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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/900,866 filed on 03/03/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 1 and 3 – 5 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3 - 10 have been examined and are pending in this application. This Action is made FINAL
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2025, 01/15/2025 and 09/30/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 - 10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the same combination of references being used in the current rejection. Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the claimed invention as amended 03/03/2026, which has been rejected under new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. See rejection below for full detail.
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.
Claim 1, 3 – 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2018/0227503 A1) in view of Havey et al. (US 2001/0011894 A1) and further in view of Haag et al. (US 2003/0071640 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ando discloses: “an electro-optical observation device [Ando see abstract: An optical observation device for observing a target], comprising
a device housing [see para: 0039; These devices 10 and 20 have their optical axes 10X and 20X arranged in parallel and are built in an integral housing (not shown)];
a lens group arranged in the device housing [see para: 0040; Specifically, the observation telescope 10 is essentially comprised of an objective lens system 11, an erecting prism 12 and an eyepiece lens system 13 arranged coaxially in this order along the optical axis 10X. The observation telescope 10 produces a visible optical image of a distant observation target acquired in the field of view thereof in an image focus location 14 of the objective lens system 11];
a display unit arranged in the device housing and configured to display a captured image or overlay information on a beam path [see para: 0041; The visible image display means 17 is comprised of an image generator 24 and an image projection optical system 18. The image generator 24 is comprised of an image processor 25 and a visible image display device 26. The image processor 25 transforms the thermal image of the observation sight cast on the infrared light sensor device 23 partially into a visual image which is displayed as a visible image of the observation target on the visible image display device 26];
an eyepiece arranged on an exit side with respect to the display unit and including at least one electrically conductive element [see Fig. 4; para: 0065; Specifically, the observation telescope 10 is comprised of an objective lens system 11, an erecting prism 12 and an eyepiece lens system 13 arranged in this order in the optical path along the optical axis 10X. The eyepiece lens system 13 is commonly used as an eyepiece lens system of the optical observation device 1B].
Ando does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the at least one electrically conductive element is a capacitive sensor electrode of a capacitive proximity sensor, and wherein the at least one electrically conductive element is a housing component; and
a control device in contact with the electrically conductive element and configured to:
form the capacitive proximity sensor with the electrically conductive element, and
control the display unit based on a measured quantity ascertained with the capacitive proximity sensor”.
However, Haag, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the at least one electrically conductive element is a capacitive sensor electrode of a capacitive proximity sensor [see para: 0006; Capacitive proximity sensors may include one or more electrical conductors formed along the leading edge of a moveable panel, as well as a capacitance sensitive circuit (e.g., a bridge circuit or an oscillator) coupled to the conductor(s)], and wherein the at least one electrically conductive element is a housing component [see para: 0023; In a further aspect, the capacitive sensor strip is also configured for integrally housing capacitance detection circuitry therein].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical observation device disclosed by Ando to add the teachings of Haag as above, in order to provide a means for improving electrical conductive element which is integral housing, and capacitive proximity sensors are one of the type can be combined to determine distance of a user or any other information needed to calculate [Haag see para: 0006].
Ando and Haag does not explicitly disclose: “a control device in contact with the electrically conductive element and configured to:
form the capacitive proximity sensor with the electrically conductive element, and
control the display unit based on a measured quantity ascertained with the capacitive proximity sensor”.
However, Havey, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “a control device in contact with the electrically conductive element [see para: 0026; the same arrangement could be made using two separate and distinct capacitors wherein an electrode from each capacitor is electrically connected, thus arriving at the same shared electrical configuration] and configured to:
form the capacitive proximity sensor with the electrically conductive element [see para: 0010; The present device uses capacitive plates located near the eyepiece of an electronic device. The capacitive plates are connected to relatively simple circuitry which uses a minimal amount of power. Three capacitive plates forming two capacitors are placed near the eyepiece. The two capacitors share the middle plate. The capacitive plates are aligned with respect to the eyepiece in such a way that when the operator looks at the eyepiece], and
control the display unit based on a measured quantity ascertained with the capacitive proximity sensor [see para: 0023; Within FIG. 2 is shown a proximity detection circuit 24 as it is connected to a power supply or battery 15. Proximity detection circuit 24 serves to detect a differential in capacitance between capacitor 20 and capacitor 22. If such a differential is detected, power is allowed to flow from battery or power source 15 to power up the electronic device 10].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system by Ando to add the teachings of Haag as above, to further incorporate the teachings of Havey to provide a means for improving or reducing power consumption, proximity sensors or similar sensors will be incorporated so that when users are away from the device, it can detect and deactivated the device, this housing will be metal conductive for detecting human presences or absence [Havey see para: 0026; 0010; 0023].
Claim 2, Cancelled.
Regarding claims 3 – 4, 8 and 10, Ando, Havey and Haag fails to teach these recited features or limitations as claimed. However, it is a matter of design choice to provide these features in Ando, Havey and Haag reference to improve the flexibility and efficiency depending upon the use and design requirement of the user. As a matter of fact, these features are well known in the art or commonly found in the art.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify these claimed features depending upon the requirements of users and the designers will make this design useful using commonly known features in the art and incorporate to the Ando, Havey and Haag reference.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Ando, Haag and Havey disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Ando does not explicitly disclose: “wherein, to form the capacitive proximity sensor, the control device includes an application-specific sensor circuit connected to the electrically conductive element”.
However, Haag, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein, to form the capacitive proximity sensor, the control device includes an application-specific sensor circuit connected to the electrically conductive element [see para: 0006; Capacitive proximity sensors may include one or more electrical conductors formed along the leading edge of a moveable panel, as well as a capacitance sensitive circuit (e.g., a bridge circuit or an oscillator) coupled to the conductor(s), and para: 0023; In a further aspect, the capacitive sensor strip is also configured for integrally housing capacitance detection circuitry therein].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical observation device disclosed by Ando to add the teachings of Haag as above, in order to provide a means for improving electrical conductive element, based on the application requirement, capacitive proximity sensors are one of the type sensors can be combined to determine distance of a user from the eyepiece or any other information needed to calculate [Haag see para: 0006].
Regarding claim 7, Ando, Haag and Havey disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Ando does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the control device includes a microprocessor, to which the electrically conductive element is connected to form the capacitive proximity sensor”.
However, Haag, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the control device includes a microprocessor, to which the electrically conductive element is connected to form the capacitive proximity sensor [see para: 0006; Capacitive proximity sensors may include one or more electrical conductors formed along the leading edge of a moveable panel, as well as a capacitance sensitive circuit (e.g., a bridge circuit or an oscillator) coupled to the conductor(s), and para: 0023; In a further aspect, the capacitive sensor strip is also configured for integrally housing capacitance detection circuitry therein].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical observation device disclosed by Ando to add the teachings of Haag as above, in order to provide a means for improving electrical conductive element, capacitive proximity sensors are one of the type sensors that can be connected to for capacitance and determine distance of a user from the eyepiece or any other information needed to calculate [Haag see para: 0006].
Claim 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 2018/0227503 A1) in view of Havey et al. (US 2001/0011894 A1) in view of Haag et al. (US 2003/0071640 A1) and further in view of Edwards et al. (US 2014/0226214 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ando, Haag and Havey disclose all the limitation of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Ando, Haag and Havey does not explicitly disclose: “wherein the control device is configured to deactivate the display unit when the measured quantity indicates an absence of a user from a given distance range in front of the eyepiece”.
However, Edwards, from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: “wherein the control device is configured to deactivate the display unit when the measured quantity indicates an absence of a user from a given distance range in front of the eyepiece [see para: 0076; Sensor system 80 can also include a sensor for putting the active display overlay unit 70 into sleep mode in the absence of the user viewing through the viewer 10, to minimize power consumption and light emission. And see para: 0080; A proximity sensor can be included to put the active display overlay unit into sleep mode in the absence of the user viewing through the eyepiece to minimize power consumption and light emission].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system by Ando, Haag to add the teachings of Havey as above, to further incorporate the teachings of Edwards to provide a means for improving the battery efficiency of the device, where proximity sensor or similar type sensors can detect the human if nearby or left for a certain time and deactivate or turn off the device to reduce power consumption [Edwards see para: 0076].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Betensky et al (US 20140063261 A1)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Masum Billah whose telephone number is (571)270-0701. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM ET.
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 J. 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.
/MASUM BILLAH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486