DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024, 04/04/2025, 12/01/2025, and 12/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics and every line, number, or letter is not durable, clean sufficiently dense and ark, or uniformly thick or well-defined, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). Specifically, Figs. 1-5, 7, 10-11, 14, 26, 30-31, 33-37, and 49 include lines, number, charters, and letters that are either illegible or not clearly defined. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites that “the image generated by the active display is selected from the group consisting of: text, alpha-numerics, graphics, symbols, video imagery, icons, active target reticles, range measurements, wind information, GPS and compass information, firearm inclination information, target finding, recognition and identification (ID) information, external sensor information, temperature, pressure, humidity, real time ballistic solutions, and next round ballistic correction through in-flight tracer round detection and tracking.” However, the list of possible images for the active display include several choices that are not clearly defined and overlap with one another. Specifically, as all text is an alpha-numeric, and all alpha-numerics are graphics and/or symbols and/or icons, it is unclear what is intended to be encompassed by each choice. Specifically, as “active target reticles, range measurements, wind information, GPS and compass information, firearm inclination information, target finding, recognition and identification (ID) information, external sensor information, temperature, pressure, humidity, real time ballistic solutions, and next round ballistic correction through in-flight tracer round detection and tracking” each include text, alpha-numerics, graphics, symbols, video imagery, or icons, it is unclear what is encompassed by each of these choices. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For the purposes of examination, any image that includes any graphics will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation, since each of the other choices necessarily includes graphics.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,180,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1, 11, and 17, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-24.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,732,399. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1 and 16, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 2-15 and 17-18.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,606,061. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1, 10, and 14, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 2-9, 11-13, and 15-20.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,520,716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1, 12, and 19, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20-29.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,866,402. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1, 6, and 16, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 42-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 2-5 and 7-15.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,675,180. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1, 11, and 17, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-19.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,480,781. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1, 10, and 16, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-19.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,852,524. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 10 and 14, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 10-16.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,187,884. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 11 and 15, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 11-19.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,619,807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1-2, 5, 9-11, 14-17, and 19, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 1-19.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,921,279. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1, 5, and 11, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 1-17.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,927,739. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1 and 14, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 1-17.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,940,612. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1 and 12, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 1-18.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,270,984. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1 and 12, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 1-18.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/601,288 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1 and 16, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 1-20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/991,876 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1 and 12, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 1-16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 19/172,508 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claim 1 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1 and 12, which require the details of the viewing optic and body. Additionally, instant claims 2-12 are fully encompassed and met by reference claims 1-18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pernstich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,771,623; hereinafter – “Pernstich”).
Regarding claim 1, Pernstich teaches a viewing optic comprising:
a main body (1) having an optical system having an objective lens system (8) that focuses a target image from an outward scene to a first focal plane (7), an erector lens system (3) that inverts the target image, a beam combiner (11, 12, 13, 14) located between the objective lens systems (8) and the first focal plane (7); and an ocular lens system (6) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4; C. 4, L. 17-36; C. 5, L. 58 – C. 6, L. 21);
an active display (22) configured to generate an image (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 5, L. 7-34),
a collector lens (25, 26) system that collects the light from the active display (22) (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 5, L. 7-34);
a reflective material (14, 24) that directs the image from the active display to the beam combiner (11, 12, 13, 14), wherein the collector lens system (25, 26) is located between the active display (22) and the reflective material (14, 24); and further wherein the image from the active display (22) and the target image from the objective lens system (8) are combined into the first focal plane (7) (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 4, L. 17-36; C. 5, L. 7-34).
Regarding claim 3, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches a controller (27, 44, 45) coupled to the active display, the controller configured to selectively power one or more display elements to generate the image (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 4, L. 17-36; C. 5, L. 7 – C. 6, L. 21).
Regarding claim 4, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches that the active display is selected from the group consisting of: a transmissive active matrix LCD display (AMLCD), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, a Light-Emitting Diode (LED) display, an e-ink display, a plasma display, a segment display, an electroluminescent display, a surface-conduction electron-emitter display, and a quantum dot display (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 3, L. 2-24; C. 5, L. 7-34).
Regarding claim 5, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches that the image generated by the active display is selected from the group consisting of: text, alpha-numerics, graphics, symbols, video imagery, icons, active target reticles, range measurements, wind information, GPS and compass information, firearm inclination information, target finding, recognition and identification (ID) information, external sensor information, temperature, pressure, humidity, real time ballistic solutions, and next round ballistic correction through in-flight tracer round detection and tracking (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 3, L. 2-24; C. 3, L. 51-62; C. 5, L. 7 – C. 6, L. 21).
Regarding claim 6, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches that the image generated from the active display is firearm inclination information (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 3, L. 2-24; C. 3, L. 51-62; C. 5, L. 7 – C. 6, L. 21).
Additionally, while Pernstich teaches display distance and ballistic information reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “firearm inclination information,” the limitation “the image generated from the active display is firearm inclination information” has not been provided patentable weight as “USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP §2111.05). In the instant case, “firearm inclination information” does not provide a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate since the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader (i.e. displaying inclination information) independent of the supporting product (the viewing optic).
Regarding claim 7, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches that the image generated from the active display is a real time ballistic solution (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 3, L. 2-24; C. 3, L. 51-62; C. 5, L. 7 – C. 6, L. 21).
Regarding claim 8, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches that the image generated from the active display is an active target reticle (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 3, L. 2-24; C. 3, L. 51-62; C. 5, L. 7 – C. 6, L. 21).
Regarding claim 9, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches that the image generated from the active display is a range measurement (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 3, L. 2-24; C. 3, L. 51-62; C. 5, L. 7 – C. 6, L. 21).
Regarding claim 10, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches a laser rangefinder (18, 21) coupled to a top portion of the main body (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 4, L. 37-65; C. 5, L. 7 – C. 6, L. 21).
Regarding claim 12, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches that the collector lens system has an inner lens cell (25) and an outer lens cell (26) (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 5, L. 7-34).
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2005/0219690; hereinafter – “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a viewing optic comprising:
a main body (80) having an optical system having an objective lens system (81) that focuses a target image from an outward scene to a first focal plane (88), an erector lens system (85) that inverts the target image, a beam combiner (820, 830, 861) located between the objective lens systems (81) and the first focal plane (88); and an ocular lens system (17) (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007);
an active display (86) configured to generate an image (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007),
a collector lens (860) system that collects the light from the active display (22) (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007);
a reflective material (see e.g. Figs. 3-4) that directs the image from the active display to the beam combiner (820, 830, 861), wherein the collector lens system (860) is located between the active display (86) and the reflective material; and further wherein the image from the active display (86) and the target image from the objective lens system (81) are combined into the first focal plane (88) (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches a controller coupled to the active display, the controller configured to selectively power one or more display elements to generate the image (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches that the active display is selected from the group consisting of: a transmissive active matrix LCD display (AMLCD), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, a Light-Emitting Diode (LED) display, an e-ink display, a plasma display, a segment display, an electroluminescent display, a surface-conduction electron-emitter display, and a quantum dot display (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches that the image generated by the active display is selected from the group consisting of: text, alpha-numerics, graphics, symbols, video imagery, icons, active target reticles, range measurements, wind information, GPS and compass information, firearm inclination information, target finding, recognition and identification (ID) information, external sensor information, temperature, pressure, humidity, real time ballistic solutions, and next round ballistic correction through in-flight tracer round detection and tracking (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches that the image generated from the active display is firearm inclination information (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Additionally, while Lin teaches display distance and ballistic information reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “firearm inclination information,” the limitation “the image generated from the active display is firearm inclination information” has not been provided patentable weight as “USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP §2111.05). In the instant case, “firearm inclination information” does not provide a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate since the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader (i.e. displaying inclination information) independent of the supporting product (the viewing optic).
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches that the image generated from the active display is a real time ballistic solution (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 8, Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches that the image generated from the active display is an active target reticle (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches that the image generated from the active display is a range measurement (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches a laser rangefinder (82, 83) coupled to a top portion of the main body (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
Regarding claim 12, Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches that the collector lens system has an inner lens cell and an outer lens cell (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0005-0007).
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 Pernstich in view of Morley (U.S. Patent No. 5,903,996).
Regarding claim 2, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of claim 1, as above.
Pernstich fails to explicitly disclose that the collector lens system is a 5 lens system having 3 singlet lenses and 1 doublet lens.
However, Morley teaches a viewing device including a display (50) with a lens system (84) collecting light from the display and being a 5 lens system with 3 singlet lenses and 1 doublet lens (Fig. 2b; C. 9, L. 46-64).
Morley teaches this system "so that the user 12 can see these two images superimposed on one another if both are present" (Fig. 2b; C. 9, L. 46-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the viewing optic of Pernstich with the 3 singlet lenses and 1 doublet lens of Morley "so that the user 12 can see these two images superimposed on one another if both are present," as taught by Morley (C. 9, L. 46-64).
Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pernstich in view of Brumfield (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2013/0033746).
Regarding claim 6, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Pernstich further teaches that the image generated from the active display is firearm inclination information (See e.g. Figs. 2 and 4; C. 3, L. 2-24; C. 3, L. 51-62; C. 5, L. 7 – C. 6, L. 21).
Additionally, while Pernstich teaches display distance and ballistic information reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “firearm inclination information,” the limitation “the image generated from the active display is firearm inclination information” has not been provided patentable weight as “USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP §2111.05). In the instant case, “firearm inclination information” does not provide a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate since the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader (i.e. displaying inclination information) independent of the supporting product (the viewing optic).
Nevertheless, Brumfield teaches a viewing optic having an objective (10) and a beam combiner (65) with an active display configured to generate an image wherein the image generated from the active display is firearm inclination information (See e.g. Figs. 5-9; Paragraphs 0003-0007, 0036-0041, and 0052-0060).
Brumfield teaches displaying firearm inclination information “to assist the shooter in acquiring information, or adjusting for variables relating to weapon inclination, crosswinds, or other shooting conditions” (Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, even if Pernstich did not disclose the claimed firearm inclination information, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the viewing optic of Pernstich to display firearm inclination information as suggested by Brumfield “to assist the shooter in acquiring information, or adjusting for variables relating to weapon inclination, crosswinds, or other shooting conditions,” as taught by Brumfield (Paragraph 0003), and since it has been held that manners relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding claim 11, Pernstich teaches the viewing optic of claim 1, as above.
Pernstich fails to explicitly disclose that the beam combiner is located from 5 to 25 mm from the objective assembly.
However, Brumfield teaches a viewing optic having an objective (10) and a beam combiner (65) located within 5 mm of the focal plane of the objective (Paragraphs 0007 and 0032).
Brumfield teaches this distance between the objective and the beam combiner "so that the apparent size of the reticle is not changed when the image is magnified" (Paragraphs 0007 and 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optic and system of Pernstich to satisfy the claimed limitation as in Brumfield, "so that the apparent size of the reticle is not changed when the image is magnified" as taught by Brumfield (Paragraphs 0007 and 0032), since such a modification would have merely required a change in size, i.e. scaling, of the entire optic of Pernstich, and it has been held that mere scaling of a prior art device is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scrogin (U.S. Patent No. 7,516,571) in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 1, Scrogin teaches a viewing optic comprising:
a main body (12) having an optical system having an objective lens system (30) that focuses a target image from an outward scene to a first focal plane (24), an erector lens system (22) that inverts the target image, a beam combiner (28) located between the objective lens systems (30) and the first focal plane (24); and an ocular lens system (20) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; C. 3, L. 50 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 4, L. 61 – C. 5, L. 3; C. 6, L. 15 – C. 7, L. 11);
an active display (48) configured to generate an image (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; C. 3, L. 50 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 4, L. 61 – C. 5, L. 3; C. 6, L. 15 – C. 7, L. 11),
a collector lens system (52) that collects the light from the active display (48) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; C. 3, L. 50 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 4, L. 61 – C. 5, L. 3; C. 6, L. 15 – C. 7, L. 11);
a reflective material (50) that directs the image from the active display to the beam combiner (28), wherein the collector lens system (52) is located between the active display (48) and the beam combiner (28); and further wherein the image from the active display (48) and the target image from the objective lens system (30) are combined into the first focal plane (24) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; C. 3, L. 50 – C. 4, L. 4; C. 4, L. 61 – C. 5, L. 3; C. 6, L. 15 – C. 7, L. 11).
Scrogin fails to explicitly disclose that the collector lens system is located between the active display and the reflective material.
However, Lin teaches a riflescope comprising an optical system (10) with an objective lens (17), a beam combiner (161), an active display (16), and a reflective material (162), wherein a collector lens system (160) is located between the active display and the reflective material (See e.g. Figs. 7-9; Paragraphs 0025-0026 and 0028).
Lin teaches this collector lens system between the active display and the reflective material such that “productivity thus can be improved since only the beam splitter specification of a single prism, not a composite prism, is required to control” (Paragraph 0028) as it “ensures that both the image of data of the range displayed by the display panel and the reticle size will not be affected by the erector lens, whereby sharp growing or shrinkage of the image of data of the range and the reticle size accompanying the magnification increase or decrease is prevented, and thus the shooter's vision feeling can be significantly improved” (Paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the viewing optic of Scrogin such that the collector lens system is between the active display and the reflective material as in Lin such that “productivity thus can be improved since only the beam splitter specification of a single prism, not a composite prism, is required to control” as it “ensures that both the image of data of the range displayed by the display panel and the reticle size will not be affected by the erector lens, whereby sharp growing or shrinkage of the image of data of the range and the reticle size accompanying the magnification increase or decrease is prevented, and thus the shooter's vision feeling can be significantly improved,” as taught by Lin (Paragraphs 0012 and 0028), and since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 3, Scrogin in view of Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Scrogin further teaches a controller (38, 41, 47) coupled to the active display, the controller configured to selectively power one or more display elements to generate the image (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 4, L. 28 – C. 5, L. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Scrogin in view of Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Scrogin further teaches that the active display is selected from the group consisting of: a transmissive active matrix LCD display (AMLCD), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, a Light-Emitting Diode (LED) display, an e-ink display, a plasma display, a segment display, an electroluminescent display, a surface-conduction electron-emitter display, and a quantum dot display (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 4, L. 61 – C. 5, L. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Scrogin in view of Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Scrogin further teaches that the image generated by the active display is selected from the group consisting of: text, alpha-numerics, graphics, symbols, video imagery, icons, active target reticles, range measurements, wind information, GPS and compass information, firearm inclination information, target finding, recognition and identification (ID) information, external sensor information, temperature, pressure, humidity, real time ballistic solutions, and next round ballistic correction through in-flight tracer round detection and tracking (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 5, L. 4 – C. 6, L. 34; C. 7, L. 5-34).
Regarding claim 6, Scrogin in view of Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Scrogin further teaches that the image generated from the active display is firearm inclination information (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 5, L. 4 – C. 6, L. 34; C. 7, L. 5-34).
Regarding claim 7, Scrogin in view of Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Scrogin further teaches that the image generated from the active display is a real time ballistic solution (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 5, L. 4 – C. 6, L. 34; C. 7, L. 5-34).
Regarding claim 8, Scrogin in view of Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Scrogin further teaches that the image generated from the active display is an active target reticle (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 5, L. 4 – C. 6, L. 34; C. 7, L. 5-34).
Regarding claim 9, Scrogin in view of Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Scrogin further teaches that the image generated from the active display is a range measurement (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 5, L. 4 – C. 6, L. 34; C. 7, L. 5-34).
Regarding claim 10, Scrogin in view of Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Scrogin further teaches a laser rangefinder (16) coupled to a top portion of the main body (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; C. 3, L. 41-49; C. 4, L. 18-27: Here Scrogin teaches a laser rangefinder 16 provided on the body 12 and thus necessarily coupled through the body to a top portion of the body).
Additionally, although Scrogin teaches a laser rangefinder provided on the body which reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Scrogin fails to explicitly disclose that the laser rangefinder is provided on a top portion of the body of the viewing optic.
However, Lin further teaches a laser rangefinder (12) coupled to a top portion of the body of the viewing optic (See e.g. Figs. 7-9; Paragraphs 0025-0027).
Lin teaches this rangefinder coupled to the top of the viewing optic such that “productivity thus can be improved since only the beam splitter specification of a single prism, not a composite prism, is required to control” (Paragraph 0028) as it “ensures that both the image of data of the range displayed by the display panel and the reticle size will not be affected by the erector lens, whereby sharp growing or shrinkage of the image of data of the range and the reticle size accompanying the magnification increase or decrease is prevented, and thus the shooter's vision feeling can be significantly improved” (Paragraph 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the viewing optic of Scrogin such that the rangefinder is coupled to the top of the viewing optic as in Lin such that “productivity thus can be improved since only the beam splitter specification of a single prism, not a composite prism, is required to control” as it “ensures that both the image of data of the range displayed by the display panel and the reticle size will not be affected by the erector lens, whereby sharp growing or shrinkage of the image of data of the range and the reticle size accompanying the magnification increase or decrease is prevented, and thus the shooter's vision feeling can be significantly improved,” as taught by Lin (Paragraphs 0012 and 0028), and since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 12, Scrogin in view of Lin teaches the viewing optic of Claim 1, as above.
Lin further teaches that the collector lens system has an inner lens cell and an outer lens cell See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 7-9; Paragraphs 0005-0007 and 0025-0028).
Claim(s) 2 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin or Scrogin in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morley.
Regarding claim 2, Lin and Scrogin in view of Lin each teaches the viewing optic of claim 1, as above.
Scrogin further teaches that the optical system includes a 5 lens system (See e.g. Fig. 1; C. 3, L. 50-C. 4, L. 4; C. 4, L. 61-C. 5, L. 3).
Scrogin and Lin fail to explicitly disclose that the collector lens system is a 5 lens system having 3 singlet lenses and 1 doublet lens.
However, Morley teaches a viewing device including a display (50) with a lens system (84) collecting light from the display and being a 5 lens system with 3 singlet lenses and 1 doublet lens (Fig. 2b; C. 9, L. 46-64).
Morley teaches this system "so that the user 12 can see these two images superimposed on one another if both are present" (Fig. 2b; C. 9, L. 46-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the viewing optic of Lin or Scrogin with the 3 singlet lenses and 1 doublet lens of Morley "so that the user 12 can see these two images superimposed on one another if both are present," as taught by Morley (C. 9, L. 46-64).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin or Scrogin in view of Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brumfield.
Regarding claim 11, Lin and Scrogin in view of Lin each teaches the viewing optic of claim 1, as above.
Scrogin and Lin fail to explicitly disclose that the beam combiner is located from 5 to 25 mm from the objective assembly.
However, Brumfield teaches a viewing optic having an objective (10) and a beam combiner (65) located within 5 mm of the focal plane of the objective (Paragraphs 0007 and 0032).
Brumfield teaches this distance between the objective and the beam combiner "so that the apparent size of the reticle is not changed when the image is magnified" (Paragraphs 0007 and 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the optic and system of Lin or Scrogin to satisfy the claimed limitation as in Brumfield, "so that the apparent size of the reticle is not changed when the image is magnified" as taught by Brumfield (Paragraphs 0007 and 0032), since such a modification would have merely required a change in size, i.e. scaling, of the entire optic of Pernstich, and it has been held that mere scaling of a prior art device is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kaufman (U.S. Patent No. 8,783,568) teaches a telescopic sight with a similar optical arrangement. Perger (U.S. Patent No. 6,583,862) teaches a combined telescope and telemeter device with a similar arrangement of active display with lens systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights