DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-12 and 21-24 have been 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al (US 2020/0232762) [hereinafter Hamilton] in view of Zimmer (US 2020/0143667).
Regarding claim 1, Hamilton discloses a system comprising: a viewing optic 10/3800 having a body 38 with a first end (side with eye piece 56) and a second end (side with objective lens 54) and having a center axis 44 (Par. 0194; Fig. 1B);
an objective lens system 16 disposed within the body; an eyepiece lens 18 disposed within the body; an erector lens system 25 disposed within the body; the objective lens system, eyepiece lens, and erector lens system forming an optical system having a first focal plane, the first focal plane proximate the objective lens system and having a first reticle 55 (Par. 0196; Fig. 1c);
a picatinny mount configured to couple to the viewing optic (Fig. 44);
a laser rangefinder 3830 coupled to a top portion of the body of the viewing optic (Fig. 44);
a remote 8300 configured to control operations of the viewing optic (Par. 0527; Fig. 83, Par. 0710: “FIG. 83 is a representative depiction of a keypad with three buttons. A remote keypad associated with a viewing optic has 3 buttons. The top button 8305 is used to increase the brightness of the display, the middle button 8310 is used to fire the laser rangefinder to range a target and the bottom button 8315 is used to decrease the brightness of the display. The functionality of each button depends on the mode of operation.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
519
865
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hamilton fails to disclose an illumination device having a first light source that emits a broad light beam and a second light source that emits a focused light beam, the illumination device coupled to the picatinny mount and a connector coupling the illumination device to the remote.
Zimmer teaches that it is known in the art of firearm systems to provide an illumination device 890 having a first light source that emits a broad light beam and a second light source that emits a focused light beam (Fig. 8A; Par. 0077-0079: “firearm accessory 890 (e.g., visible illumination and/or laser; or infrared illumination and/or laser”),
PNG
media_image2.png
564
942
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the illumination device coupled to the picatinny mount (Par. 0007: “the modular electronic switch system is configured to engage with a mounting interface for firearm accessories (e.g., KeyMod or M-LOK® negative space mounting slots, or a Picatinny rail interface)”) and a connector coupling the illumination device to the remote 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 (Fig. 3; Par. 0069: a power-consuming accessory (e.g., a two-way radio, an illumination device, a laser aiming module, a thermal imager, a night vision device, a laser range finder, etc”; Par. 0044: “the modular electronic switch system 300 can be used to operate three separate power-consuming firearm accessories”).
PNG
media_image3.png
601
967
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hamilton such that the remote controlled multiple firearm accessories including an illumination device that emits a broad light beam and a second light source that emits a focused light beam, in view of Zimmer, to obtain the desired result providing an illumination device for helping in target identification and a remote that controls multiple firearm accessories.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, as applied to claim 1 above, further discloses wherein the illumination device emits visible light or infrared light, or near infrared light or short-wave infrared light (Zimmer: Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 0078).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, as applied to claim 1 above, further teaches wherein the illumination device emits visible light (Zimmer: Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 0078).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, as applied to claim 1 above, further teaches wherein the remote is configured to allow a user to select the first light source or the second light source (Zimmer: Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 0078).
Regarding claim 9, Hamilton further discloses wherein the viewing optic further comprises an active display configured to generate an image that is projected to the first focal plane (Par. 0019).
Regarding claim 10, Hamilton further discloses wherein the connector has a single lead (Fig. 38).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, as applied to claim 1 above, further teaches wherein the connector has a double lead (Fig. 3; Par. 0044).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, as applied to claim 1 above, further teaches wherein the illumination device is powered by the viewing optic or the remote (Zimmer; Par. 0029: The modular electronic switch system 100 can be used to operate (e.g., turn on/off [understood as power]) power-consuming firearm accessories (e.g., an illumination device, a laser aiming module, etc.)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, as applied to claim 1 above, further teaches wherein the second light source emits visible light or infrared light, or near infrared light or short wave infrared light (Zimmer: Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 0078).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, as applied to claim 1 above, further teaches wherein the second light source emits visible light (Zimmer: Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 0078).
Claims 4-5 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, as applied to claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11, and further in view of Teetzel et al (US 2019/0249958) [hereinafter Teetzel].
Regarding claims 4-5 and 23-24, The combination of Hamilton and Zimmer further teaches wherein the intensity or brightness is adjustable (Zimmer; Par. 0075: “the switches 712, 714 of the modular electronic switch system 700 can be set to facilitate the following functions of a weapon mounted device when pressed. For example, in some implementations, pressing a switch 712, 714 may cause the weapon mounted device… increase/decrease brightness) but does not expressly disclose wherein the illumination device has at least one Light Emitting Diode.
Teetzel teaches that it is known in the art of illumination devices to provide an illumination module comprises at least one light emitting diode (flashlight head with LEDs; Par. 0094).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer such that light was an LED, in view of Teetzel, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The replacement would be expected to yield a device which generates a light source.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, as applied to claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11, and further in view of Chambers (US 2020/0348104).
Regarding claim 8, Hamilton does not expressly disclose wherein the illumination device has a pogo pin target header for coupling to the connector.
Chambers teaches it is known in the art to provide magnetic pogo pin for coupling firearm accessories (Par. 0003,0010)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the combination of Hamilton and Zimmer, such that the illumination device has a pogo pin target header for coupling to the connector, in view of Chambers, to obtain the desired result of providing a quick release connector arrangement.
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4269. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM MST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641