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 .
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 1-8, 21-27, and 29-34 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 claim 1, line 1, “reticle-based” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what this phrase implies, especially since some of the alternative limitations in the claim do not require any type of reticle to be present.
In claim 1, line 6, “scope type setup” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what limitations are required by the phrase.
In claim 1, lines 6-7, “the housing” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 1, lines 7-8, “the already-existing mounting areas for iron sights” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 1, line 14, “when the sights is occluded” is unclear and indefinite. The sight is claimed as an “occluded sight” but this phrase implies that at times the sight could be not occluded. Also, “sights” has no antecedent basis in the claims, since it is plural but only a singular sight has been referenced earlier in the claims.
In claim 1, line 14, “is small enough” is vague and indefinite. The function of seeing the dot and target simultaneously which is associated with being “small enough” does not make the phrase definite since this function is dependent upon multiple things, including how far the eye is located from the sight.
In claim 1, line 15, “the dot”, “the desired approximate impact area”, and “the target” each fail to have antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 1, line 16, “in the same manner that iron sights function” is vague and indefinite, especially since an occluded sight and an iron sight function in very different manners.
In claim 1, line 17, “like what one would use with standard iron sights” is vague and indefinite.
In claim 2, line 3, “may function as either a reticle-based sight or as a tradition iron sight if paired with the corresponding front or rear sight” is alternative and indefinite. It is not clear when or how the sight will function in different ways, when it would have a “corresponding front or rear sight”, or even how it could function as an iron sight.
In claim 2, line 5, “is small enough to be used as an element in notch and post sights” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what limitations would be required for “small enough” and it is not clear what “element” of a notch and post sight is being claimed.
Claim 3 as a whole is so alternative, indefinite, and run on together that it is not clear what limitations are being claimed.
In claim 4, line 1, “the means for configuring the MAD” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 4, line 2, “a dovetail with a male and female” is indefinite and incomplete. A “male and female” what is being claimed?
In claim 4, line 3, “the sight can fit in standard dovetails made for traditional iron sights” is vague and indefinite. First, what part of the sight can fit in a dovetail? The Specification would not indicate that the entire sight could fit within a dovetail. Second, there is no such thing as a “standard dovetail”. Some particular systems have standardized parameters, but a particular mounting system is not claimed. (Also, caution is urged because trademarked elements cannot be used as a claim limitation.) Likewise, different known iron sights have had different sized dovetail mounting elements.
In claim 4, line 4, “a light source” is vague and indefinite. Is this the same light source claimed in claim 1 or a different source?
In claim 4, line 5, “the bottom surface” and “the mount” each has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 4, line 5, “the mount which produces light rays” implies the mount produces light rays, which appears impossible in light of the functions of the claimed elements.
In claim 4, line 6, “a collimating mirror or lens” is alternative and indefinite. It is also unclear if the lens is collimating or only the mirror is collimating.
In claim 4, line 7, “said collimating mirror or lens said light rays “is unclear and appears to possibly be a typographical error.
In claim 4, lines 8 and 9, “viewer/aimer” is alternative and unclear. A viewer and aimer are providing different functions.
In claim 4, line 9-10, “who sees an image” is vague and indefinite. What image do they see and how is it related to the claimed elements?
In claim 5, “a MAD aiming assist ‘ghost ring’, notch and post, or any other configuration of iron sight” is alternative and indefinite. It is not clear how the element or elements function as an “aiming assist” for the MAD. It is also not clear if only the ‘ghost ring’ functions as such, or also the other elements. Also, “any other configuration” is totally unclear as to the metes and bounds of the limitation. It is not clear when or how the different alternatives are determined.
In claim 6, line 1, “light rays” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear if this is the previously claimed light rays or different light rays.
In claim 6, line 2, “holographic grating” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 6, “viewer/aimer” is indefinite as noted above.
In claim 7, “housing is positioned in the same place as a fixed post iron front sight” is apparently impossible. A housing and a iron sight cannot physically occupy the same place at the same time.
In claim 7, line 3, “the miniaturized aiming device components” have no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 7, line 5-6, “can function both as a stand-alone sight and also as on of the two components in “notch and post” style sights” is alternative and indefinite. First, “the two components” has no antecedent basis in the claims and such style sights can have more than two components. Second, it is not clear how or when it would be decided as which one of the components the aiming device would function. And finally, it is not clear how the aiming device can function as a notch and post style sight.
In claim 8, “housing is positioned in the same place as a fixed post iron rear sight” is apparently impossible. A housing and a iron sight cannot physically occupy the same place at the same time.
In claim 8, line 3, “the miniaturized aiming device components” have no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 8, line 5-6, “can function both as a stand-alone sight and also as on of the two components in “notch and post” style sights” is alternative and indefinite. First, “the two components” has no antecedent basis in the claims and such style sights can have more than two components. Second, it is not clear how or when it would be decided as which one of the components the aiming device would function. And finally, it is not clear how the aiming device can function as a notch and post style sight.
In claim 21, “for a long gun front sight” is vague and indefinite. A long gun front sight has not been claimed, especially in relationship to the other claimed elements.
In claim 22, “all components” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 22, “any edges” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 22, “the aiming device” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 23, “for a long gun rear sight” is vague and indefinite. A long gun rear sight has not been claimed, especially in relationship to the other claimed elements.
In claims 25 and 26, “for a handgun front sight” is vague and indefinite. A handgun front sight has not been claimed, especially in relationship to the other claimed elements.
In claim 27, “for a handgun rear sight” is vague and indefinite. A handgun rear sight has not been claimed, especially in relationship to the other claimed elements.
In claim 29, “a MAD long gun front sight” is vague and indefinite. A MAD long gun front sight has not been claimed, especially in relationship to the other claimed elements.
In claim 30, “a MAD long gun rear sight” is vague and indefinite. A MAD long gun rear sight has not been claimed, especially in relationship to the other claimed elements.
In claim 31, “a MAD handgun front sight” is vague and indefinite. A MAD handgun front sight has not been claimed, especially in relationship to the other claimed elements.
In claim 32, “a MAD handgun rear sight” is vague and indefinite. A MAD handgun rear sight has not been claimed, especially in relationship to the other claimed elements.
In claim 33, line 1, “reticle-based” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what this phrase implies, especially since some of the alternative limitations in the claim do not require any type of reticle to be present.
In claim 33, lines 5-6, “using one or more of a collimated light aiming signal, a holographic projection as an aiming signal and a prismatic scope type setup with an etched reticle” is alternative and indefinite. It is not clear when or how the alternatives are chosen and it appears that some of the choices are not usable together or it is not clear how they could be used together. Also, a “prismatic scope type setup” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what structural limitations are intended by the phrase.
In claim 33, line 7, “the already-existing mounting areas for iron sights” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 33, line 12, “when a covering over the non-occluded sight to simulate occlusion” is vague and indefinite. The “when” implies that there is not always a covering, which would appear to contradict the preamble that the claim is drawn to a non-occluded sight. The structure of the “covering over the non-occluded sight” is also overly broad and unclear. The wording appears to mean that a cover goes over the entire sight, but this is not supported by the rest of the disclosure. How the covering would “simulate occlusion” is also structurally unclear. In fact, the Specification would seem to indicate that the sight must actually be occluded, not just provide a “simulation”.
In claim 33, line 13, “is small enough” is vague and indefinite. The function of seeing the dot and target simultaneously which is associated with being “small enough” does not make the phrase definite since this function is dependent upon multiple things, including how far the eye is located from the sight.
In claim 33, lines 13 and 14, the phrases “the desired approximate impact area” and “the target” have no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 33, line 14, “in the same manner that iron sight functions” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what structural limitation are implied by the “same manner”, especially since they do not function in similar manners.
In claim 33, line 16, “like what one would use” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what structural limitations are implied by the phrase.
Claim 34 is so alternative and indefinite as a whole that the limitations being claimed are unclear.
The extensive indefinite language of the claims has made it impossible to apply prior art to the claims.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 J. WOODROW ELDRED whose telephone number is (571)272-6901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, 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.
/J. Woodrow Eldred/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
JWE