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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 7/19/2025 is acknowledged and appreciated. Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose a projection facility and aiming designator. In response, Examiner asserts that the Meyers design includes components to produce an aiming beam onto a target constituting an “aiming designator”. Additionally, the Meyers design includes a facility for adjustable projection of an aiming beam. With respect to claims 6 and 7, the components encompassing the claimed “lens assembly” remains unclear. The figures and claims do not clearly establish what is intended when using the term “lens assembly” (i.e. is the assembly the component of figure 14 or the assembly of figure 32).
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 6 and 7 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. In claims 6 and 7, the disclosure does not make clear what components make up the “lens assembly”, since figure 32 is described as an exploded view of the lens assembly and the claims describe the lens assembly as “having an aiming facility”. If the claimed lens assembly is intended to only encompass the solid lens as depicted in figure 14 with its “central forward projection”, this should be clearly discernible from the claims, figures and specification. Note that beginning with figure 14, annotation of the elements would clarify what is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Meyers et al. (U.S. Patent 6,714,564).
In regards to claim 1, Meyers et al (henceforth referred to as Meyers) disclose a firearm aiming illuminator comprising:
a frame. The Meyers device includes a frame structure holding the components together (see figure 3);
a light source. Item 36 of Meyers provides a light source; a lens assembly associated with the light source. Meyers teaches a lens associated with the projected light source (item 38);
the lens assembly operable to generate a broad illumination field and to project an aiming designation on a target. As constructed, the lens configuration of the Meyers device projects a broad illuminating light as well as a point target light (items 62 and 66); and the lens assembly having projection facility adjustably connecting the lens assembly to the frame and operable to adjust the position of the aiming point relative to the frame. The Meyers device includes an adjustment means that changes the light relative to the frame (item 26).
In regards to claim 5, Meyers discloses that the lens assembly includes a first lens surface associated with the broad illumination field, and a second lens surface associated with the aiming point. Meyers teaches a lens surface that facilitates the broad illumination field and another lens surface that creates or allows for the second narrow light beam (see figure 4).
In regards to claim 6, Meyers discloses that the lens assembly is unitary element. Meyers teaches multiple components that work together to produce an illumination beam as well as a aiming point beam and to allow for adjustment. Applicant’s “lens assembly” appears to include at least the elements depicted in figure 32 (“exploded view of lens assembly”). Accordingly, the components of the Meyers device that allow for illumination beam and point beam as well as adjustment constitute a “lens assembly” as claimed and are a unitary element to the same degree expressed in Applicant’s disclosure.
In regards to claim 7, Meyers discloses that the lens assembly has a central forward projection. The lens of the Meyers device is convex and projects at the center of the lens.
In regards to claim 9, Meyers discloses that the lens has an annular lens surface surrounding the forward projection. The lens of convex lens of the Meyers device has a round annular surface that surrounds the central portion.
In regards to claim 10, Meyers discloses that the lens assembly includes a circuit board supporting an illuminator element, and wherein the lens is directly connected to the circuit board. Meyers teaches an electronics package (item 34) that controls the device and constitutes a circuit board.
In regards to claim 11, Meyers discloses that the lens is immovably connected to the circuit board. As depicted in figures 3 and 4, the lens (item 38) does not move relative to the circuit board and thus constitutes being immovable.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (U.S. Patent 6,714,564) in view of Harrison et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0176140).
In regards to claim 12, Meyers does not disclose a reticle immovably connected to the lens assembly. However, Harrison et al (henceforth referred to as Harrison) teaches a target illumination device with a reticle immovably connected to the lens portion (item 125) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a reticle attached to the lens of the Meyers device as taught by Harrison, to project a shape onto a target, or to provide an aiming point.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8, 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 2, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 2, that the adjustment facility includes a ball and socket mechanism with the ball on the lens assembly and the frame defining a socket. With respect to claim 3, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 3, that the adjustment facility includes a pair of first and set screws connected to the frame and operably contacting the lens assembly, each set screw associated with a different aiming axis. With respect to claim 8, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 8, that the central forward projection has a conical exterior. With respect to claim 13, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 13, that the lens assembly is pivotally connected to frame to pivot about a pivot axis. With respect to claim 15, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 15, that the lens assembly is pivotally connected to frame to pivot about a pivot point in the manner of a ball and socket.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-12 are rejected and claims 2-4, 8, 13-16 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights