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 statement (IDS), submitted on 9/12/2025, is being considered by the examiner.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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/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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over related claims of the U.S. Patent 10,619,976 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scales (US Patent 9,229,230 B2), (“Scales”).
Regarding claim 1, Scales meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A camera system ((i.e. augmented reality systems) [Scales: col. 1, line 17]; (i.e. a system employing the two video sources is being used) [Scales: col. 2, line 20-21]) for use with a weapon (i.e. System 10 further includes a video source (or "scope") 17 and a sensor 18 configured to move as a single unit with scope 17. In the embodiment shown, scope 17 is affixed to a rifle 19) [Scales: col. 3, line 56-65; Fig. 1], comprising: a display ((i.e. an information-enhanced heads up display (HUD)) [Scales: col. 2, line 40-41]; (i.e. a user display) [Scales: col. 2, line 46]); and a camera (i.e. Scope 17 may include a visible light video camera, a thermal imaging (i.e., IR sensitive) video camera, a night-vision video camera, or some combination thereof)) [Scales: col. 3, line 28-65; Fig. 1 – Note: The system includes goggles and a scope which are both equipped with cameras and image sensor] operatively coupled to the display ((i.e. ultra-wideband (UWB) transceivers may transmit video and sensor data from rifle 19, as well as video and sensor data from goggles 11) [Scales: col. 4, line 25-27]; (i.e. As described in more detail below, this permits superimposition of an image from scope 17 onto a display corresponding to a field of view of goggles 11) [Scales: col. 4, line 13-16]), wherein, during a set-up procedure ((i.e. selection can take place during set-up) [Scales: col. 17, line 61-62]; (i.e. initial calibration) [Scales: col. 8, line 3]), a camera view (i.e. the goggles FOV) [Scales: col. 8, line 16-17] shown on the display is used to acquire a same aim point as the weapon ((i.e. the goggles FOV centerline is shown in the goggles display. The user then moves rifle 19 so that a reticle corresponding to the centerline of scope 17 is aligned with the goggles reticle and presses a "calibration" button.) [Scales: col. 8, line 16-20]; (i.e. An aiming reticle 76 is located at the center of weapon view 74, and corresponds to the rifle aim point (as zeroed to the rifle at a specified range) and lies near the scope FOV centerline) [Scales: col. 7, line 30-32]), and wherein, after the set-up procedure (i.e. After initial calibration) [Scales: col. 8, line 21], the camera view ((i.e. the goggles FOV) [Scales: col. 8, line 16-17]; (i.e. the location and rotation of weapon view 74 within user display 70 is determined by computer 30 based on output from sensors 13 and 18 and based on comparison of the scope image with the goggles image) [Scales: col. 7, line 19-22]) does not use a weapon sight of the weapon when acquiring a target ((i.e. In this manner, a user
of system 10 is able to simultaneously survey a setting, acquire a target and point a weapon at the target without having to remove his or her goggles and adjust to a weapon sight) [Scales: col. 7, line 25-29]; (i.e. The ability to minimize the need for manually initiated recalibration would be highly advantageous. Additional advantages could also be obtained by increasing the types of information provided by a HUD within goggles worn by a user) [Scales: col. 1, line 44-48] – Note: Scale discloses that the camera view of the googles of his system can acquire a target without using the weapon sight).
Regarding claim 2, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the camera is mounted on the weapon (i.e. System 10 further includes a video source (or "scope") 17 and a sensor 18 configured to move as a single unit with scope 17. In the embodiment shown, scope 17 is affixed to a rifle 19 and is used to target rifle 19. In particular, scope 17 is aligned with the barrel of rifle 19 such that a reticle corresponding to the optical centerline of scope 17 generally follows the path of a bullet fired from rifle 19. Scope 17 may include a visible light video camera, a thermal imaging (i.e., IR sensitive) video camera, a night-vision video camera, or some combination thereof)) [Scales: col. 3, line 56-65].
Regarding claim 5, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the display is part of a handheld or wearable system (i.e. User display 70 is also slightly shaded so as to indicate that the goggles image is a night vision display) [Scales: col. 6, line 67 – col. 7, line 1 – Note: Goggle is a wearable device] that is configured to receive data relating to a camera view from the camera ((i.e. the goggles FOV centerline is shown in the goggles display. The user then moves rifle 19 so that a reticle corresponding to the centerline of scope 17 is aligned with the goggles reticle and presses a "calibration" button.) [Scales: col. 8, line 16-20]; (i.e. An aiming reticle 76 is located at the center of weapon view 74, and corresponds to the rifle aim point (as zeroed to the rifle at a specified range) and lies near the scope FOV centerline) [Scales: col. 7, line 30-32]; (i.e. ultra-wideband (UWB) transceivers may transmit video and sensor data from rifle 19, as well as video and sensor data from goggles 11) [Scales: col. 4, line 25-27]; (i.e. As described in more detail below, this permits superimposition of an image from scope 17 onto a display corresponding to a field of view of goggles 11) [Scales: col. 4, line 13-16]).
Regarding claim 6, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the handheld or wearable system includes glasses ((i.e. a pair of goggles) [Scales: col. 1, line 24-25]; (i.e. System 10 includes a set of goggles 11 that are configured for wear by the user. Goggles 11 may be worn directly, may be attached to a helmet or other headgear (not shown), or worn in some other manner) [Scales: col. 3, line 28-37]); (i.e. the goggles FOV is a cone symmetrically centered about an optical centerline/line of sight (also referred to herein as the "goggles FOV centerline") extending from goggles 11) [Scales: col. 6, line 10-13]).
Regarding claim 7, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the glasses includes a heads-up display for displaying the camera view ((i.e. Goggles 11 in some embodiments is a modified version of the AN/PVS-21 low profile night vision goggles with M-2755 Enhanced Heads Up Display available from Sensor Technology Systems, Inc. of Beavercreek, Ohio.) [Scales: col. 6, line 44-48]; (i.e. the goggles FOV is a cone symmetrically centered about an optical centerline/line of sight (also referred to herein as the "goggles FOV centerline") extending from goggles 11) [Scales: col. 6, line 10-13]).
Regarding claim 9, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 7. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the glasses also receive data that can be overlaid or displayed over the camera view ((i.e. the goggles image is a night vision display. The outer circle of FIG. 4 generally corresponds to the limit of the goggles FOV. The HUD portion of user display 70 is shown as a rectangular region 73 in the center portion of the goggles FOV. As explained in further detail below, various graphical indicia are overlaid within HUD 73. Also overlaid on HUD 73 is a weapon view 74 corresponding to (and generated from) the scope image) [Scales: col. 7, line 1-8; Fig. 4]; (i.e. The broken line 303 in FIG. 8A only shows the portion of goggles image 82 over which scope image 302 of FIG. 8B would be overlaid) [Scales: col. 11, line 67 – col. 12, line 1; Figs. 8A-8B]).
Regarding claim 10, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 5. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the handheld or wearable system includes one or more processors that run an application (i.e. Processor 38 provides video output, via interface 42, to goggles 11 for presentation in a display generated within goggles 11) [Scales: col. 5, line 12-14].
Regarding claim 11, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 10. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the application is used to set up the aim of the camera ((i.e. a user can be provided with a great deal of flexibility in selecting the types of information to be shown on the display. Such selection can take place during set-up or while the system is in use. For example, a soldier on patrol may choose to see display indicators for routes, rally points, indirect fire targets, preplanned control measures, etc. When the soldier is attacked or is about to enter a firefight, he or she might then place the weapon in a close-combat mode (e.g., by pressing a mode control button located on a weapon). In such a close-combat mode, the user could avoid information overload by suppressing all information except icons for friendly forces. In some cases, the soldier might even choose to suppress "friendly" icons and opt for an audible warning if the weapon is pointed at friendly personnel. As yet another variation, a soldier might configure his system to display icons for friendly forces within a first range ( e.g., 300 meters) and for enemy positions within a second range ( e.g., 1000 meters), to display graphics for patrol routes within a third range ( e.g., 500 meters), to plot control measures with routes, etc.) [Scales: col. 17, line 59 – col. 18, line 11 – Note: User can set different aim modes of the camera for the target]; (i.e. At shorter distances, parallax is in many applications a non-issue. At least some implementations of system 10 are predominantly intended for use against targets at distances greater than 10 meters. Moreover, when targeting a weapon using system 10, weapon view 74 will ultimately be the source of assurance that the weapon is pointed at a proper target. Even if weapon view 7 4 is slightly misaligned with the surrounding portions of the goggles view, the soldier will be primarily concerned that the weapon is pointed at the correct target, and weapon view 74 will still accurately show the intended target. Additionally, if it is known a priori that targets will be at a short range (e.g., during a room-clearing operation), calibration can be performed using a target at the presumed average range of real targets to be encountered (rather than at 300+ meters), thus minimizing the effects of parallax. FIGS. 6G and 6H show rotation of weapon view 74 in display 70. Based on the data received from sensors 13 and 18, computer 30 calculates an amount by which weapon view 74 should be rotated within display 70 so as to be properly registered with the remainder of display 70) [Scales: col. 9, line 48-67; Figs. 3, 5A-B, 6A-H].
Regarding claim 12, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 10. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the application provides a digital reticle that is overlaid or displayed over the camera view ((i.e. From block 219 of FIG. 7, computer 30 proceeds to block 119 of FIG. 5B. In block 119, the scope image is cropped, resized and/or rotated. The resulting image is then overlaid on the goggles image as the weapon view (block 121). A reticle (which corresponds to the scope FOV centerline) may be generated, but in some embodiments an integral scope image reticle will be displayed as part of the image. As mentioned above, the weapon view may be given a desired shape ( e.g., rectangular or circular) and angular dimension(s), and portions of the scope view outside of the desired shape may be cropped) [Scales: col. 15, line 22-32; Figs. 5A-B, 7 – Note: the integral scope image reticle is a digital reticle].
Regarding claim 13, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 10. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the application provides graphical elements that cause the digital reticle to move over the camera view ((i.e. System 10 further includes a video source (or "scope") 17 and a sensor 18 configured to move as a single unit with scope 17. In the embodiment shown, scope 17 is affixed to a rifle 19 and is used to target rifle 19. In particular, scope 17 is aligned with the barrel of rifle 19 such that a reticle corresponding to the optical centerline of scope 17 generally follows the path of a bullet fired from rifle 19)) [Scales: col. 3, line 56-62; Fig. 1]; (i.e. The PAWS system and related weapon sight embodiments incorporate a micro LCD display or other display allowing text and graphics to be overlaid onto the direct view scene. This display is electronically controlled and can show live status information with reticles for targeting and aiming) [Karcher: para. 0086; Fig. 4]; (i.e. From block 219 of FIG. 7, computer 30 proceeds to block 119 of FIG. 5B. In block 119, the scope image is cropped, resized and/or rotated. The resulting image is then overlaid on the goggles image as the weapon view (block 121). A reticle (which corresponds to the scope FOV centerline) may be generated, but in some embodiments an integral scope image reticle will be displayed as part of the image. As mentioned above, the weapon view may be given a desired shape ( e.g., rectangular or circular) and angular dimension(s), and portions of the scope view outside of the desired shape may be cropped) [Scales: col. 15, line 22-32; Figs. 5A-B, 7 – Note: the integral scope image reticle is a digital reticle]) so that the digital reticle is aligned with the weapon aim point (i.e. A calibration reticle corresponding to the goggles FOV centerline is shown in the goggles display. The user then moves rifle 19 so that a reticle corresponding to the centerline of scope 17 is aligned with the goggles reticle and presses a "calibration" button.) [Scales: col. 8, line 16-20].
Regarding claim 14, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 5. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the handheld or wearable system (i.e. a pair of goggles) [Scales: col. 1, line 24-25] and the camera communicate wirelessly (i.e. Although wired sensors and video cables are used here, control unit 16 communicates wirelessly with sensors 13 and 18, goggles 11 and/or scope 17 in other embodiments. For example, ultra-wideband (UWB) transceivers may transmit video and sensor data from rifle 19, as well as video and sensor data from goggles 11. Likewise, UWB may be used to transmit video from the control unit to goggles 11. Although UWB radios, such as Time Domain's PulsON® radio, are particularly desirable for their high bandwidth, low power consumption and for being virtually undetectable, any wireless standard may be used, including both Bluetooth and IEEE 802.11) [Scales: col. 4, line 22-33].
Regarding claim 16, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Scales further meets the claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the weapon is a handheld weapon (i.e. a rifle carried by the user) [Scales: col. 1, line 64; Figs. 1, 6A-B, 6F-G].
Regarding claim 17, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Scales further meets the claim limitations as follows:
wherein the weapon is not a handheld weapon (i.e. A weapon mounted on the vehicle includes a video gun sight producing images processed and projected onto the heads up display) [Scales: col. 23, line 61-63].
Regarding claim 18, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Scales further meets the claim limitations as follows:
wherein the weapon is mounted on a vehicle or a stationary platform (i.e. A weapon mounted on the vehicle includes a video gun sight producing images processed and projected onto the heads up display) [Scales: col. 23, line 61-63].
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 of this title, 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.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scales (US Patent 9,229,230 B2), (“Scales”), in view of Karcher (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0097741 Al), (“Karcher”).
Regarding claim 3, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Scales further meets the claim limitations as follows:
wherein the camera (i.e. Scope 17 may include a visible light video camera, a thermal imaging (i.e., IR sensitive) video camera, a night-vision video camera, or some combination thereof)) [Scales: col. 3, line 62-65; Fig. 1] has a windage adjustment and an elevation adjustment.
Scales does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations (Emphasis added).
wherein the camera has a windage adjustment and an elevation adjustment.
However, in the same field of endeavor Karcher further discloses the claim limitations and the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the camera has a windage adjustment and an elevation adjustment (i.e. The central optical elements including the imaging sensor and micro LCD assembly are, in some embodiments, mounted on an internal framework (not shown). In various embodiments, the windage and elevation adjustments move this framework in a manner similar to how a conventional riflescope functions to achieve the necessary angular offsets that are desired for alignment and configuration.) [Karcher: para. 0061; Figs. 2, 8].
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scales with Karcher to include the windage and elevation adjustments in the camera system.
Therefore, the combination of Scales with Karcher will enable the user to obtain the necessary angular offsets that are desired for alignment and configuration [Karcher: para. 0061].
Regarding claim 4, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 3. Scales further meets the claim limitations as follows:
wherein, during the set-up procedure ((i.e. selection can take place during set-up) [Scales: col. 17, line 61-62]; (i.e. initial calibration) [Scales: col. 8, line 3]), the camera (i.e. Scope 17 may include a visible light video camera, a thermal imaging (i.e., IR sensitive) video camera, a night-vision video camera, or some combination thereof)) [Scales: col. 3, line 62-65; Fig. 1] is manually adjusted (i.e. calibration can be performed manually (typically in less than ten seconds)) [Scales: col. 14, line 22-23] using the windage adjustment and the elevation adjustment so that the camera view is same or substantially the same as a weapon view through the weapon sight (i.e. A calibration reticle corresponding to the goggles FOV centerline is shown in the goggles display. The user then moves rifle 19 so that a reticle corresponding to the centerline of scope 17 is aligned with the goggles reticle and presses a "calibration" button.) [Scales: col. 8, line 16-20].
Scales does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations (Emphasis added).
the camera is manually adjusted using the windage adjustment and the elevation adjustment.
However, in the same field of endeavor Karcher further discloses the claim limitations and the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
(i.e. The central optical elements including the imaging sensor and micro LCD assembly are, in some embodiments, mounted on an internal framework (not shown). In various embodiments, the windage and elevation adjustments move this framework in a manner similar to how a conventional riflescope functions to achieve the necessary angular offsets that are desired for alignment and configuration.) [Karcher: para. 0061; Figs. 2, 8].
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scales with Karcher to include the windage and elevation adjustments in the camera system.
Therefore, the combination of Scales with Karcher will enable the user to manually calibrate in order to obtain necessary angular offsets that are desired for alignment and configuration [Karcher: para. 0061].
Regarding claim 8, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 7. Scales further meets the claim limitations as follows:
wherein the camera view is displayed ((i.e. Goggles 11 in some embodiments is a modified version of the AN/PVS-21 low profile night vision goggles with M-2755 Enhanced Heads Up Display available from Sensor Technology Systems, Inc. of Beavercreek, Ohio.) [Scales: col. 6, line 44-48]; (i.e. User display 70 is also slightly shaded so as to indicate that the goggles image is a night vision display) [Scales: col. 6, line 67 – col. 7, line 1]; (i.e. the goggles FOV is a cone symmetrically centered about an optical centerline/line of sight (also referred to herein as the "goggles FOV centerline") extending from goggles 11) [Scales: col. 6, line 10-13]; (i.e. the goggles image is a night vision display. The outer circle of FIG. 4 generally corresponds to the limit of the goggles FOY. The HUD portion of user display 70 is shown as a rectangular region 73 in the center portion of the goggles FOY. As explained in further detail below, various graphical indicia are overlaid within HUD 73) [Scales: col. 7, line 1-6; Fig. 4]) on one lens of the glasses (i.e. a pair of goggles) [Scales: col. 1, line 24-25].
Scales does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations (Emphasis added).
wherein the camera view is displayed on one lens of the glasses.
However, in the same field of endeavor Karcher further discloses the claim limitations and the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
one lens ((i.e. eyepiece lens assembly) [Karcher: para. 0059]; (i.e. A lens assembly between the micro LCD and the beamsplitter element allows the micro LCD image to be focused on the focal plane of the reticle so the optical image view of the target can be overlaid with status information from the display. In various embodiments, the scope's direct view reticle is of etched glass type and is visible at all times) [Karcher: para. 0063]; (i.e. Text, graphics, and/or imagery is then projected through the existing rifle's scope (along with the received target imagery) using a display source (such as a micro mirror array, or micro LED display) and a combination of one or more lens) [Karcher: para. 0150])
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scales with Karcher to include the windage and elevation adjustments in the camera system.
Therefore, the combination of Scales with Karcher will enable the user to obtain the necessary angular offsets that are desired for alignment and configuration [Karcher: para. 0061].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scales (US Patent 9,229,230 B2), (“Scales”), in view of Bradski et al. (US Patent 10,203,762 B2), (“Bradski”).
Regarding claim 15, Scales meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Scales does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations (Emphasis added).
wherein the display is part of the camera.
However, in the same field of endeavor Bradski further discloses the claim limitations and the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the display is part of the camera (i.e. In the AR system, the display system may be generally fixed with regard to the camera physically (e.g., the cameras
and the display system may be fixedly coupled or fastened together, such as by virtue of the structures of a head mounted display)) [Bradski: col. 246, line 7-12].
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Scales and Bradski to integrate the display into the camera such as in a head mouthed display.
Therefore, the combination of Scales with Bradski will enable the user to view both a real-world view and an augmented reality from the head mounted display [Bradski: col. 3, line 46 – col. 4, line 45].
Reference Notice
Additional prior arts, included in the Notice of Reference Cited, made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Dang whose telephone number is (408) 918-7529. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday between 8:30 am - 5:00 pm (PST).
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 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./Philip P. Dang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488