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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 04/27/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the drawings, the specification, and the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract.
A) Regarding the drawings, applicant has submitted five replacement sheets contained figures 1-5;
B) Regarding the specification, applicant has submitted a substitute specification with its marked-up copy showing the changes to the specification; and
c) Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1, 4 and 6 and canceled claim 5.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the drawings, the specification and the claims as provided in the amendment of 04/27/2026, and applicant's arguments provided in the Remark section, pages 1-4 of the mentioned amendment have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has canceled claim 5 and has not added any claim into the application, thus as amended, the pending claims are claims 1-4 and 6 (Note that claims 7-20 were canceled in the amendment of 08/13/2025) which claims are examined in the present office action.
B) Regarding the drawings, while the five replacement sheets contained figures 1-5 filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered; however, the five replacement sheets are objected to for the reasons set forth in the section of Drawings in the present office action.
C) Regarding the specification, the substitute specification filed on 04/27/2026 has not been entered because applicant has not provided a statement that the substitute specification does not contain any new matter as required by Rule 37 CFR 1.125(b)
It is noted that in page 4, last line, of the Remark section, applicant has stated that “No new matter has been entered”. However, that statement is considered as a reference/application to the claims, not the specification, because it is provided in the applicant’s arguments regarding the claims, see pages 2-3. Thus, the objections to the specification set forth in the office action of 10/27/2025 are repeated in the present office action.
It is suggested that applicant need to submit a statement under Rule 37 CFR 1.126(b) in response to the present office action so that the substitute specification will be entered.
D) Regarding the objections of claims 1-6 set forth in the office action of 10/27/2025, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 04/27/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, page 2 of the Remark section, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections of claims 1-6 set forth in the mentioned office action.
E) Regarding the rejections of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the office action of 10/27/2025, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 04/27/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in pages 2-3 of the Remark section of the amendment of 04/27/2026, have been fully considered and resulted the following conclusions.
E1) the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 04/27/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the Remark section, pages 2-3, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, elements # 13a1), 13b) and 13c) set forth in the office action of 10/27/2026; and
E2) the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 04/27/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the Remark section, pages 2-3, have been fully considered but are not sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, element # 13a2) set forth in the office action of 10/27/2026 .
It is noted that applicant has not amended the claim 1 and/or provided any argument to overcome the rejection of claim 1 for the reason set forth in element 13a2). In other words, the claim is rejected because it is unclear whether claim 1 is directed to an illuminator device only or directed to a combination of an illuminator device and a weapon based on the feature thereof “wherein the main housing body … the illuminator device is mounted” (lines 13-14).
F) Regarding the rejection of claim 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kennair, Jr., and the rejection of claim 5, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennair, Jr. in view of Park (US Publication No. 2005/0012717) as set forth in the office action of 10/27/2025, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 04/27/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in page 3, of the Remark section of the amendment of 04/27/2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The five replacement sheets contained figures 1-5 were received by the Office on 04/27/2026.
As a result of the changes to the drawings, the application now contains a total of five sheets of figures 1-5 which includes five replacement sheets contained figures 1-5 as filed on 04/27/2026 and not any sheet as originally filed. The mentioned total five sheets of figures 1-5 are objected by the examiner for the following reason(s).
The drawings are objected to because the terms/numbers appeared in figures 1 and 2 of the replacement sheets are so blurred that it is difficult to consider and could lead to confusion/mistake during the issue and printing processes. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature related to “a center bore axis of a weapon” as recited in claim 1 on line 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification filed on 04/27/2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b).
It is noted that applicant has not provided a statement that the substitute specification filed on 04/27/2026 does not contain any new matter as required by Rule 37 CFR 1.125(b).
The Summary of the Invention is objected to because it contains numerous details of the invention. Applicant needs provide a brief technical description of the invention in the Summary and moves other detailed descriptions to the section of “DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS”. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a) The use of language to describe/name an element throughout the specification is not consistent. For instance, the specification uses both terms “main housing body” and “main body housing” for element (105), see paragraph [0050], see also paragraphs [0051]-[0053]. It is suggested that the specification should be amended so that the language being used is consistent throughout the specification; b) the use of reference numbers for same element is not consistent, see paragraphs [0054] and [0066] which use the reference numbers (120, 122) for the battery caps and for the battery covers and the reference (105) for a device and a housing in paragraphs [0050] and [0056]. There are still some grammatical and idiomatic errors in the specification. Applicant should carefully proofread the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6 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.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by the feature thereof “wherein the main body housing … the illuminator is mounted” (lines 13-14).
The mentioned feature makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear about the structure of the illuminato device as recited in the claim. In particular, it is unclear whether claim 1 is directed to an illuminator device only or directed to a combination of an illuminator device and a weapon based on the feature thereof “wherein the main body housing … the illuminator is mounted” (lines 13-14).
For the purpose of examination, claim 1 is understood as a combination of an illumination device and a weapon wherein the illumination device is mounted on the weapon.
b) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al (US Patent No. 9,062,933) in view of Park (US Publication No. 2005/0012717, of record).
Allen et al discloses an illumination device (10) mounted on a weapon (200), see fig. 5.
a) Regarding present claims 1-2, the illumination device mounted on a weapon as described in columns 11-14 and shown in figs. 1-5 comprises the following features:
a1) a main housing body (10);
a2) a plurality of photo emitters (172) mounted at least one of on or in the main housing body (10) wherein the plurality of photon emitters includes two side emitters arranged symmetrically on either side of a central laser designator (162), see columns 11-12 and figs. 1 and 5;
a3) at least a power source (140) within the main housing body (10) for proving electric power to at least one of the plurality of photon emitters, see column 12;
a4) plurality of control components (150, 152, 154) in the form of tactile activation buttons for controlling operations of one or more of the plurality of photon emitters, see columns 12-13 and fig. 2; and
a5) the main housing body (10) is mounted on a weapon (200) wherein a centerline configured to align with a center bore axis of the weapon, see fig. 5.
It is noted that while Allen et al discloses an illumination device mounted on a weapon wherein the illumination device comprises a plurality of buttons for controlling the operations of the photo emitters; however, Allen et al does not mention that the plurality of buttons having different heights to provide haptic differentiation to a user without requiring visual confirmation.
However, a device having a plurality of buttons wherein the buttons are used to control operations of the device and the buttons have different heights is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the device provided by Park, see paragraphs [0029]-[0030] and fig. 1. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the illumination device mounted on a weapon as provided by Allen et al by making the buttons being used to control the photo emitters with different heights as suggested by Park for the purpose of prevention the buttons from being erroneously clicked/pushed and providing haptic differentiation to a user without requiring visual confirmation.
b) Regarding present claims 3-4 and 6, the plurality of control components (150, 152, 154) are in the form of tactile activation buttons and located on the main housing body (1o) to facilitate ambidextrous activation of the one or more plural buttons and the buttons are individually used to control the on/off and intensity of light emitted by one or more of the photon emitters, see columns 12-13.
Conclusion
The US Patent No. 10,137,364 is cited as of interest in that it discloses an optical device having a housing supporting a plurality of buttons wherein the buttons have different heights.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights