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
Pursuant to the applicant’s response filed 12 January 2026, the amendments to the claims have been entered into the application. According to this amendment, no claims have been added or cancelled, and claims 1-4 & 9-20 remain pending in the application. The previously noted rejections have been overcome by the amendment, and are hereby withdrawn. After additional search and/or consideration, the following rejections are presented to address the new claim limitations.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UK Patent Application Document GB 2496511 A by Gur et al (Gur) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0293383 by Skilling (Skilling) and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2006/0180134 by Illuzzi (Illuzzi) and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2015/0153137 Newzella et al (Newzella).
Regarding claim 1, Gur discloses an airgun (See Figures, clearly illustrated), comprising: a range finder configured to determine a distance to a target when actuated (See at least Abstract); an adjustable air mass system configured to provide an adjustable amount of pressurized air as a function of an energy level (30); a trigger system configured to release the adjustable amount of pressurized air from the adjustable airmass system in response to receiving input from the user such that a projectile is launched from the airgun in response to the input from the user (38); and a controller comprising a computer readable storage media storing a ballistics value, wherein the controller is configured to: receive the distance to the target from the range finder; determine the energy level as a function of the ballistics value in the computer readable storage media and the distance to the target such that when the projectile is launched by the airgun, the projectile reaches the target with a predetermined amount of impact energy; and provide the determined energy level to the adjustable air mass system (See at least Abstract).
Gur does not disclose a separate range button on the airgun to actuate the range finder, a magazine as described, or the particular sight assembly claimed.
Skilling, a related prior art reference, discloses a range button configured to receive input form a user and actuate the range finder when receiving the input from the user, wherein the range button is located on a foregrip of the airgun or a rear grip of the airgun (See at least Paragraph 0101, Figure 5, Element 97).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Gur to provide a pneumatic launcher with impact control features with the teachings of Skilling to provide a separate button to control the distance sensor. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to increase safety and avoid depressing the trigger to activate the launcher inadvertently.
Gur as modified by Skilling does not disclose a magazine or the particular sight assembly as claimed.
Illuzzi, a related prior art reference, discloses a magazine configured to provide the projectile, said magazine extending down from a receiver of the airgun when the airgun is assembled and in an upright position (See at least Figures 3, 5-7, and 9-11, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Gur as modified by Skilling above with the noted teachings of Illuzzi. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to provide a magazine to supply projectiles for launching to the barrel as taught by Illuzzi with a reasonable expectation of success with the added benefit of allow for a greater variety of projectiles to be utilized in the system as indicated by Illuzzi.
Gur as modified by Skilling and Illuzzi does not disclose the particular sight assembly as claimed.
Newzella, a related prior art reference, discloses an adjustable sight configured to adjust an elevation of the sight as a function of an elevation level, said adjustable sight comprising a rear sight and a front sight, said rear sight having a plurality of pairs of markers on opposing sides of an opening of the rear sight, wherein the adjustable sight indicates a pair of markers corresponding to the elevation level provided by the controller (See Figures, clearly illustrated and at least Paragraphs 0052-0072).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Gur as modified by Skilling and Illuzzi above with the noted teachings of Newzella. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to utilize an appropriate dynamic sight assembly to perform the same function with a reasonable expectation of success as taught by Gur.
Regarding claim 2, Gur further discloses wherein: the ballistics value is a variable of a predetermined lookup table comprising energy levels corresponding to the received distance to target and a type of the projectile (See at least Page 8 Lines 13-27).
Regarding claim 3, Gur further discloses wherein: the ballistics value is a constant associated with the airgun or a type of the projectile; and the controller calculates the energy level as a function of the ballistics value and the received distance to target (See at least Page 8).
Regarding claim 4, Gur further discloses wherein: the predetermined amount of impact energy is constant regardless of range to target within an effective range of the airgun (See Entire Disclosure, mentioned numerous times that the impact force is controlled).
Regarding claim 9, Skilling further discloses wherein: the range finder is configured to determine the distance to the target when actuated; the airgun further comprises a range button configured to receive input from a user and actuate the range finder when receiving the input from the user; and the range finder emits a visible laser when actuated (See at least Paragraphs 0101-0102).
Regarding claims 10-16, Gur further discloses the airgun further comprises a user interface configured to receive input from a user indicating the predetermined amount of impact energy, wherein the indicated predetermined amount of impact energy is one of a plurality of predetermined amount of impact energies; the controller comprises a computer readable storage media storing a ballistics value corresponding to the amount of impact energy indicated via the user interface; the controller is further configured to: receive the indicated predetermined amount of impact energy via the user interface; determine the energy level as a function of the received predetermined amount of impact energy and the distance to the target; determine the energy level as a function of the ballistics value corresponding to the predetermined amount of impact energy and the distance to the target; determine the elevation level as a function of the ballistics value corresponding to the predetermined amount of impact energy and the distance to the target; and determine the elevation level as a function of the predetermined amount of impact energy, the ballistics value corresponding to the received projectile type, and the distance to the target (See at least Pages 13-16, clearly disclosed).
Regarding claim 17, Gur further discloses wherein: the airgun further comprises a user interface configured to receive input from a user indicating the predetermined amount of impact energy, wherein the indicated predetermined amount of impact energy is one of a plurality of predetermined amount of impact energies; the controller comprises a computer readable storage media storing a ballistics value corresponding to the amount of impact energy indicated via the user interface; the controller is further configured to: receive the indicated predetermined amount of impact energy via the user interface; determine the energy level as a function of the received predetermined amount of impact energy and the distance to the target; determine the energy level as a function of the ballistics value corresponding to the predetermined amount of impact energy and the distance to the target; determine the elevation level as a function of the ballistics value corresponding to the predetermined amount of impact energy and the distance to the target (See at least Pages 15-30).
Regarding claim 18, Gur further discloses wherein: the adjustable air mass system comprises at least one of: an adjustable air pressure regulator; or an adjustable shot cylinder volume (“Regulating Mechanism” mentioned throughout the specification).
Regarding claim 19, Gur further discloses wherein: the adjustable air mass system comprises an adjustable air pressure regulator; and the airgun adjusts a regulated shot pressure as a function of the determined energy level (“Regulating Mechanism”, detailed throughout the specification).
Regarding claim 20, Gur further discloses a battery configured to provide power to the controller and the adjustable air mass system (See at least Page 29 Lines 19-24); a precharged pneumatic cylinder configured to provide pressurized air to the adjustable air mass system (26); a barrel configured to receive the projectile and pressurized air from the adjustable air mass system and direct the projectile toward the target (16); and a receiver configured to support the trigger system and barrel (See at least Figure 1, clearly illustrated).
Skilling further discloses a user interface comprising a selector switch configured to switch between a regulated and an unregulated shot mode (76, See at least Paragraph 0097).
Illuzzi further discloses a receiver configured to support the magazine, trigger system, and barrel (56).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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 JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641