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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed December 2, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 7, applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-8 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 7 have been fully considered and are appreciated. Namely, applicant argues that Minor fails to disclose "the at least two zoom cells are positioned within the erector tube such that the at least two fingers of a first zoom cell align with a corresponding at least one of the at least two grooves of the other of the at least two zoom cells" as required by Claim 7. Applicant goes on to further assert that this is the case because the Minor reference does not have the grooves and fingers of the zoom cells oriented to be fitted into one another. First, it is noted that “oriented to be fitted into one another” is not currently required by the claim language. Further, the word align merely requires things are placed or arranged in a straight line and does not require that they fit within or interlock together. Therefore, the Minor reference discloses the limitations of claim 7, as set forth below.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-11 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the limitation “wherein the aspect ratio as defined as the width/outer diameter is from 0.2 to 1.4.” In the previously and currently applied rejection the examiner noted that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which the aspect ratio as defined as the width/outer diameter is from 0.2 to 1.4, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Applicant argues that this is a use of “impermissible hindsight”. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). However, in this case, the structural limitations are taught by Minor et al. as set forth below. Adjusting the aspect ratio of the scope to meet optical needs and/or improve the usability of the device would have predictable results. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected, as set forth below.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 16.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected as set forth below.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 14, and 16, respectively, of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,629,933. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim 1-3, 6, 7, 10-17, and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,629,33. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims correspond as set forth below
In regard to claim 1, US 11,629,333 claims a zoom cell comprising:
a main zoom cell body having a central axis, at least two fingers extending from the main zoom cell body parallel to the central axis, and at least two grooves separating the at least two fingers, wherein the zoom cell has a width and an outer diameter, and wherein the aspect ratio as defined as the width/outer diameter is from 0.2 to 1.4 (see e.g. Claim 1, Column 11, line 58-Column 12, line 2).
In regard to claim 2, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 1, and
having from two to ten fingers and from two to ten grooves (see e.g. Claim 2, Column 12, lines 3-4).
In regard to claim 3, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 1, and
wherein the at least two fingers and at least two grooves are evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body (see e.g. Claim 3, Column 12, lines 5-7).
In regard to claim 6, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 1, and
wherein the zoom cell has an aspect ratio from 0.3 to 1.2 (see e.g. Claim 5, Column 12, lines 5-7).
In regard to claim 7, US 11,629,933 claims a zoom cell system comprising: an erector tube having an inner diameter, and at least two zoom cells positioned within the erector tube, each zoom cell having a main zoom cell body with a central axis, at least two fingers extending from the main zoom cell body parallel with the central axis and separated by at least two grooves, wherein each zoom cell has an outer diameter, as measured with reference to the outer surface of the fingers, which is the same, wherein the at least two zoom cells are positioned within the erector tube such that the at least two fingers of a first zoom cell align with a corresponding at least one of the at least two grooves of the other of the at least two zoom cells (see e.g. Claim 6, Column 12, lines 13-30).
In regard to claim 10, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 7, and
wherein the at least two fingers are evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body (see e.g. Claim 8, Column 12, lines 35-37).
In regard to claim 11, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 7, and
wherein the at least two fingers of a first of the at least two zoom cells are not evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body (see e.g. Claim 9, Column 12, lines 38-40).
In regard to claim 12, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 7, and
wherein the at least two grooves have different arc lengths (see e.g. Claim 10, Column 12, lines 41-42).
In regard to claim 13, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 7, and
wherein each of the at least two zoom cells have an aspect ratio from 0.3 to 1.2 (see e.g. Claim 11, Column 12, lines 43-44).
In regard to claim 14, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 7, and
two zoom cells positioned within the erector tube, each zoom cell having a main zoom cell body with a central axis, two fingers extending from the main zoom cell body parallel with the central axis and separated by two grooves (see e.g. Claim 12, Column 12, lines 45-49).
In regard to claim 15, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 14, and
wherein the two fingers of each of the two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from each finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis (see e.g. Claim 13, Column 12, lines 50-53).
In regard to claim 16, US 11, 629,933 claims a viewing optic comprising:
a viewing optic body having an objective end, an eyepiece end, and a power ring for adjusting magnification; and a zoom cell system comprising an erector tube having an inner diameter, and at least two zoom cells positioned within the erector tube, each zoom cell having a main zoom cell body with a central axis, at least two fingers extending from the main zoom cell body parallel with the central axis and separated by at least two grooves, wherein each zoom cell has an outer diameter as measured with reference to the outer surface of the fingers, wherein the at least two zoom cells are positioned within the erector tube such that the at least two fingers of a first zoom cell align with a corresponding at least one of the at least two grooves of the other of the at least two zoom cells, and wherein a power ring is operatively connected to the zoom cell system (see e.g. claim 14, Column 12, line 54-Column 13, line 9).
In regard to claim 17, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 16, and
wherein the viewing optic is a scope (see e.g. Claim 15, Column 13, lines 10-11).
In regard to claim 20, US 11,629,933 claims the limitations of claim 16, and
wherein the at least two fingers of each of the at least two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from each of the at least two fingers in a direction perpendicular to the central axis (see e.g. Claim 17, Column 13, lines 16-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minor et al. (US 2018/0341082 A1).
In regard to claim 7, Minor et al. discloses a zoom cell system comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-3):
an erector tube 21 having an inner diameter, and at least two zoom cells 22a,b positioned within the erector tube 21 (see e.g. Figure 2),
each zoom cell 22a,b having a main zoom cell body with a central axis (see e.g. Figures 1-2),
at least two fingers extending from the main zoom cell body 22a,b parallel with the central axis and separated by at least two grooves (see e.g. annotated Figure 1),
wherein each zoom cell 22a,b has an outer diameter, as measured with reference to the outer surface of the fingers, which is the same (see e.g. Figure 2),
wherein the at least two zoom cells 22a,b are positioned within the erector tube 21 such that the at least two fingers of a first zoom cell 22a align with a corresponding at least one of the at least two grooves of the other of the at least two zoom cells 22a,b (see e.g. Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 10, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above and
wherein the at least two fingers are evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body (see e.g. annotated Figure 1).
In regard to claim 14, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, and
two zoom cells 22a, 22b positioned within the erector tube,
each zoom cell having a main zoom cell body with a central axis (see e.g. annotated Figure 1),
two fingers extending from the main zoom cell body parallel with the central axis and separated by two grooves (see e.g. annotated Figure 1).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minor et al. (US 2018/0341082 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Minor et al. discloses a zoom cell 10 comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
a main zoom cell body having a central axis (see e.g. annotated Figure 1),
at least two fingers extending from the main zoom cell body parallel to the central axis (see e.g. annotated Figure 1), and at least two grooves separating the at least two fingers (see e.g. annotated Figure 1), wherein the zoom cell has a width and an outer diameter (see e.g. annotated Figure 1).
Minor et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the aspect ratio as defined as the width/outer diameter is from 0.2 to 1.4.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which the aspect ratio as defined as the width/outer diameter is from 0.2 to 1.4, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with the aspect ratio as defined as the width/outer diameter is from 0.2 to 1.4
Doing so would provide an aspect ratio that provides an appropriate footprint for the application of the zoom lens cell.
In regard to claim 2, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
having from two to ten fingers and from two to ten grooves (see e.g. annotated Figure 1).
In regard to claim 3, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above and
wherein the at least two fingers and at least two grooves are evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body (see e.g. annotated Figure 1).
In regard to claim 6, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the zoom cell has an aspect ratio from 0.3 to 1.2.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which wherein the zoom cell has an aspect ratio from 0.3 to 1.2, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein the zoom cell has an aspect ratio from 0.3 to 1.2
Doing so would provide an aspect ratio that provides an appropriate footprint for the application of the zoom lens cell.
In regard to claim 13, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the zoom cell has an aspect ratio from 0.3 to 1.2.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which wherein the zoom cell has an aspect ratio from 0.3 to 1.2, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein the zoom cell has an aspect ratio from 0.3 to 1.2
Doing so would provide an aspect ratio that provides an appropriate footprint for the application of the zoom lens cell.
Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minor et al. (US 2018/0341082 A1) in view of Nomura et al. (US 5,793,537).
In regard to claim 4, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the at least two fingers and at least two grooves are not evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body.
However, Nomura et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 9):
wherein the at least two fingers 22b and at least two grooves are not evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body (see e.g. Figure 9 and note that grooves and fingers are not evenly spaced.)
Given the teachings of Nomura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein the at least two fingers and at least two grooves are not evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body.
Doing so would constitute a rearrangement of parts or a matter of design choice, both of which are considered within ordinary skill in the art. Further, such a change could facilitate the accommodation of other components.
In regard to claim 5, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
wherein one of the at least two grooves has a greater arc length than the other of the at least two grooves.
However, Nomura et al. discloses
wherein one of the at least two grooves (i.e. between elements 22b) has a greater arc length than the other of the at least two grooves (see e.g. Figure 9).
Given the teachings of Nomura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein one of the at least two grooves has a greater arc length than the other of the at least two grooves.
Doing so would constitute a rearrangement of parts or a matter of design choice, both of which are considered within ordinary skill in the art. Further, such a change could facilitate the accommodation of other components.
In regard to claim 11, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the at least two fingers and at least two grooves are not evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body.
However, Nomura et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 9):
wherein the at least two fingers 22b and at least two grooves are not evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body (see e.g. Figure 9 and note that grooves and fingers are not evenly spaced.)
Given the teachings of Nomura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein the at least two fingers and at least two grooves are not evenly disposed about the main zoom cell body.
Doing so would constitute a rearrangement of parts or a matter of design choice, both of which are considered within ordinary skill in the art. Further, such a change could facilitate the accommodation of other components.
In regard to claim 12, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
wherein one of the at least two grooves has a greater arc length than the other of the at least two grooves.
However, Nomura et al. discloses
wherein one of the at least two grooves (i.e. between elements 22b) has a greater arc length than the other of the at least two grooves (see e.g. Figure 9).
Given the teachings of Nomura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein one of the at least two grooves has a greater arc length than the other of the at least two grooves.
Doing so would constitute a rearrangement of parts or a matter of design choice, both of which are considered within ordinary skill in the art. Further, such a change could facilitate the accommodation of other components.
Claims 8, 9, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minor et al. (US 2018/0341082 A1) in view of Thomas (US 2010/0309462 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one finger of each of the at least two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from the finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
However, Thomas discloses
wherein at least one finger of each of the at least two zoom cells 353, 359 further includes a pin 363, 369 projecting outwardly away from the finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis (see e.g. Figures 9-12 and paragraph [0078]).
Given the teachings of Thomas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein at least one finger of each of the at least two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from the finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
Doing so would provide a means for providing safe translation of the zoom cell sin the erector tube/barrel.
In regard to claim 9, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the erector tube further includes at least two slots, and each of the pins of the at least two zoom cells engages a respective one of the two slots.
However, Thomas discloses
wherein the erector tube 350 further includes at least two slots 362, 364, and each of the pins 363, 369 of the at least two zoom cells 353, 359 engages a respective one of the two slots 362, 364, (see e.g. Figures 9-12 and paragraph [0078]).
Given the teachings of Thomas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein the erector tube further includes at least two slots, and each of the pins of the at least two zoom cells engages a respective one of the two slots.
Doing so would provide a means for providing safe translation of the zoom cell sin the erector tube/barrel.
In regard to claim 15, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the two fingers of each of the two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from each finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
However, Thomas discloses (see e.g. Figures 9-12):
wherein each of the two fingers of each of the two zoom cells 353, 359 (see e.g. Figure 11, fingers unlabeled) further includes a pin 363, 369 projecting outwardly away from each finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
Given the teachings of Thomas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein each of the two fingers of each of the two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from each finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
Doing so would provide a means for providing safe translation of the zoom cell sin the erector tube/barrel.
In regard to claim 16, Minor et al. discloses a zoom cell system comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-3):
an erector tube 21 having an inner diameter, and at least two zoom cells 22a,b positioned within the erector tube 21 (see e.g. Figure 2),
each zoom cell 22a,b having a main zoom cell body with a central axis (see e.g. Figures 1-2),
at least two fingers extending from the main zoom cell body 22a,b parallel with the central axis and separated by at least two grooves (see e.g. annotated Figure 1),
wherein each zoom cell 22a,b has an outer diameter, as measured with reference to the outer surface of the fingers, which is the same (see e.g. Figure 2),
wherein the at least two zoom cells 22a,b are positioned within the erector tube 21 such that the at least two fingers of a first zoom cell 22a align with a corresponding at least one of the at least two grooves of the other of the at least two zoom cells 22a,b (see e.g. Figure 3).
Minor et al. fails to disclose
a viewing optic comprising:
a viewing optic having an objective end, an eyepiece end, and a power ring for adjusting magnification; and
wherein the power ring is operatively connected to the zoom cell system.
However, Thomas discloses
a viewing optic comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
a viewing optic body 100 having an objective end 114, an eyepiece end 118, and a power ring 105 for adjusting magnification (see e.g. paragraph [0061]); and
wherein a power ring is operatively connected to the zoom cell system (see e.g. paragraph [0061]).
Given the teachings of Thomas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with a viewing optic comprising: a viewing optic having an objective end, an eyepiece end, and a power ring for adjusting magnification; and wherein a power ring is operatively connected to the zoom cell system.
Doing so would provide a means for the user to adjust the magnification of the telescopic device.
In regard to claim 17, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and wherein the viewing optic is a scope (see e.g. paragraph [0005]).
In regard to claim 18, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one finger of each of the at least two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from the finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
However, Thomas discloses
wherein at least one finger of each of the at least two zoom cells 353, 359 further includes a pin 363, 369 projecting outwardly away from the finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis (see e.g. Figures 9-12 and paragraph [0078]).
Given the teachings of Thomas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein at least one finger of each of the at least two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from the finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
Doing so would provide a means for providing safe translation of the zoom cell sin the erector tube/barrel.
In regard to claim 19, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 18 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the erector tube further includes at least two slots, and each of the pins of the at least two zoom cells engages a respective on of the two slots.
However, Thomas discloses
wherein the erector tube 350 further includes at least two slots 362, 364, and each of the pins 363, 369 of the at least two zoom cells 353, 359 engages a respective on of the two slots 362, 364, (see e.g. Figures 9-12 and paragraph [0078]).
Given the teachings of Thomas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein the erector tube further includes at least two slots, and each of the pins of the at least two zoom cells engages a respective on of the two slots.
Doing so would provide a means for providing safe translation of the zoom cell sin the erector tube/barrel.
In regard to claim 20, Minor et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each of the two fingers of each of the two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from each finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
However, Thomas discloses (see e.g. Figures 9-12):
wherein each of the two fingers of each of the two zoom cells 353, 359 (see e.g. Figures 10-11, fingers unlabeled) further includes a pin 363, 369 projecting outwardly away from each finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
Given the teachings of Thomas, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Minor et al. with wherein each of the two fingers of each of the two zoom cells further includes a pin projecting outwardly away from each finger in a direction perpendicular to the central axis.
Doing so would provide a means for providing safe translation of the zoom cell sin the erector tube/barrel.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871