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
This Office action is in response to the communication filed 6/5/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 and 8, filed 6/5/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hamilton David (WO 2020146385).
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-* is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campean (2006/0218841) in view of Hamilton, David et al. (WO 2020146385), hereinafter ‘385.
Regarding claim 16, Campean discloses, in figures 5 and 8, a viewing optic (500, pivoting lens cover) (paragraph 0026) comprising: a zero cap having a base (510, mounting ring assembly which includes 610, first ring member and 620, second ring member) (paragraphs 0027 and 0033), an aperture cap (530, retaining cap) configured to hingedly connect to the base (610, first ring member and 620, second ring member) (paragraphs 0027 and 0032); and a cap plug (810, central plug section) (paragraph 0044); and a connecting strip (624, external (male) threads and628, knurled outer surface) configured to interact with the base (510, mounting ring assembly) (paragraph 0033).
Campean does not specifically disclose a cap plug configured to rotate on the aperture cap.
‘385 discloses a cap plug (513’, lever) configured to rotate on the aperture cap (510’, zero cap) (paragraph 0060 discloses the lever is connected to the turret screw).
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 Campean with the cap plug of ‘385 for the purpose of securing the covering of the cap.
In regards to claim 16, Examiner notes that the recitations after "configured" are functional/intended use language. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiated the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations if the prior art apparatus if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Mashim, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). The Applicant needs to claim the physical structure of the claimed "cap plug" that gives rise to these functions/characteristics/intended uses as these are apparatus claims. The limitations are as follows: in claim 16, " configured to rotate on the aperture cap ".
Regarding claim 20, Campean discloses wherein the viewing optic is a riflescope (paragraphs 0026 and 0036).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campean (2006/0218841) in view of Hamilton, David et al. (WO 2020146385), hereinafter ‘385 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Cai, Xiang-fa et al. (CN 103511910), hereinafter Cai.
Regarding claim 17, Campean discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Campean does not disclose wherein the aperture cap has a first hole and a second hole; and further wherein the second hole is located below the first hole.
Campean and Cai are related as a lens device with a lens cover.
Cai discloses wherein the aperture cap (16, lens cover) has a first hole and a second hole (figure 6 below and paragraph 0036 discloses 4 holes 162 located within the lens cover 16); and further wherein the second hole is located below the first hole (figure 6 below shows the holes 162 located around the circular cover 16; Examiner notes that there are lower and upper).
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 Campean with the first and second holes of Cai for the purpose of sealing the lens within the lens cover.
Regarding claim 18, Cai discloses wherein the cap plug has a first plug and a second plug (figure 6 below and paragraph 0036 disclose a plurality of locking members 18), and further wherein the first plug is configured to interact with the first hole and the second plug is configured to interact with the second hole (figure 6 below and paragraph 0036 disclose a plurality of locking members 18 that pass through the holes 162).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Campean discloses wherein the first hole is placed at the center of the aperture cap (figure 2 shows opening where logo 690 is placed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
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 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.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights