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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-5, 12-13, and 15-18) in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to reply filed on 06/16/2026.
In response to election, claims 6-11, and 14 are not elected without traverse and are not considered.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1- 2, 12- 13, and 15- 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobby D Foote (US 9615067 B1) (hereinafter Foote) in view of Jonathon R Prendergast (US 20070012830 A1) (hereinafter Prendergast):
Regarding Claim 1, Foote teaches a day/night vision camera system (a head mounted digital night vision viewing system that allows the user to see in low light conditions [Col 2: Lines 7-12]; [Col 2: Lines 23- 26]) comprising:
a camera capable of capturing images in a low light condition (a digital night vision sensor capturing images in low light conditions [Col 2: Lines 7-12]; [Col 4: Lines 42- 44]; [Col 7: Lines 7- 9]);
a display coupled to an output of the camera (display system receiving display video data derived from the sensor video data [Col 3: Lines 26-29]; [Col 3: Lines 31- 39]);
a flip-down position where the camera is aligned with a user's eye optical axis for the low light condition (the sensor line of sight aligned with the line of sight of the user’s eye in low light conditions [Col 2: Lines 7-12]; [Col 3: Lines 35-37]; [Col 6: Lines 16- 19]).
Foote does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Prendergast teaches a moveable mechanism coupled to the camera and display (flip-up helmet mount coupled to an attached night vision goggle unit [0053]), wherein the moveable mechanism has a flip-up position to stow the camera and display out of view during a daylight condition (flip up stowage completely removing the google unit from the user’s line of sight [0097]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the low light camera and display system as disclosed by Foote to add the teachings of Prendergast as disclosed above to reduce accidental damage of the vision system (Prendergast [0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, Foote in view of Prendergast teach the day/night vision camera system of claim 1. Prendergast further teaches wherein the moveable mechanism further comprises a hinge, a flex circuit, or a magnetic connection (chassis pivoting on a tilt shaft as a hinge of the flip-up mount [0097]) configured to detachably hold the camera in the flip-up position (the assembly holding the google unit in the flipped up stowed position is releasable [0084]; [0097]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the low light camera and display system as disclosed by Foote to add the teachings of Prendergast as disclosed above to reduce accidental damage of the vision system (Prendergast [0006]).
Regarding Claim 12, Foote teaches a method (a head mounted digital night vision viewing system that allows the user to see in low light conditions [Col 2: Lines 7-12]; [Col 2: Lines 23- 26]) comprising:
selectively counter-rotating or counter-translating the combined low-light camera and display to a second position aligned with a user's eye optical axis for low-light conditions (the sensor line of sight aligned with the line of sight of the user’s eye in low light conditions [Col 2: Lines 7-12]; [Col 3: Lines 35-37]; [Col 6: Lines 16- 19]; [Col 7: Lines 22- 25]).
Foote does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Prendergast teaches stowing a combined low-light camera and display during daylight conditions by selectively rotating or translating the combined low-light camera and display to a first position out of a user's line of sight (rotating the goggle unit on the tilt shaft to a stowed position, removing it from the user’s line of sight [0097]; [0053]); and
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the low light camera and display system as disclosed by Foote to add the teachings of Prendergast as disclosed above to reduce accidental damage of the vision system (Prendergast [0006]).
Regarding Claim 13, Foote in view of Prendergast teach the method of claim 12. Prendergast further teaches further comprising one or more latching mechanisms (latching mechanism [0084]) configured to selectively secure the combined low-light camera and display at the first position or the second position (securing the goggle unit in the use or no use positions [0084]; [0094]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the low light camera and display system as disclosed by Foote to add the teachings of Prendergast as disclosed above to reduce accidental damage of the vision system (Prendergast [0006]).
Regarding Claim 15, Foote teaches a day/night vision camera system (a head mounted digital night vision viewing system that allows the user to see in low light conditions [Col 2: Lines 7-12]; [Col 2: Lines 23- 26]) comprising:
a camera capable of capturing images in a low light condition (a digital night vision sensor capturing images in low light conditions [Col 2: Lines 7-12]; [Col 4: Lines 42- 44]; [Col 7: Lines 7- 9]);
a display coupled to an output of the camera (display system receiving display video data derived from the sensor video data [Col 3: Lines 26-29]; [Col 3: Lines 31- 39]);
a moveable mechanism coupled to the camera (mounting mechanism pivoting the camera [Col 7: Lines 22- 25]), wherein the moveable mechanism is configured to move the camera independent of a position of the display (moving only the camera while the display remains in the same position [Col 7: Lines 22- 25]; [Col 2: Lines 45- 46]), wherein the moveable mechanism is operable to selectively rotate or translate the camera to a first position to stow the camera out of view during a daylight condition (moving the camera to the flip up position during daytime [Col 7: Lines 22- 25]), and a second position to align the camera with a user's eye optical axis for the low light condition (the sensor line of sight aligned with the line of sight of the user’s eye in low light conditions [Col 2: Lines 7-12]; [Col 3: Lines 35-37]; [Col 6: Lines 16- 19]).
Foote does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Prendergast teaches wherein the moveable mechanism is operable to selectively counter-rotate or counter-translate the camera to a second position (rotatably moving the chassis between use and no use position [0084]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the low light camera and display system as disclosed by Foote to add the teachings of Prendergast as disclosed above to reduce accidental damage of the vision system (Prendergast [0006]).
Regarding Claim 16, Foote in view of Prendergast teach the day/night vision camera system of claim 15. Foote further teaches wherein the first position is a flip-up position (flipped up position [Col 7: Lines 22- 25]; Fig. 8), and the second position is a flip-down position (lipped down position [Col 5: Lines 61- 65]; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Foote in view of Prendergast teach the day/night vision camera system of claim 15. Foote further teaches wherein the first position is a flip-down position (flipped down position [Col 5: Lines 61- 65]; Fig. 2), and the second position is a flip-up position (flipped up position [Col 7: Lines 22- 25]; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Foote in view of Prendergast teach the day/night vision camera system of claim 15. Foote further teaches one or more of:
a hinge (the mounting mechanism includes a hinge [Col 7: Lines 22- 25]; Fig. 8);
a flex circuit;
a magnetic connection configured to detachably hold the camera in one or more of the first position and the second position;
one or more electrical pogo pins that enable electrical contact between the camera and a power source to power the camera when the camera is rotated to the second position;
and a Hall Effect sensor integrated into the camera and capable of sensing a presence of a magnet to initiate a supply of power to one or more of the camera and the display.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobby D Foote (US 9615067 B1) (hereinafter Foote) in view of Jonathon R Prendergast (US 20070012830 A1) (hereinafter Prendergast) further in view of David P Benton (US 20160360821 A1) (hereinafter Benton):
Regarding Claim 3, Foote in view of Prendergast teach the day/night vision camera system of claim 1. Foote further teaches holding the camera in the flip-down position where the camera is aligned with the user's eye optical axis for the low light condition (the sensor line of sight aligned with the line of sight of the user’s eye in low light conditions and is held in position by the moveable mechanism [Col 2: Lines 7-12]; [Col 3: Lines 35-37]; [Col 6: Lines 16- 19]).
Foote does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Benton teaches wherein the moveable mechanism further comprises a clip or a magnet to detachably hold … in the flip-down position (magnets that maintain the movable component in its flipped down position [0056]- [0057]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the low light camera and display system as disclosed by Foote in view of Prendergast to add the teachings of Benton as disclosed above to maintain the position of movable component (Benton [0057]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobby D Foote (US 9615067 B1) (hereinafter Foote) in view of Jonathon R Prendergast (US 20070012830 A1) (hereinafter Prendergast) further in view of James W. Teetzel (US 20130086722 A1) (hereinafter Teetzel):
Regarding Claim 4, Foote in view of Prendergast teach the day/night vision camera system of claim 1; however, do not explicitly teach electrical pogo pins that enable electrical contact between the camera and a power source to power the camera and display when in the low light condition.
However, in an analogous art, Teetzel teaches electrical pogo pins that enable electrical contact between the camera and a power source to power the camera and display when in the low light condition (pogo pins that are used to power the camera, and display [0045]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the low light camera and display system as disclosed by Foote in view of Prendergast to add the teachings of Teetzel as disclosed above to improve integrating accessory mounting and electrical interconnection devices (Teetzel [0004]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobby D Foote (US 9615067 B1) (hereinafter Foote) in view of Jonathon R Prendergast (US 20070012830 A1) (hereinafter Prendergast) further in view of Marc J. Celona (US 20100299814 A1) (hereinafter Celona):
Regarding Claim 5, Foote in view of Prendergast teach the day/night vision camera system of claim 1; however, do not explicitly teach a Hall Effect sensor integrated into the camera and capable of sensing a presence of a magnet to initiate a supply of power to the camera and display.
However, in an analogous art, Celona teaches a Hall Effect sensor integrated into the camera and capable of sensing a presence of a magnet to initiate a supply of power to the camera and display (hall effect sensor that detected the magnetic field change and allows the powering of the devices [0030]).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the low light camera and display system as disclosed by Foote in view of Prendergast to add the teachings of Celona as disclosed above to improve mounting an optical device to headgear (Celona [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (703)756-1694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2486
/JAMIE J ATALA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights