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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 08/15/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ACC" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no “ACC” has been defined and it is unclear whether “the ACC” should refer to the “ASC” or some additional element. For the purposes of examination, “the ACC” will be interpreted as “the ASC.”
Claims 2-22 are rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
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, 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(s) 1-4, 9-12, and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,961,278; hereinafter – “Johnson”) in view of Storch et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2009/0049734; hereinafter – “Storch”).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a night vision refocus device, comprising:
(i) a housing (19) comprising a proximate end (14) configured to couple to a lens frame (47) of a night vision device and a distal end (12) (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 5; C. 2, L. 49 – C. 3, L. 20);
(ii) a faceplate (51) operably connected to the housing, wherein the faceplate includes an outer surface, an inner surface, and a faceplate-aperture (44) having a faceplate-aperture area (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44);
(iii) an aperture-selection component (ASC) (11) rotatably mounted directly or indirectly to the faceplate, wherein the ASC includes a plurality of individual refocusing-apertures (IFAs) (23, 25) including a first IFA having a first area (23) and a second IFA having a second area (25), the first area being larger than the second area (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 55; C. 6, L. 8-44);
wherein the first IFA is aligned with the faceplate aperture when the ASC component is oriented in a first position, and the second IFA is aligned with the faceplate aperture when the ASC is oriented in a second position (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the faceplate is movable between a closed state in which the faceplate is adjacent and/or overlies the distal end of the housing and an open state in which the faceplate does not overlie the distal end of the housing and the ASC is rotatable relative to both the faceplate and the housing when the faceplate is in the closed state.
However, Storch teaches a multiple sight gun sight assembly comprising a housing (38, 42, 46), a faceplate (44) operably coupled to the housing with a faceplate aperture wherein the faceplate is movable between a closed state in which the faceplate is adjacent and/or overlies the distal end of the housing and an open state in which the faceplate does not overlie the distal end of the housing, and an aperture-selection component (ASC) (62, 72) rotatably mounted directly or indirectly to the faceplate, wherein the ASC includes a plurality of individual refocusing-apertures (IFAs) (94, 96, 98) including a first IFA having a first area and a second IFA having a second area, the first area being larger than the second area; wherein the first IFA is aligned with the faceplate aperture when the ASC component is oriented in a first position, and the second IFA is aligned with the faceplate aperture when the ASC is oriented in a second position wherein the ASC is rotatable relative to both the faceplate and the housing when the faceplate is in the closed state (See e.g. Figs. 2-6; Paragraphs 0025-0027 and 0031-0033).
Storch teaches this hinged connection of the faceplate and rotatable ASC in order to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system” (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the hinged connection of the faceplate and rotatable ASC of Storch to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system,” as taught by Storch (Paragraph 0035), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the faceplate is connected to the housing via a hinge.
However, Storch further teaches that the faceplate is connected to the housing via a hinge (See e.g. Figs. 2-6; Paragraphs 0025-0027 and 0031-0033).
Storch teaches this hinged connection of the faceplate in order to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system” (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the hinged connection of the faceplate of Storch to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system,” as taught by Storch (Paragraph 0035), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the faceplate-aperture (44) is located at a center point of the faceplate, and the faceplate-aperture area is larger than the second area, larger than the first area, or both (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 3, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the ASC is rotatable about an axle (20, 37, 41, 50) that is operably coupled to the of the faceplate, the outer surface of the faceplate, or within a cavity of the faceplate, and wherein the axle is oriented perpendicular to the inner surface of the faceplate or the outer surface of the faceplate, and wherein the axle is located at an offset location relative to the faceplate-aperture (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the first IFA, the faceplate aperture, and a line of sight of the lens of the optical device are aligned in the first position when the faceplate is in a closed state in which the faceplate is adjacent and overlies the distal end of the housing, and wherein the second IFA, the faceplate aperture, and a line of sight of the lens of the optical device are aligned in the second position when the faceplate is in a closed state in which the faceplate is adjacent and overlies the distal end of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 4, as above.
Johnson further teaches that an engageable portion (15) of the ASC extends beyond the faceplate and housing and is directly engageable by a user to impart rotation of the ASC about the axle (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the faceplate and the housing comprise one or more first corresponding coupling elements that releasably lock the faceplate in a closed state in which the faceplate is adjacent and/or overlies the distal end of the housing.
However, Storch further teaches that the faceplate and the housing comprise one or more first corresponding coupling elements (110, 152) that releasably lock the faceplate in a closed state in which the faceplate is adjacent and/or overlies the distal end of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0031 and 0033-0034).
Storch teaches this hinged connection of the faceplate in order to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system” (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the hinged connection of the faceplate of Storch to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system,” as taught by Storch (Paragraph 0035), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the faceplate and the housing comprise one or more second corresponding coupling elements that releasably lock the faceplate in an open state in which the faceplate does not overlie the distal end of the housing.
However, Storch further teaches that the faceplate and the housing comprise one or more second corresponding coupling elements (110, 152) that releasably lock the faceplate in an open state in which the faceplate does not overlie the distal end of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0031 and 0033-0034).
Storch teaches this hinged connection of the faceplate in order to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system” (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the hinged connection of the faceplate of Storch to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system,” as taught by Storch (Paragraph 0035), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose a locking component directly or indirectly operably connected to the housing, wherein the locking component directly or indirectly engages the faceplate when the faceplate is in an open state in which the faceplate does not overlie the distal end of the housing and prevents the faceplate from moving into a closed state in which the faceplate is adjacent and overlies the distal end of the housing.
However, Storch further teaches a locking component directly or indirectly operably connected to the housing, wherein the locking component directly or indirectly engages the faceplate when the faceplate is in an open state in which the faceplate does not overlie the distal end of the housing and prevents the faceplate from moving into a closed state in which the faceplate is adjacent and overlies the distal end of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0031 and 0033-0034).
Storch teaches this hinged connection of the faceplate in order to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system” (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the hinged connection of the faceplate of Storch to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system,” as taught by Storch (Paragraph 0035), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the device is devoid of a lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the ASC comprises from 2 to 10 IFAs, wherein each IFA has a unique area (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Additionally, Storch further teaches that the ASC comprises from 2 to 10 IFAs, wherein each IFA has a unique area (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0025-0028).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson further teaches that each IFA independently comprise a unique area having a unique diameter from about to about 2 to about 18 mm (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 55; C. 6, L. 8-44 – Here Johnson’s disclosure of an active area being less than 18 mm reads on Applicant’s claimed range with sufficient specificity).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the ASC comprises a circular disc (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Additionally, Storch further teaches that the ASC comprises a circular disc (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0025-0028).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device according to claim 1, as above.
Johnson further teaches a night vision device, comprising: an optical device (12) and a night vision refocus device (19) according to claim 1 being permanently or releasably mounted to a lens frame of the night vision device (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 5; C. 2, L. 49 – C. 3, L. 20; C. 6, L. 28-44).
Regarding claim 20, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the night vision device of claim 19, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the housing of the night vision refocus device and the lens frame are integrally formed together as a unitary component (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 5; C. 2, L. 49 – C. 3, L. 20; C. 6, L. 28-44).
Regarding claim 21, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the ASC comprises from 3 to 10 IFAs, wherein each IFA has a unique area.
However, Storch further teaches that the ASC comprises from 3 to 10 IFAs, wherein each IFA has a unique area (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0025-0028).
Storch teaches this ASC having 3 to 10 IFAs to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system” (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the ASC having 3 to 10 IFAs of Storch to provide “a gun sight system that allows a shooter to quickly and repeatably configure the firearm for shooting at various distances” or for “other sighting accessories such as scopes, lasers, target magnifiers, or the like” and such that it is “simple to operate such that novice shooters can quickly become accurate marksman across at least a substantial portion of a tactical range of any firearm equipped with such a system,” as taught by Storch (Paragraph 0035), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 22, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the ASC comprises a disc having a portion thereof that is exposed to an external environment when the faceplate is in the closed state (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Additionally, Storch further teaches that the ASC comprises a disc having a portion thereof that is exposed to an external environment when the faceplate is in the closed state (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0025-0028).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Storch, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of McNiven et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,617,260; hereinafter – “McNiven”).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 4, as above.
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the inner surface of the faceplate, the outer surface, or the cavity of the faceplate includes a plurality of faceplate-positioning elements and the ASC includes a plurality of ASC-positioning elements, wherein the plurality of faceplate-positioning elements mate with the plurality of ASC-positioning elements to define a plurality of fixed position for the ASC, including the first position and the second position.
However, McNiven teaches an optical instrument with a rotatable lens turret comprising a housing, a faceplate, and an aperture-selection component wherein the inner surface of the faceplate, the outer surface, or the cavity of the faceplate includes a plurality of faceplate-positioning elements (80, 90, 92, 100, 102, 104) and the ASC includes a plurality of ASC-positioning elements (106, 108, 110), wherein the plurality of faceplate-positioning elements mate with the plurality of ASC-positioning elements to define a plurality of fixed position for the ASC, including the first position and the second position (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 5-7; C. 4, L. 38 – C. 5, L. 46).
McNiven teaches these positioning elements to provide “a lens turret which is compact, has a better stiffness to weight ratio and is more accurately positionable than known lens turrets so that the operative optical component can be positioned in a more accurate and steadier manner by means of a relatively simple adjustment mechanism” (C. 1, L. 14-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the positioning elements of McNiven to provide “a lens turret which is compact, has a better stiffness to weight ratio and is more accurately positionable than known lens turrets so that the operative optical component can be positioned in a more accurate and steadier manner by means of a relatively simple adjustment mechanism,” as taught by McNiven (C. 1, L. 14-21).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson in view of Storch and McNiven teaches the device of claim 5, as above.
McNiven further teaches that the plurality of faceplate-positioning elements comprise a first group of positioning magnets (110) housed by the faceplate and the plurality of ASC-positioning elements comprise a second group of positioning magnets housed by the ASC (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 5-7; C. 4, L. 38 – C. 5, L. 46).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson in view of Storch and McNiven teaches the device of claim 5, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the faceplate and the ASC are mounted in a parallel face- to-face relative configuration (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 55; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the faceplate and the ASC comprise one or more detent assemblies (i) including one or more depressions located in the faceplate and one or more protuberances formed or incorporated within a first side of the ASC that is proximate or adjacent the depressions located in the faceplate or (ii) including one or more depressions located within a first side of the ASC that is proximate or adjacent the faceplate and one or more protuberances formed or incorporated within the faceplate.
However, McNiven further teaches that the faceplate and the ASC comprise one or more detent assemblies (i) including one or more depressions (60, 62, 64) located in the faceplate and one or more protuberances (66, 68, 70, 80) formed or incorporated within a first side of the ASC that is proximate or adjacent the depressions located in the faceplate or (ii) including one or more depressions located within a first side of the ASC that is proximate or adjacent the faceplate and one or more protuberances formed or incorporated within the faceplate (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 5-7; C. 4, L. 38 – C. 5, L. 46).
McNiven teaches these positioning elements to provide “a lens turret which is compact, has a better stiffness to weight ratio and is more accurately positionable than known lens turrets so that the operative optical component can be positioned in a more accurate and steadier manner by means of a relatively simple adjustment mechanism” (C. 1, L. 14-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the positioning elements of McNiven to provide “a lens turret which is compact, has a better stiffness to weight ratio and is more accurately positionable than known lens turrets so that the operative optical component can be positioned in a more accurate and steadier manner by means of a relatively simple adjustment mechanism,” as taught by McNiven (C. 1, L. 14-21).
Regarding claim 21, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson further teaches that the ASC comprises from 3 to 10 IFAs, wherein each IFA has a unique area (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 3, L. 21 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 54 – C. 5, L. 30; C. 6, L. 8-44).
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the ASC comprises from 3 to 10 IFAs, wherein each IFA has a unique area.
However, McNiven teaches an optical instrument with a rotatable lens turret comprising a housing, a faceplate, and an aperture-selection component wherein the inner surface of the faceplate, the outer surface, or the cavity of the faceplate includes a plurality of faceplate-positioning elements (80, 90, 92, 100, 102, 104) and the ASC includes a plurality of ASC-positioning elements (106, 108, 110), wherein the ASC comprises from 3 to 10 IFAs, wherein each IFA has a unique area (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 5-7; C. 4, L. 38 – C. 5, L. 46).
McNiven teaches these positioning elements to provide “a lens turret which is compact, has a better stiffness to weight ratio and is more accurately positionable than known lens turrets so that the operative optical component can be positioned in a more accurate and steadier manner by means of a relatively simple adjustment mechanism” (C. 1, L. 14-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the 3 to 10 IFAs of McNiven to provide “a lens turret which is compact, has a better stiffness to weight ratio and is more accurately positionable than known lens turrets so that the operative optical component can be positioned in a more accurate and steadier manner by means of a relatively simple adjustment mechanism,” as taught by McNiven (C. 1, L. 14-21).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Storch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dosaka (U.S. Patent No. 5,128,808).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the faceplate includes an arcuate groove formed therein, and a first side of the ASC that is proximate or adjacent the arcuate groove of the faceplate includes a hard-stop projection configured to be slidably housed within the arcuate groove.
However, Dosaka teaches a turret condenser for microscopes including a faceplate and an aperture-selection component wherein the faceplate includes an arcuate groove (20a, 20b) formed therein, and a first side of the ASC that is proximate or adjacent the arcuate groove of the faceplate includes a hard-stop projection (201) configured to be slidably housed within the arcuate groove (See e.g. Fig. 5; C. 5, L. 35 – C. 7, L. 14).
Dosaka teaches this groove and projection “to provide a turret condenser for microscopes which is equipped with two turrets overlapped with each other in the vicinity of the pupil of a condenser lens and is capable of interposing combinations of numerous types of optical elements on the optical axis of the condenser lens” and “to provide a turret condenser for microscopes which is so adapted as to removably accommodate most of the optical elements in each of the turret and permit microscopy in a larger number of modes” (C. 2, L. 36-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the groove and projection of Dosaka “to provide a turret condenser for microscopes which is equipped with two turrets overlapped with each other in the vicinity of the pupil of a condenser lens and is capable of interposing combinations of numerous types of optical elements on the optical axis of the condenser lens” and “to provide a turret condenser for microscopes which is so adapted as to removably accommodate most of the optical elements in each of the turret and permit microscopy in a larger number of modes,” as taught by Dosaka (C. 2, L. 36-47).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Storch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heitkamp et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2011/0157713; hereinafter – “Heitkamp”).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson in view of Storch teaches the device of claim 1, as above.
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose that the housing comprises a first end extending from the proximate end to the distal end and a second end extending from the proximate end and the distal end to define a band clamp structure having a variable diameter upon tightening or loosening of one more clamping mechanisms passing through respective orifices of the first end and the second end.
However, Heitkamp teaches a flip optic adapter including a housing that comprises a first end extending from the proximate end to the distal end and a second end extending from the proximate end and the distal end to define a band clamp structure having a variable diameter upon tightening or loosening of one more clamping mechanisms passing through respective orifices of the first end and the second end (See e.g. Figs. 6 and 7; Paragraphs 0032 and 0040-0041).
Heitkamp teaches this band clamp structure to provide a “refocus flip optic adaptor for a night vision goggle may include an adaptor housing for detachably mounting to an objective lens assembly of the night vision goggle and an optical element holder pivotably mounted to the adaptor housing such that a refocus lens (or other optical element) mounted to the optical element holder is selectively positionable in an operative position in which the refocus lens is axially aligned with the objective lens of the night vision goggle and an inoperative position in which the refocus lens and the optical element holder do not affect an image viewable through the night vision goggle” (Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Johnson with the band clamp structure of Heitkamp to provide a “refocus flip optic adaptor for a night vision goggle may include an adaptor housing for detachably mounting to an objective lens assembly of the night vision goggle and an optical element holder pivotably mounted to the adaptor housing such that a refocus lens (or other optical element) mounted to the optical element holder is selectively positionable in an operative position in which the refocus lens is axially aligned with the objective lens of the night vision goggle and an inoperative position in which the refocus lens and the optical element holder do not affect an image viewable through the night vision goggle,” as taught by Heitkamp (Paragraph 0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Johnson in view of Campean have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of Johnson and Storch, as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Warensford (U.S. Patent No. 9,683,811) teaches a low-profile folding sight with adjustable aperture having a similar construction.
Cheng et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,563,050) teaches a lens cover having a hinged connection with a rotatable faceplate.
Schwerman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,726,229) teaches a rotatable and retractable rear gun sight with a similar configuration.
Storch et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2009/0071056) teaches a multiple sight gun sight assembly with a similar hinged construction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896