s col.7, ln.31-37).
Regarding claim 7, Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the controller is configured to receive operating instructions from the remote device. However, Monari teaches wherein the controller is configured to receive operating instructions from the remote device (col.7, ln.20-24, Monari discloses mobile apparatus is configured with electronic circuits in the form of electronics circuit module for enabling the observer to control the operation of the mobile apparatus from a remote location by providing operating instructions from the remote location, wherein col.95, ln. 36-42, Monari discloses camera control commands can be entered by an observer; col.93, ln.13-18, Monari discloses each mobile apparatus comprises a system controller with a WiFi module for transmitting and receiving data, and col.6, ln.65 to col.7, ln.6, Monari discloses that mobile apparatus can comprise a network of electronic circuits module for enabling the transmission of electronically captured image data from image sensor array to the observer located at a remote location, and that col.7, ln.10-19, Monari discloses mobile apparatus can transmit video data with RF (radio frequency) wirelessly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Monari together as a whole for transmitting video images remotely to an audience in real-time with no latency (Monari’s col.7, ln.31-37).
Regarding claim 8, Beijing Bofei discloses an eyepiece that is connected to a telescope for receiving images (paragraph [35], fig.1, Beijing Bofei discloses element 2 is an eyepiece for a telescope 1, wherein paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera that is disposed within the body near the barrel, wherein paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel).
Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the controller is configured to display the image on the remote device for viewing remote from the eyepiece. However, Monari teaches wherein the controller is configured to display the image on the remote device for viewing remote from the eyepiece. (col.61, ln.41-44, Monari discloses an eyepiece is utilized for a mobile apparatus for permitting display of data to an observer located at the scene, wherein col.93, ln.13-18, Monari discloses each mobile apparatus comprises a system controller with a WiFi module for transmitting and receiving data, and col.95, ln.52-61, Monari discloses that video imagery can be captured by mobile apparatus, and sent to an audience or numerous people for viewing remotely in a wireless manner via RF (radio frequency), and col.6, ln.65 to col.7, ln.6, Monari discloses that mobile apparatus can comprise a network of electronic circuits module for enabling the transmission of electronically captured image data from image sensor array to the observer located at a remote location, and that col.7, ln.10-19, Monari discloses mobile apparatus can transmit video data with RF (radio frequency) wirelessly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Monari together as a whole for transmitting video images remotely to an audience in real-time with no latency (Monari’s col.7, ln.31-37).
Regarding claim 9, Beijing Bofei discloses wherein the controller is configured to display the image on the digital display (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera for capturing images, and element 14 is the digital display for displaying captured images).
Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the controller is configured to display the image on the remote device simultaneously with depicting the image on the digital display. However, Monari teaches wherein the controller is configured to display the image on the remote device simultaneously with depicting the image on the digital display (col.61, ln.41-44, Monari discloses an eyepiece is utilized for a mobile apparatus for permitting display of data to an observer located at the scene, and col.93, ln.3-8, Monari discloses simultaneous communication, transmission and reception of data with WiFi (wireless) communication of video data for permitting display of images to the observer and the audience (ie.remote viewers), wherein col.93, ln.13-18, Monari discloses each mobile apparatus comprises a system controller with a WiFi module for transmitting and receiving data, and col.95, ln.52-61, Monari discloses that video imagery can be captured by mobile apparatus, and sent to an audience or numerous people for viewing remotely in a wireless manner via RF (radio frequency), and col.6, ln.65 to col.7, ln.6, Monari discloses that mobile apparatus can comprise a network of electronic circuits module for enabling the transmission of electronically captured image data from image sensor array to the observer located at a remote location, and that col.7, ln.10-19, Monari discloses mobile apparatus can transmit video data with RF (radio frequency) wirelessly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Monari together as a whole for transmitting video images remotely to an audience in real-time with no latency (Monari’s col.7, ln.31-37).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Bofei Instrument Co. Ltd. (CN 205263401 U, see English translation of document as submitted by Applicant’s IDS) and Schmidt (US 2014/0226055) in view of Lee (US 2023/0198567).
Regarding claim 10, Beijing Bofei discloses an eyepiece for a telescope (paragraph [35], fig.1, Beijing Bofei discloses element 2 is an eyepiece for a telescope 1), the eyepiece comprising:
a body including a first end having a mounting barrel extending therefrom and a second end (paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel), opposite the first end (paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel);
a digital display disposed within the body (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 14 is digital display that is disposed within the body near the outer part of the barrel to permit display of image data to a user);
a camera disposed within the body adjacent to the mounting barrel (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera that is disposed within the body near the barrel, wherein paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel); and
a controller operably coupled to the digital display and to the camera (paragraph [52], fig.4, Beijing Bofei discloses U1 is STM32F103ZET6 controller or processor for controlling the processing of the captured image data and output to display the captured image data, wherein paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera, and element 14 is the digital display), the controller configured to actuate the camera to capture an image (paragraph [52], fig.4, Beijing Bofei discloses U1 is STM32F103ZET6 controller or processor for controlling the processing of the captured image data and output to display the captured image data, wherein paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera for capturing images, and element 14 is the digital display for displaying captured images) and further configured to depict the image on the digital display (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 14 is digital display for depicting the image).
Beijing Bofei does not disclose supporting an eyepiece cup, a digital display disposed within the body adjacent to the eyepiece cup. However, Schmidt teaches supporting an eyepiece cup (paragraph [13], Schmidt discloses implementing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup in that the eyepiece (eye) cup is supported within the barrel for holding the eyepiece cup in place for preventing ambient light from interfering when viewing the display), a digital display disposed within the body adjacent to the eyepiece cup (paragraph [13], Schmidt discloses implementing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose a temperature regulating system configured to maintain the controller within a desired operating temperature range. Lee teaches a temperature regulating system configured to maintain the controller within a desired operating temperature range (paragraph [36], Lee discloses processor (controller) 104 controls the fan 118 for controlling the temperature of the processor, wherein a heat sink 116 is also implemented along with the fan for regulating the temperature of the processor, based on the temperature of the heat sink, the processor controls the rotations per minute of the fan, and paragraph [37], Lee discloses that if the heat sink temperature falls below a threshold temperature, then the speed of the fan is reduced, whereas if the heat sink temperature is above the threshold temperature, then the fan speed is increased to ensure that the processor stays cool, thus regulating the temperature of the processor to ensure the processor meets within a desired operating temperature range). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee together as a whole for ensuring the controller (ie. processor) stays at a proper, cool temperature so as to maintain optimal operation while avoiding overheating and damage to the components of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 11, Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the temperature regulating system includes a thermoelectric cooler. However, Lee teaches wherein the temperature regulating system includes a thermoelectric cooler (paragraph [36], Lee discloses processor (controller) 104 controls the fan 118 for controlling the temperature of the processor, wherein a heat sink 116 is also implemented along with the fan for regulating the temperature of the processor, based on the temperature of the heat sink, the processor controls the rotations per minute of the fan, and paragraph [37], Lee discloses that if the heat sink temperature falls below a threshold temperature, then the speed of the fan is reduced, whereas if the heat sink temperature is above the threshold temperature, then the fan speed is increased to ensure that the processor stays cool, thus regulating the temperature of the processor to ensure the processor meets within a desired operating temperature range, thus the fan functions as a thermoelectric cooler). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee together as a whole for ensuring the controller (ie. processor) stays at a proper, cool temperature so as to maintain optimal operation while avoiding overheating and damage to the components of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 12, Beijing Bofei discloses a camera (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera that is disposed within the body near the barrel).
Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the temperature regulating system includes a heat sink in thermal communication with the camera and with the thermoelectric cooler. However, Lee teaches wherein the temperature regulating system includes a heat sink in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler (paragraph [36], Lee discloses processor (controller) 104 controls the fan 118 for controlling the temperature of the processor, wherein a heat sink 116 is also implemented along with the fan for regulating the temperature of the processor, based on the temperature of the heat sink, the processor controls the rotations per minute of the fan, and paragraph [37], Lee discloses that if the heat sink temperature falls below a threshold temperature, then the speed of the fan is reduced, whereas if the heat sink temperature is above the threshold temperature, then the fan speed is increased to ensure that the processor stays cool, thus regulating the temperature of the processor to ensure the processor meets within a desired operating temperature range, thus, the fan is the thermoelectric cooler).
Since Beijing Bofei discloses a camera, and Lee discloses wherein the temperature regulating system includes a heat sink in thermal communication with the thermoelectric cooler, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “wherein the temperature regulating system includes a heat sink in thermal communication with the camera and with the thermoelectric cooler” in order to ensure the controller (ie. processor) stays at a proper, cool temperature so as to maintain optimal operation while avoiding overheating and damage to the components of the electronic device.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Bofei Instrument Co. Ltd. (CN 205263401 U, see English translation of document as submitted by Applicant’s IDS), Schmidt (US 2014/0226055) and Lee (US 2023/0198567) in view of Luckcuck (US 2024/0081556).
Regarding claim 13, Beijing Bofei does not disclose implementing an eyepiece cup. However, Schmidt teaches implementing an eyepiece cup (paragraph [13], Schmidt discloses implementing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup in that the eyepiece (eye) cup is supported within the barrel for holding the eyepiece cup in place for preventing ambient light from interfering when viewing the display). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose the temperature regulating system. However, Lee teaches the temperature regulating system (paragraph [36], Lee discloses processor (controller) 104 controls the fan 118 for controlling the temperature of the processor, wherein a heat sink 116 is also implemented along with the fan for regulating the temperature of the processor, based on the temperature of the heat sink, the processor controls the rotations per minute of the fan, and paragraph [37], Lee discloses that if the heat sink temperature falls below a threshold temperature, then the speed of the fan is reduced, whereas if the heat sink temperature is above the threshold temperature, then the fan speed is increased to ensure that the processor stays cool, thus regulating the temperature of the processor to ensure the processor meets within a desired operating temperature range). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee together as a whole for ensuring the controller (ie. processor) stays at a proper, cool temperature so as to maintain optimal operation while avoiding overheating and damage to the components of the electronic device.
Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee do not disclose wherein the temperature regulating system is further configured to regulate a temperature of the eyepiece cup to limit the buildup of condensation within the eyepiece cup. However, Luckcuck teaches wherein the temperature regulating system is further configured to regulate a temperature of display case to limit the buildup of condensation (paragraph [12], Luckcuck discloses temperature regulation and management with the utilization of a heating element 44 to raise the temperature of the display case for managing condensation of the display case, and thus conceptually limiting the buildup of condensation on the display case).
Since Beijing Bofei discloses implementing an eyepiece cup, Lee discloses the temperature regulating system, and Luckcuck discloses wherein the temperature regulating system is further configured to regulate a temperature of display case to limit the buildup of condensation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt, Lee and Luckcuck together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “wherein the temperature regulating system is further configured to regulate a temperature of the eyepiece cup to limit the buildup of condensation within the eyepiece cup” in order to prevent the eyepiece cup from unwanted moisture from showing on the display so as to permit a user to clearly view the images on the display.
Regarding claim 14, Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee do not disclose wherein the condensation limiting system includes a heating element. However, Luckcuck teaches wherein the condensation limiting system includes a heating element (paragraph [12], Luckcuck discloses temperature regulation and management with the utilization of a heating element 44 to raise the temperature of the display case for managing condensation of the display case, and thus conceptually limiting the buildup of condensation on the display case). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt, Lee and Luckcuck together as a whole for preventing the eyepiece cup from unwanted moisture from showing on the display so as to permit a user to clearly view the images on the display.
Regarding claim 15, Beijing Bofei does not disclose implementing an eyepiece cup. However, Schmidt teaches implementing an eyepiece cup (paragraph [13], Schmidt discloses implementing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup in that the eyepiece (eye) cup is supported within the barrel for holding the eyepiece cup in place for preventing ambient light from interfering when viewing the display). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose the temperature regulating system. However, Lee teaches the temperature regulating system (paragraph [36], Lee discloses processor (controller) 104 controls the fan 118 for controlling the temperature of the processor, wherein a heat sink 116 is also implemented along with the fan for regulating the temperature of the processor, based on the temperature of the heat sink, the processor controls the rotations per minute of the fan, and paragraph [37], Lee discloses that if the heat sink temperature falls below a threshold temperature, then the speed of the fan is reduced, whereas if the heat sink temperature is above the threshold temperature, then the fan speed is increased to ensure that the processor stays cool, thus regulating the temperature of the processor to ensure the processor meets within a desired operating temperature range). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee together as a whole for ensuring the controller (ie. processor) stays at a proper, cool temperature so as to maintain optimal operation while avoiding overheating and damage to the components of the electronic device.
Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee do not disclose wherein the temperature regulating system further includes a condensation limiting system configured to limit the buildup of condensation within the eyepiece cup. However, Luckcuck teaches wherein the temperature regulating system further includes a condensation limiting system configured to limit the buildup of condensation (paragraph [12], Luckcuck discloses temperature regulation and management with the utilization of a heating element 44 to raise the temperature of the display case for managing and limiting the condensation of the display case, and thus conceptually limiting the buildup of condensation on the display case).
Since Beijing Bofei discloses implementing an eyepiece cup, Lee discloses the temperature regulating system, and Luckcuck discloses wherein the temperature regulating system further includes a condensation limiting system configured to limit the buildup of condensation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt, Lee and Luckcuck together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “wherein the temperature regulating system further includes a condensation limiting system configured to limit the buildup of condensation within the eyepiece cup” in order to prevent the eyepiece cup from unwanted moisture from showing on the display so as to permit a user to clearly view the images on the display.
Regarding claim 16, Beijing Bofei teaches implementing a digital display (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 14 is digital display that is disposed within the body).
Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the temperature regulating system is further configured to regulate a temperature. However, Lee teaches the temperature regulating system if further configured to regulate a temperature (paragraph [36], Lee discloses processor (controller) 104 controls the fan 118 for controlling the temperature of the processor, wherein a heat sink 116 is also implemented along with the fan for regulating the temperature of the processor, based on the temperature of the heat sink, the processor controls the rotations per minute of the fan, and paragraph [37], Lee discloses that if the heat sink temperature falls below a threshold temperature, then the speed of the fan is reduced, whereas if the heat sink temperature is above the threshold temperature, then the fan speed is increased to ensure that the processor stays cool, thus regulating the temperature of the processor to ensure the processor meets within a desired operating temperature range). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee together as a whole for ensuring the controller (ie. processor) stays at a proper, cool temperature so as to maintain optimal operation while avoiding overheating and damage to the components of the electronic device.
Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Lee do not disclose wherein the temperature regulating system is further configured to regulate a temperature of the digital display. However, Luckcuck teaches wherein the temperature regulating system is further configured to regulate a temperature of the display case (paragraph [12], Luckcuck discloses temperature regulation and management with the utilization of a heating element 44 to raise the temperature of the display case for managing and limiting the condensation of the display case, and thus conceptually limiting the buildup of condensation on the display case).
Since Beijing Bofei discloses implementing a digital display, Lee discloses the temperature regulating system if further configured to regulate a temperature, and Luckcuck discloses wherein the temperature regulating system is further configured to regulate a temperature of the display case, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt, Lee and Luckcuck together as a whole for ascertaining the limitation “wherein the temperature regulating system is further configured to regulate a temperature of the digital display” in order to prevent the eyepiece cup from unwanted moisture from showing on the display so as to permit a user to clearly view the images on the display.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Bofei Instrument Co. Ltd. (CN 205263401 U, see English translation of document as submitted by Applicant’s IDS) and Schmidt (US 2014/0226055) in view of Glatter (US 2010/0128366).
Regarding claim 17, Beijing Bofei discloses an eyepiece for a telescope (paragraph [35], fig.1, Beijing Bofei discloses element 2 is an eyepiece for a telescope 1), the eyepiece comprising:
a body including a first end having a mounting barrel extending therefrom and a second end (paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel), opposite the first end (paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel);
a digital display disposed within the body (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 14 is digital display that is disposed within the body near the outer part of the barrel to permit display of image data to a user);
a camera disposed within the body adjacent to the second end (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera that is disposed within the body near the barrel, wherein paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel); and
a controller operably coupled to the digital display and to the camera (paragraph [52], fig.4, Beijing Bofei discloses U1 is STM32F103ZET6 controller or processor for controlling the processing of the captured image data and output to display the captured image data, wherein paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera, and element 14 is the digital display), the controller configured to actuate the camera to capture an image (paragraph [52], fig.4, Beijing Bofei discloses U1 is STM32F103ZET6 controller or processor for controlling the processing of the captured image data and output to display the captured image data, wherein paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera for capturing images, and element 14 is the digital display for displaying captured images) and further configured to depict the image on the digital display (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 14 is digital display for depicting the image).
Beijing Bofei does not disclose supporting an eyepiece cup, a digital display disposed within the body adjacent to the eyepiece cup. However, Schmidt teaches supporting an eyepiece cup (paragraph [13], Schmidt discloses implementing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup in that the eyepiece (eye) cup is supported within the barrel for holding the eyepiece cup in place for preventing ambient light from interfering when viewing the display), a digital display disposed within the body adjacent to the eyepiece cup (paragraph [13], Schmidt discloses implementing an eyepiece (eye) cup 18 that shields the eyepiece from ambient light so as to permit the user to view the LCD display without glare or unwanted illumination so that images can be viewed in a clear manner, and that LCD display is disposed within the body adjacent or near the eyepiece (eye) cup).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei and Schmidt together as a whole for permitting the display of image data by blocking unwanted light from interfering with the user when viewing images through the eyepiece.
Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the mounting barrel has a diameter that corresponds with a diameter of a focuser tube of the telescope. However, Glatter teaches wherein the mounting barrel has a diameter that corresponds with a diameter of a focuser tube of the telescope (paragraph [32], Glatter discloses that cylindrical barrel can be mounted on optical imaging devices, wherein paragraph [31], Glatter discloses that optical accessory holder 10 can be integrated with the telescope draw tube (ie. focuser tube) for functioning as a focusing mechanism for telescopic applications, and paragraph [34], Glatter discloses optical accessory is an eyepiece, wherein paragraph [40], Glatter discloses the optical accessory has a barrel diameter of 2 inches, thus corresponding with the diameter of the optical device (ie. telescope) for providing focus). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Glatter together as a whole for permitting accurate focusing of optical devices while minimizing misalignments during imaging applications (Glatter’s paragraph [47], last sentence).
Regarding claim 20, Beijing Bofei and Schmidt do not disclose wherein the diameter of the mounting barrel is 2 inches. However, Glatter teaches wherein the diameter of the mounting barrel is 2 inches (paragraph [32], Glatter discloses that cylindrical barrel can be mounted on optical imaging devices, wherein paragraph [31], Glatter discloses that optical accessory holder 10 can be integrated with the telescope draw tube (ie. focuser tube) for functioning as a focusing mechanism for telescopic applications, and paragraph [34], Glatter discloses optical accessory is an eyepiece, wherein paragraph [40], Glatter discloses the optical accessory has a barrel diameter of 2 inches, thus corresponding with the diameter of the optical device (ie. telescope) for providing focus). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Glatter together as a whole for permitting accurate focusing of optical devices while minimizing misalignments during imaging applications (Glatter’s paragraph [47], last sentence).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Bofei Instrument Co. Ltd. (CN 205263401 U, see English translation of document as submitted by Applicant’s IDS), Schmidt (US 2014/0226055) and Glatter (US 2010/0128366) in view of Monari (US 10,509,213).
Regarding claim 18, Beijing Bofei discloses a power chip to provide power to one or more component of the eyepiece (paragraph [61], Beijing Bofei discloses U3 is the power chip that provides power for the electronic eyepiece imaging system 2 of fig.1).
Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Glatter do not disclose a battery to provide power to one or more component of the eyepiece. However, Monari teaches implementing a battery to provide power to one or more component of the eyepiece (col.166, ln.7-11, Monari discloses implementing the battery and electronics control module A15 provides power to one or more component of the eyepiece module A2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt, Glatter and Monari together as a whole for properly providing power to the eyepiece so that the user can appropriately obtain image data viewing through the eyepiece’s display for ascertaining the perspective of scene as viewed.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beijing Bofei Instrument Co. Ltd. (CN 205263401 U, see English translation of document as submitted by Applicant’s IDS), Schmidt (US 2014/0226055) and Glatter (US 2010/0128366) in view of Chen (US 2016/0305743).
Regarding claim 19, Beijing Bofei discloses wherein the controller (paragraph [52], fig.4, Beijing Bofei discloses U1 is STM32F103ZET6 controller or processor for controlling the processing of the captured image data and output to display the captured image data, and wherein the controller STM32F103ZET6 is placed within the eyepiece, wherein paragraph [35-36], Beijing Bofei discloses that matching core processing circuit is installed inside the electronic eyepiece imaging system 2, and paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera, and element 14 is the digital display) is disposed inside the body of eyepiece with the digital display and the camera within the body of the eyepiece (paragraph [48], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 9 is camera that is disposed within the body near the barrel, wherein paragraph [38], fig.2, Beijing Bofei discloses element 6 is mounting barrel, and that paragraph [41], Beijing Bofei discloses that element 11 is utilized to adjust the eyepiece to be extended from one end to another end of the barrel).
Beijing Bofei, Schmidt and Glatter do not disclose wherein the controller is disposed between the digital display and the camera within the body of the eyepiece. However, Chen teaches wherein the controller is disposed between the digital display and the camera within the body of the eyepiece (paragraph [31], in fig.2, Chen discloses a sight device (eyepiece) S with housing S', and in fig.3, Chen discloses within the housing of eyepiece S, the processor 130 is placed in between image sensor 120 and display 140). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beijing Bofei, Schmidt, Glatter and Chen together as a whole for permitting the placement of electronic parts to be properly located so as to permit an unobstructed view of the eyepiece for image capturing purposes in order to have a clear view the captured image data.
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 Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7341. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm.
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, Sath V Perungavoor can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLEN C WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights