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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“recording device” in claims 1-14 and 16-20;
“components configured to adjust lens focus and zoom” in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added limitation reading “wherein the automatic adjustments are not based on contrast detection” is considered new matter. The background section of the specification describes downsides to the prior-art performance of autofocus based on contrast detection. However, the disclosure of Applicant’s claimed invention does NOT rule out the use of contract detection in combination with distance detection. Thus, the specificity of the newly added limitation is not supported by the original disclosure. Thus, said limitation is considered new matter.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (2016/0069644) in view of Gordon (7194204), and further in view of Lorey.
In reference to claim 1, Bell discloses a system comprising:
a rangefinder (paragraph 285, “rangefinder”);
a scope operatively coupled to the rangefinder, the scope including a lens assembly and components configured to adjust lens focus and zoom (figures, e.g. figure 14C-2; paragraph 285, “scope”; at least paragraphs 14, 28, 120, and 167 clearly disclose a lens assembly including an objective lens and other optical elements/components; at least paragraphs 14, 28, and 285 disclose components configured to adjust lens focus and zoom)
wherein the rangefinder is configured to determine a distance to an object and provide the distance information to the scope;
wherein the scope is configured to automatically adjust focus and zoom based on the distance information (paragraph 285); and
the scope further including a processor with memory storing code, the processor being configured, responsive to successive distance determinations indicating changing distances from the rangefinder, to command the components to automatically adjust the focus and the zoom based at least in part on the changing distances, and wherein the automatic adjustments are not based on contrast detection (paragraphs 14, 208, and 285; also see figure 14C, processor 592 and memory 594).
Thus, Bell discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the scope constitutes a recording device, wherein the processor is configured to perform the above-noted functions during recording, and wherein the rangefinder is a soundwave-based rangefinder, as claimed.
Regarding the scope being a recording device, Gordon teaches it is known to configure a scope as a combination scope and recording device, capable of performing its scope function during recording, in order to allow a user to capture still images and video of the field of view of the scope (abstract; column 6, second paragraph). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the scope of Bell as a combination scope and recording device, capable of performing its scope function during recording, in order to allow a user to capture still images and video of the field of view of the scope.
Regarding the functionality to increase a field of view, Bell fails to explicitly disclose automatically increasing and decreasing a field of view angle, as claimed. However, it is noted that a field of view can be changed via zooming, and Bell discloses a programmable auto-zoom function (paragraph 285). Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to configure auto-zoom functions such that they automatically increase and decrease field of view angles (i.e., field of view) as claimed, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system made obvious by Bell in view of Gordon with the functionality to automatically increase and decrease a field of view angle as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed.
Regarding the rangefinder, Bell discloses that the rangefinder transmits a beam of energy, but doesn’t specify soundwaves (paragraph 196). However, Lorey teaches it is known to form such a rangefinder as a soundwave-based rangefinder, as claimed, in order to determine a distance to a target object (column 3, lines 8-17). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rangefinder of Bell as a soundwave-based rangefinder, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine a distance to a target object in a manner consistent with the broad disclosure of Bell.
In reference to claims 2 and 3, Bell in view of Gordon and further in view of Lorey (the modified Bell) makes obvious the claimed invention (Bell, paragraph 172 and 203, “wired-based link or a wireless link,” “wired or wireless links”).
In reference to claims 4, 6, 8, and 9, the modified Bell makes obvious the claimed invention (Bell: auto-zoom; paragraph 285).
In reference to claims 5 and 7, the modified Bell makes obvious the claimed invention, except for automatically increasing and decreasing a field of view angle as claimed. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to configure auto-zoom functions such that they automatically increase and decrease field of view angles as claimed, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system made obvious by the modified Bell with the functionality to automatically increase and decrease a field of view angle as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed.
In reference to claims 10 and 11, the modified Bell makes obvious the claimed invention (Bell, figures).
In reference to claims 13 and 14, the modified Bell makes obvious the claimed invention (rangefinder is part of a handheld system, i.e., the entire system, including the rifle and rangefinder, is handheld).
In reference to claims 15 and 16, the modified Bell makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1.
In reference to claim 17, the modified Bell makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the rangefinder and recording device share a same housing. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the rangefinder and recording device in a common housing, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces (e.g., two housings into one) and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claim 19, the modified Bell makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (2016/0069644) in view of Gordon (7194204).
In reference to claim 1, Bell discloses a system comprising:
a rangefinder (paragraph 285, “rangefinder”);
a scope operatively coupled to the rangefinder, the scope including a lens assembly and components configured to adjust lens focus and zoom (figures, e.g. figure 14C-2; paragraph 285, “scope”; at least paragraphs 14, 28, 120, and 167 clearly disclose a lens assembly including an objective lens and other optical elements/components; at least paragraphs 14, 28, and 285 disclose components configured to adjust lens focus and zoom)
wherein the rangefinder is configured to determine a distance to an object and provide the distance information to the scope, as claimed (paragraph 196, round trip time of the beam energy);
wherein the scope is configured to automatically adjust focus and zoom based on the distance information (paragraph 285); and
the scope further including a processor with memory storing code, the processor being configured, responsive to successive distance determinations indicating changing distances from the rangefinder, to command the components to automatically adjust the focus and the zoom based at least in part on the changing distances, and wherein the automatic adjustments are not based on contrast detection (paragraphs 14, 208, and 285; also see figure 14C, processor 592 and memory 594).
Thus, Bell discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the scope constitutes a recording device, wherein the processor is configured to perform the above-noted functions during recording.
Regarding the scope being a recording device, Gordon teaches it is known to configure a scope as a combination scope and recording device, capable of performing its scope function during recording, in order to allow a user to capture still images and video of the field of view of the scope (abstract; column 6, second paragraph). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the scope of Bell as a combination scope and recording device, capable of performing its scope function during recording, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow a user to capture still images and video of the field of view of the scope.
Regarding the functionality to increase a field of view, Bell fails to explicitly disclose automatically increasing and decreasing a field of view angle, as claimed. However, it is noted that a field of view can be changed via zooming, and Bell discloses a programmable auto-zoom function (paragraph 285). Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to configure auto-zoom functions such that they automatically increase and decrease field of view angles (i.e., field of view) as claimed, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the system made obvious by Bell in view of Gordon with the functionality to automatically increase and decrease a field of view angle as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to keep an object in full view no matter the zoom (in or out) that the auto-zoom has assumed.
In reference to claim 20, Bell in view of Gordon makes obvious the claimed invention (Bell, paragraph 196).
Claims 1, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (5631699) in view of Lorey.
In reference to claim 1, Saito discloses a system, comprising:
a rangefinder (column 5, last two lines, to column 6, lines 1-3); and
a recording device operatively coupled to the rangefinder (paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6; camera 10),
wherein the rangefinder is configured to determine a distance to an object, as claimed, and provide the determined distance to the recording device (paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6),
wherein the recording device is configured to automatically increase a field of view in response to the object becoming relatively larger in the field of view, i.e., wherein the recording device is configured to automatically increase a field of view in response to the object getting closer to the recording device (paragraphs bridging columns 5 and 6; figures 11(a) and 11(b)),
wherein the recording device comprises a lens assembly (lens L; column 6, lines 54-64), components configured to adjust lens focus and zoom (column 6, lines 54-64), and a processor with memory storing code, the processor being configured, during recording and responsive to successive distance determinations indicating changing distances from the rangefinder, to command the components to automatically adjust the focus and the zoom based at least in part on the changing distances, and wherein the automatic adjustments are not based on contrast detection (column 3, lines 43-50; column 5, line 29, to column 6, line 10; column 6, lines 54-64; figures 11(a) and 11(b) demonstrate successive distance determinations and the corresponding zoom adjustments).
Thus, Saito discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the rangefinder is configured as claimed. However, Lorey teaches it is known to form a rangefinder as a soundwave-based rangefinder, as claimed, in order to determine a distance to a target object (column 3, lines 8-17). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rangefinder of Saito as a soundwave-based rangefinder, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine a distance to a target object in a known manner.
In reference to claims 18 and 19, Saito in view of Lorey makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Lorey and further in view of Holmberg (2007/0157503), and further in view of Drost et al. (2014/0029236).
Saito in view of Lorey makes obvious the claimed invention, except for (1) a weapon having a weapon sight, wherein the recording device is mounted to the weapon, and (2) wherein the recording device includes horizontal and vertical adjustments, as claimed.
Regarding (1), Holmberg teaches it is known to combine a recording device, like that of Saito, with a weapon having a weapon sight, wherein the recording device is mounted to the weapon, in order to facilitate video recording of a shooting event, e.g., the ability to record a hunt (paragraphs 2, 15, and 18; figures). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the recording device of Saito in view of Lorey with a weapon having a weapon sight, wherein the recording device is mounted to the weapon, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate video recording of a shooting event, e.g., the ability to record a hunt.
Regarding (2), Drost teaches it is known to provide a recording device with its own horizontal and vertical adjustments, in order to adjust a field of view of the recording device independent of any other device (paragraph 75: pan and tilt adjustments). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recording device of Saito in view of Lorey with horizontal and vertical adjustments, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to adjust a field of view of the recording device independent of any other device (i.e., to provide pan and tilt adjustments).
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/489,990 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims set forth each and every feature of the instant application claims, albeit more specifically. Thus, the invention of the reference application claims is a species of the more generic invention of the instant application claims. As such, the invention of the reference application claims “anticipates” the invention instant application claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the modified Bell fails to render obvious a rangefinder that provides successive distance measurements. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Looking at Bell, paragraph 251 makes clear that the processor continuously updates the relative point of aim coordinate-point of impact coordinate positions (POAC-POIC), and thus, the rangefinder clearly provides the processor with continuously determined distance information; this conclusion is further supported by figure 14C-1 and paragraph 198, which make clear that the rangefinder is part of the ballistic parameter device; paragraphs 248 and 249, which make clear that ballistic parameters, e.g., distance, are used by the processor to determine relative point of aim coordinate-point of impact coordinate positions. Further, paragraph 251 clearly discloses that the processor “may continuously…update the relative POAC-POIC positions.” It follows that continuous updating of the relative POAC-POIC positions requires continuously determined distance information from the rangefinder.
Applicant also argues that the modified Bell fails to render obvious that the camera adjusts its zoom and focus based on the distance information provided by the rangefinder (i.e., successive distance measurments). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s attention is directed to paragraph 285 of Bell, which clearly discloses that auto-mode of the system provides continuous adjustment of the zoom and focus based on distance information, i.e., a user simply aims at whatever target he wants, and the system automatically adjusts the zoom for that distance—with such functionality occurring continuously through time. As soon as the shooter changes aim to a different target, the system automatically adjusts zoom level and focus for that target’s distance, i.e., the system is continuously monitoring aimpoint and target distance to achieve the disclosed “auto-mode.”
Applicant also argues that the modified Bell fails to render obvious that the camera automatically zooms-in (zooms-out) and focuses in a continuous manner. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the functional limitations associated with the processor (claim 1, lines 10-14) define the invention by what it does, NOT what it is. As such, in order to meet these limitations, the modified Bell need only be capable of functioning in the claimed manner. The examiner asserts that the modified Bell is clearly capable of functioning in the claimed manner.
Looking at Bell, paragraph 82 discloses that a point of impact coordinate (POIC) is associated with a set of parameters (SOP); paragraph 82 provides an exemplary SOP that includes distance, wind speed, and temperature; paragraphs 240 and 285 make clear that a plurality of POICs can be recorded by the system or obtained via software. Paragraphs 278 and 285 disclose that a shooter can record a preferred zoom-magnification/focus setting for each recorded (POIC) or obtain the same via software. Paragraph 285 makes clear that the system can continuously perform auto-zoom-focus that is based on the continuously determined distance indicated by the rangefinder and the POICs and associated zoom-magnification/zoom settings, i.e., visual settings, which are either recorded by a user or obtained via software or shareware downloads.
The scope of Bell is clearly capable of zooming-in, zooming-out, and focusing in a continuous (successive) manner, as claimed, since the system of Bell is disclosed as capable of receiving POIC and associated focus/zoom-magnification/zoom settings via software download—a software download of such information can reasonably constitute a large enough dataset, and/or an algorithm to determine such, to effect continuous zooming and focusing as the continuously determined distance is provided to the system via the rangefinder. Thus, the examiner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once recognize that the system of Bell is capable of functioning in the manner set forth in the final clause of claim 1. Further, Bell does not disclose any automatic adjustments based on contrast detection, and Applicant fails to provide any evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Saito, Applicant argues that the reference does not disclose an external rangefinder providing successive distance determinations, as claimed. However, none of claims 1, 12, 18, and 19 require an external rangefinder, and, thus, this argument is moot. Further, it is noted that Saito clearly discloses the successive measurement of distance for the purpose of providing automatic zoom and focus, as evidence by the cited portions in the above-rejections of claims 1, 12, 18, and 19. Further, Saito does not disclose any focus adjustments based on contrast detection, and Applicant fails to provide any evidence to the contrary. The above-rejections are clearly sound, and, thus, maintained. Applicant’s claimed invention is rendered obvious by the applied prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights