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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
With regards to claims 1-10, the claims recite a “smart optical device” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)), rendering the claim indefinite. The term “smart” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The claims recite the term “smart”, which is considered optional language. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (See MPEP 2143.03). It is unclear whether applicant is intending the limitations after “smart” to further limit the claim.
Additionally, such language represents a function that fails to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the claim since such language appears to recite a problem to be solved (MPEP 2173.05(g) - For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Claims 2-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to independent claim 1, the prior art taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical device including the specific arrangement: “a screen; a holder spaced apart from the screen; a driving assembly secured to the holder, the driving assembly comprising a screw located at least partially out of the holder and a slider connected to the screw through a thread; and a prism assembly fixedly connected to the holder; wherein when rotating the screw, the slider moves in a first direction to push the reflector assembly to move in a second direction”. Claims 2-10 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lobachinsky (20200371311) and Trail (11042039) are examples of an illumination prism assembly within a display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights