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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 07/14/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 Objections
Claims 2, 4, 21, 26, 28 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In at least claims 2, 21 and 26, “threadibly” should be changed to “threadably”.
In at least claim 4, “are” should be inserted after “the modular part and the optic sight”
In at least claim 26, the phrase “closer to the vertical plane than the other vertical plane” should be revised to identify clearly the two planes being compared.
In at least claims 2 and 26, the alternatives following “one of “ should be revised into parallel grammatical form.
In at least claim 28, “wherein” should be inserted after “the apparatus of claim 26”.
In claim 29, “the” should be inserted before “kit of parts”.
“co-witness”, “co-witnesses”, “cowitnesses” and relate terminology should be used consistently throughout the claims.
Applicant is also requested to review the claims and correct any additional typographical, grammatical or clerical errors that may remain and possibly introduce confusion to the structure of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. In the instant application Claim 26 recites, in part, “when the at least one body is coupled with the mounting surface via a threaded fastener, but not yet secured against the mounting surface, a body of the at least one body is not in contact with the body of the electronic optic sight”. The originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Applicant possessed this two-staged threaded-coupling relationship. Paragraph [0081] and Figures 14A-14C disclose a modular mechanical sight device having 1465, posts received on 1416, holes of optic-sight body, and Figure 14B depicts a threaded fastener in the completed assembly. Thus, Figure 14A depicts the mechanical sight device and threaded fastener as separate from the optic-sight body, while Figure 14B depicts the installed condition. Neither the written description nor the drawings disclose an intermediate condition in which the mechanical sight body is already coupled to the mounting surface through the threaded fasteners but remains out of contact with the optic sight body. The dovetail and set-screw embodiment of paragraphs [0062]-[0077] likewise do not provide support. In those embodiments, the mechanical sight device is slidingly inserted into a dovetail groove before the set screw is driven to retain the device. Thus, those embodiments do not disclose a rear sight containing body that remains out of contact with the optic sight body after threaded coupling and is subsequently brought into contact with the optic-sight body by securement of the threaded fastener. The missing intermediate condition is not necessarily inherent in the disclosed structures because the rear sight containing body may already be seated against the optic sight body before threaded fastener is engaged or tightened. According the disclosure does not provide express, implicit, or inherent support for the claimed relationship.
Claims 27-30 are dependent on claim 26 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
The above 112 rejected claims will be interpreted, as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
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 2, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over York et al. (US 2022/0381536, of record) in view of Nackel et al. (US 2021/0172704, of record).
Regarding claim 2, York firearm assembly comprising an optic assembly (Figures 1-4), in which the optic assembly includes an optic sight ([0013] discloses: 100, open reflex sight), an emitter (Claim 1 discloses: target light generator), and a front-most light transmissive surface (Figure 2 depicts: light transmissive surface, that target light passes between, of 100, open reflex sight), the firearm assembly further comprising:
a base section (Figure 2 depicts: base portion of 100, open reflex sight, considered the base section) including a portion of the optic assembly (Figure 2, base portion includes the gun-mounting interface, power supply, target light generator, and light passing surface, thus including a portion of the optic assembly); and
an additional section ([0013] discloses: 120, compact shroud) including another portion of the optic assembly ([0013] discloses: 120, shroud, mounted to 100, sight; therefore considered another portion of the optic assembly), the additional section to protect the front-most light transmissive surface or framing thereof ([0013] discloses: 120, shroud, is in position to partially cover 100, reflex sight, providing mechanical protection).
York fails to disclose an optic assembly wherein a mechanical rear sight located along a line of sight that extends through the optic sight, wherein the mechanical rear sight is 1) integral with a body of the optic sight or 2) the mechanical rear sight is not integral with the body of the optic sight in which the mechanical rear sight comprises a modular part; in a case the mechanical rear sight is integral with the optic sight body, a rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is positioned forwardly of the emitter; and in a case the mechanical rear sight comprises the modular part: the additional section including a slot or another opening to receive the modular part, characterized in that, when the modular part is installed in the slot or the other opening, a rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is located forwardly of a frontmost light transmissive surface of the optic sight and the optic sight is viewable when the user is looking through the optic sight, or the modular part comprises at least one body configured to attach, threadibly, to a mounting surface of the firearm assembly, characterized in that as the at least one body is secured against the mounting surface via a threaded fastener, a body of the at least one body comes into contact with the body of the optic sight, wherein the body of the at least one body comprises the mechanical rear sight. York and Nackel are related because both disclose optical assemblies.
Nackel teaches a mechanical rear sight located along a line of sight that extends through the optic sight ([0075] teaches: 140, rear sight, includes 142, notch and “forms and “’iron sight’”, with 138, front sight embedded in 134, reflex lens, such that the line of sight between 140, rear sight and 138, front sight, extends through 134, reflex lens, see Figure 11), mechanical rear sight is not integral with the body of the optic sight in which the mechanical rear sight comprises a modular part (Claim 7 teaches: a rear iron sight removably attached to the first surface; thus not integral with the body of the optic sight in which the mechanical rear sight comprises a modular part) and
in a case the mechanical rear sight comprises the modular part:
the modular part comprises at least one body configured to attach, threadibly, to a mounting surface of the firearm assembly ([0075] discloses: 140, rear sight, that constitutes the at least one body and is configured to attach to rear sight mounting portion F of the weapon mounted sight assembly by 144, threaded fasteners and 146, engaging openings), characterized in that as the at least one body is secured against the mounting surface via a threaded fastener ([0075] discloses: 144, threaded fasteners, secure 140, rear sight against F, mounting portion), a body of the at least one body comes into contact with the body of the optic sight (Examiner notes that as 144, fasteners are tightened, 140, rear sight is drawn and seated against F, rear sight mounting portion of 120, optical bench, See Figure 13, [0070] and [0075]), wherein the body of the at least one body comprises the mechanical rear sight (the secured body is 140, rear sight, itself, including 142, mechanical sighting notch, see Figure 13; Examiner notes that under BRI, “the body of the optic sight” 120, optical bench, because 120 is a structural body that carries the reticle light source assembly and supports 134, reflex lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Nackel and provide a mechanical rear sight located along a line of sight that extends through the optic sight, wherein the mechanical rear sight is the mechanical rear sight is not integral with the body of the optic sight in which the mechanical rear sight comprises a modular part and in a case the mechanical rear sight comprises the modular part: the modular part comprises at least one body configured to attach, threadibly, to a mounting surface of the firearm assembly, characterized in that as the at least one body is secured against the mounting surface via a threaded fastener, a body of the at least one body comes into contact with the body of the optic sight, wherein the body of the at least one body comprises the mechanical rear sight. Doing so would allow for a mechanically secured backup sighting path extending through the optic sight, thereby improving aiming reliability and serviceability.
Regarding claim 17, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 2, wherein the additional section comprises a frame, wherein the frame is arranged to cantilever to the front of the optic sight (Figure 2 depicts: 120, compact shroud, acting as a frame, arranged to cantilever to the front of 100, optic reflex sight, via 102, slot).
Regarding claim 19, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 2, wherein the optic sight comprises a direct-mount optical sight (Figure 1 depicts: a target sight includes a base portion with a gun-mounting interface allowing the sight to be firmly fastened to a shooting device, this considered a direct-mount optical sight).
Regarding claim 21, A firearm assembly comprising an optic sight ([0013] discloses: 100, open reflex sight), in which the optic sight includes a body (Figure 2 depicts: 100, open reflex sight with a body), an emitter Claim 1 discloses: target light generator), and a front-most light transmissive surface (Figure 2 depicts: light transmissive surface, that target light passes between, of 100, open reflex sight).
York fails to disclose an assembly wherein the firearm assembly further comprising: a mechanical rear sight located along a line of sight that extends through the optic sight, wherein the mechanical rear sight is 1) integral with the body of the optic sight or 2) the mechanical rear sight is not integral with the body of the optic sight in which the mechanical rear sight comprises a modular part; in a case the mechanical rear sight is integral with the body of the optic sight, a rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is positioned forwardly of the emitter, and in a case the mechanical rear sight comprises the modular part: the firearm assembly further comprises a slot or another opening to receive a portion of the modular part, characterized in that, when the portion of the modular part is in the slot or the other opening, a rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is positioned forwardly of a front-most light transmissive surface of the optic sight, or the modular part comprises at least one body configured to attach, threadibly, to a mounting surface of the firearm assembly, characterized in that as the at least one body is secured against the mounting surface via a threaded fastener, a body of the at least one body comes into contact with the body of the optic sight, wherein the body of the at least one body comprises the mechanical rear sight. York and Nackel are related because both disclose optical assemblies.
Nackel teaches a mechanical rear sight located along a line of sight that extends through the optic sight ([0075] teaches: 140, rear sight, includes 142, notch and forms and “iron sight”, with 138, front sight embedded in 134, reflex lens, such that the line of sight between 140, rear sight and 138, front sight, extends through 134, reflex lens, see Figure 11), wherein the mechanical rear sight is the mechanical rear sight is not integral with the body of the optic sight in which the mechanical rear sight comprises a modular part (Claim 7 teaches: a rear iron sight removably attached to the first surface; thus not integral with the body of the optic sight in which the mechanical rear sight comprises a modular part) and
in a case the mechanical rear sight comprises the modular part:
the modular part comprises at least one body configured to attach, threadibly, to a mounting surface of the firearm assembly ([0075] discloses: 140, rear sight, that constitutes the at least one body and is configured to attach to rear sight mounting portion F of the weapon mounted sight assembly by 144, threaded fasteners and 146, engaging openings), characterized in that as the at least one body is secured against the mounting surface via a threaded fastener ([0075] discloses: 144, threaded fasteners, secure 140, rear sight against F, mounting portion), a body of the at least one body comes into contact with the body of the optic sight (Examiner notes that as 144, fasteners are tightened, 140, rear sight is drawn and seated against F, rear sight mounting portion of 120, optical bench, See Figure 13, [0070] and [0075]), wherein the body of the at least one body comprises the mechanical rear sight (the secured body is 140, rear sight, itself, including 142, mechanical sighting notch, see Figure 13; Examiner notes that under BRI, “the body of the optic sight” encompasses 120, optical bench because 120 is the single piece structural body including reflex sight mounting portions A and rear sight mounting portions F and supporting reflex sight components).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Nackel to include a mechanical rear sight located along a line of sight that extends through the optic sight, wherein the mechanical rear sight is the mechanical rear sight is not integral with the body of the optic sight in which the mechanical rear sight comprises a modular part and in a case the mechanical rear sight comprises the modular part: the modular part comprises at least one body configured to attach, threadibly, to a mounting surface of the firearm assembly, characterized in that as the at least one body is secured against the mounting surface via a threaded fastener, a body of the at least one body comes into contact with the body of the optic sight, wherein the body of the at least one body comprises the mechanical rear sight. Doing so would allow for a mechanically secured backup sighting path extending through the optic sight, thereby improving aiming reliability and serviceability.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over York et al. (US 2022/0381536, of record) in view of Nackel et al. (US 2021/0172704), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Crispin (US 2016/0061568).
Regarding claim 3, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 2.
York fails to disclose an assembly wherein the mechanical rear sight is integral with the optical sight body, and: the emitter is intersected be a vertical plane; and the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, which is parallel with the vertical plane; and wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. York and Crispin are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Crispin teaches an assembly wherein the mechanical rear sight is integral with the optical sight body, and:
the emitter is intersected be a vertical plane (Figure 5 depicts: 310, light source; Examiner notes that the vertical plane is orthogonal with the length of the optical aiming system and intersects the light source); and
the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, which is parallel with the vertical plane ([0038] teaches: rear iron sight located forward of the aiming system; Examiner notes that forward is considered to be farther from the eye than the aiming system); and
wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane (Examiner notes that the aiming systems is closer to the eye than the rear iron sights, making the plane of the emitters closer to the eye of the user than the plane of the rear iron sights).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Crispin and provide an assembly wherein the mechanical rear sight is integral with the optical sight body, and: the emitter is intersected be a vertical plane; and the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, which is parallel with the vertical plane; and wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. Doing so would allow for the integral mechanical rear sight to remain usable through the reflex sight if the electronic aiming system fails, thereby improving aiming redundancy and reliability.
Claims 4 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over York et al. (US 2022/0381536, of record) in view of Nackel et al. (US 2021/0172704), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Niswander et al. (US 2021/0025673).
Regarding claim 4, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 2.
York fails to disclose an assembly comprising the modular part and the slot or the other opening, wherein when the modular part and the optic sight installed using the slot or the other opening and mounted, respectively: the frontmost light transmissive surface of the optic sight is intersected by a vertical plane; and the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, which is parallel with the vertical plane; wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. York and Niswander are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Niswander teaches an assembly comprising the modular part and the slot or the other opening, wherein when the modular part and the optic sight installed using the slot or the other opening and mounted, respectively:
the frontmost light transmissive surface of the optic sight is intersected by a vertical plane (Figure 1A ,1B depicts: 170, reflector sight with a transmissive surface, a vertical plane flat would intersect the light transmissive surface in the middle and not the rear mechanical sight); and
the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane (Figure 1A, 1B depicts: 130, iron sight, a vertical plane flat would intersect the iron sight in the middle and not the light transmissive surface), which is parallel with the vertical plane (imaginary planes are parallel to each other because they are both orthogonal to the length of the assembly);
wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane (Figure 1A-1B depict: the front to rear arrangement of the forward positioned 130, iron sight, 170, reflector sight, and 148, butt end of 144, firearm slide, accordingly an eye positioned rearward of 170, sight reflector is closer to the transverse vertical plane intersecting the frontmost light transmissive surface than to the parallel transverse vertical plane intersecting the forward position 130, iron sight).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Niswander and provide an assembly comprising the modular part and the slot or the other opening, wherein when the modular part and the optic sight installed using the slot or the other opening and mounted, respectively: the frontmost light transmissive surface of the optic sight is intersected by a vertical plane; and the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, which is parallel with the vertical plane; wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. Doing so would allow for a removable mechanical rear sight positioned forward of the optics light-transmissive surface, thereby improving configuration flexibility, aiming redundancy, and sight serviceability.
Regarding claim 25, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 21, wherein when the modular part is installed in the firearm assembly and the optic sight is mounted in the firearm assembly.
York fails to disclose an assembly wherein the front-most light transmissive surface is intersected by a vertical plane; and the rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, wherein the vertical plane and the other vertical plane are parallel; wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. York and Niswander are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Niswander teaches an assembly wherein
the front-most light transmissive surface is intersected by a vertical plane (Figure 1A ,1B depicts: 170, reflector sight with a transmissive surface, a vertical plane flat would intersect the light transmissive surface in the middle and not the rear mechanical sight); and
the rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane (Figure 1A, 1B depicts: 130, iron sight, a vertical plane flat would intersect the iron sight in the middle and not the light transmissive surface), wherein the vertical plane and the other vertical plane are parallel (Examiner notes that the imaginary planes are parallel to each other because they are both orthogonal to the length of the assembly);
wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane (Figure 1A-1B depict: the front to rear arrangement of the forward positioned 130, iron sight, 170, reflector sight, and 148, butt end of 144, firearm slide, accordingly an eye positioned rearward of 170, sight reflector is closer to the transverse vertical plane intersecting the frontmost light transmissive surface than to the parallel transverse vertical plane intersecting the forward position 130, iron sight).(Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “the body of the optic sight )
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Niswander and provide an assembly wherein the front-most light transmissive surface is intersected by a vertical plane; and the rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, wherein the vertical plane and the other vertical plane are parallel; wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. Doing so would allow for a removable mechanical rear sight positioned forward of the optics light-transmissive surface, thereby improving configuration flexibility, aiming redundancy, and sight serviceability.
Claims 5, 7-10, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over York et al. (US 2022/0381536, of record) in view of Nackel et al. (US 2021/0172704), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Holly (US 2021/0318099).
Regarding claim 5, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 2.
York fails to disclose an assembly wherein the optic sight is mountable on an adapter, the adapter mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly, wherein one of the optic sight and the adapter includes one or more posts or other projections locatable in one or more corresponding openings defined by the other of the optic sight and the adapter. York and Holly are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Holly teaches an assembly wherein the optic sight is mountable on an adapter ([0087] teaches: 200, optic sight adapter), the adapter mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly (Figure 4 depicts: 118, recessed area), wherein one of the optic sight and the adapter includes one or more posts or other projections locatable in one or more corresponding openings defined by the other of the optic sight and the adapter (Figure 4 depicts: 226, registration pins).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Holly and provide an assembly wherein the optic sight is mountable on an adapter, the adapter mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly, wherein one of the optic sight and the adapter includes one or more posts or other projections locatable in one or more corresponding openings defined by the other of the optic sight and the adapter. Doing so would allow for compatibility between optical-sight and firearm footprints, thereby improving mounting strength and recoil stability.
Regarding claim 7, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 5, wherein one or more posts or other projections are non-weldingly joined to the corresponding one or more openings (Holly: [0100] teaches: 328, registration pins, can be sized and configured to be received within 44, recesses of 10, optical sight).
Regarding claim 8, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 2, wherein one of the, includes at least one protection receivable ([0013] discloses: 124, fastener, to retain the shroud in place; Examiner notes that the indention that the fastener is disposed in, and is cutout of 100, reflex sight, both the fastener and the cutouts are considered the protection receivable) by the other of the attachment section and the optic mounting plate or other optic mounting adapter (Figure 2 depicts: indention cutout that 120, compact shroud sits into for insertion of 124, fastener); the at least one projection including: a neck or other intermediate length and a head or other endmost section ([0013] teaches: fastener such as a screw; Examiner notes that a screw has a head and a neck); wherein the neck or intermediate length has a width that is less than a width of the head or other endmost section, or a shape or orientation that is different than a shape or orientation of the head or other endmost section (Examiner notes that a head of screw is a different shape than the body of the screw, one has a flat portion and one is a cylinder with a point).
York fails to disclose wherein the optic sight is mountable on an adapter, the adapter mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly. York and Holly are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Holly teaches wherein the optic sight is mountable on an adapter ([0087] teaches: 200, optic sight adapter), the adapter mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly (Figure 4 depicts: 118, recessed area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Holly and provide wherein the optic sight is mountable on an adapter, the adapter mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly. Doing so would allow for compatibility between optical-sight and firearm footprints, thereby improving mounting strength and recoil stability.
Regarding claim 9, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 8, wherein the other of the optic sight and the a defines: a pocket to receive the head or other endmost section (Figure 3 depicts: a pocket in 100, reflex sight, to receive 124, fastener); and an opening to receive the neck or other intermediate length (Figure 3 depicts: separate pocket and an opening to fit 124, fastener neck and head).
Regarding claim 10, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 2,
York fails to disclose an assembly wherein the optic sight is mountable on an adapter, the adapter mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly, wherein the additional section is arranged to edge-mount to adapter. York and Holly are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Holly teaches an assembly wherein the optic sight is mountable on an adapter ([0087] teaches: 200, optic sight adapter), the adapter mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly (Figure 4 depicts: 118, recessed area), wherein the additional section is arranged to edge-mount to adapter (Examiner notes that the adapter is considered to mount to the side edges of 118, recessed area, thus considered to edge-mount to the adapter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Holly and provide wherein an assembly wherein the optic sight is mountable on an adapter, the adapter mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly, wherein the additional section is arranged to edge-mount to adapter. Doing so would allow for compatibility between optical-sight and firearm footprints, thereby improving mounting strength and recoil stability.
Regarding claim 20, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 2.
York fails to disclose an assembly wherein the optic sight is mountable on an optic footprint on a side of an adapter, and wherein another side of the adapter is mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly. York and Holly are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Holly teaches an assembly wherein the optic sight is mountable on an optic footprint on a side of an adapter ([0087] teaches: 200, optic sight adapter; Figure 4 depicts: 118, recessed area), and wherein another side of the adapter is mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly (Figure 4 depicts: adapter mounted to footprint and the optic sight).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Holly and provide wherein an assembly wherein the optic sight is mountable on an optic footprint on a side of an adapter, and wherein another side of the adapter is mountable on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly. Doing so would allow for compatibility between optical-sight and firearm footprints, thereby improving mounting strength and recoil stability.
Regarding claim 22, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 21.
York fails to disclose a device wherein the firearm assembly comprises a direct-mount optic sight or another optic sight mountable on an optic footprint of an adapter; wherein the optic sight comprises the direct-mount optic sight or the other optic sight; and wherein the direct-mount optic sight or the other optic sight is mounted on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly. York and Holly are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Holly teaches a device wherein the firearm assembly comprises a direct-mount optic sight or another optic sight mountable (Figure 4 depicts: mountable optical sight) on an optic footprint (Figure 4 depicts: 118, recessed area) of an adapter ( [0087] teaches: 200, optic sight adapter); wherein the optic sight comprises the direct-mount optic sight or the other optic sight; and wherein the direct-mount optic sight or the other optic sight is mounted on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Holly and provide a device wherein the firearm assembly comprises a direct-mount optic sight or another optic sight mountable on an optic footprint of an adapter; wherein the optic sight comprises the direct-mount optic sight or the other optic sight; and wherein the direct-mount optic sight or the other optic sight is mounted on a mounting footprint of the firearm assembly. Doing so would allow for compatibility between optical-sight and firearm footprints, thereby improving mounting strength and recoil stability.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Claim(s) * is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over York et al. (US 2022/0381536, of record) in view of Nackel et al. (US 2021/0172704) in view of Holly (US 2021/0318099), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Kincel et al. (US 2010/0212201, of record).
Regarding claim 6, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 5.
York fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the one or more posts or other projections are non-releasably joined to the corresponding one or more openings. York and Kincel are related because both disclose an optical sight apparatus.
Kincel teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more posts or other projections are non-releasably joined to the corresponding one or more openings ([0021] teaches: components are permanently joined together during manufacturing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of York to incorporate the teachings of Kincel and provide an apparatus wherein the one or more posts or other projections are non-releasably joined to the corresponding one or more openings. Doing so would allow for better stability and ease of manufacturing, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical apparatus.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over York et al. (US 2022/0381536, of record) in view of Nackel et al. (US 2021/0172704) in view of Holly (US 2021/0318099), as applied to claim 22 above, in view of Crispin (US 2016/0061568).
Regarding claim 23, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 22, wherein the firearm assembly comprises the modular part, and wherein when the modular part is installed in the firearm assembly (See Holly, Figure 4).
York fails to disclose an assembly wherein the front-most light transmissive surface, or the emitter, is intersected by a vertical plane; and the rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, wherein the vertical plane and the other vertical plane are parallel; and wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. York and Crispin are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Crispin teaches an assembly wherein
the front-most light transmissive surface, or the emitter, is intersected by a vertical plane (Figure 5 depicts: 310, light source; Examiner notes that the vertical plane is orthogonal with the length of the optical aiming system and intersects the light source); and
the rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane ([0038] teaches: rear iron sight located forward of the aiming system; Examiner notes that forward is considered to be farther from the eye than the aiming system the other vertical plane is orthogonal to the length of the optical aiming system and intersects rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight), wherein the vertical plane and the other vertical plane are parallel; and
wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane (Examiner notes that the aiming systems is closer to the eye than the rear iron sights, making the plane of the emitters closer to the eye of the user than the plane of the rear iron sights).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Crispin and provide an assembly wherein the front-most light transmissive surface, or the emitter, is intersected by a vertical plane; and the rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, wherein the vertical plane and the other vertical plane are parallel; and wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. Doing so would allow for the integral mechanical rear sight to remain usable through the reflex sight if the electronic aiming system fails, thereby improving aiming redundancy and reliability.
Regarding claim 24, the modified York discloses the firearm assembly of claim 22, wherein the mechanical rear sight is integral with the body of the optic sight, and when the optic sight is mounted in the firearm assembly (See Holly, Figure 4).
York fails to disclose an assembly wherein the emitter is intersected by a vertical plane; and the rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, which is parallel with the vertical plane; and wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. York and Crispin are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Crispin teaches an assembly wherein
the emitter is intersected by a vertical plane (Figure 5 depicts: 310, light source; Examiner notes that the vertical plane is orthogonal with the length of the optical aiming system and intersects the light source); and
the rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, which is parallel with the vertical plane ([0038] teaches: rear iron sight located forward of the aiming system; Examiner notes that forward is considered to be farther from the eye than the aiming system the other vertical plane is orthogonal to the length of the optical aiming system and intersects rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight); and
wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane (Examiner notes that the aiming systems is closer to the eye than the rear iron sights, making the plane of the emitters closer to the eye of the user than the plane of the rear iron sights).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified York in view of Crispin and provide an assembly wherein the front-most light transmissive surface, or the emitter, is intersected by a vertical plane; and the rearmost part of the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, wherein the vertical plane and the other vertical plane are parallel; and wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. Doing so would allow for the integral mechanical rear sight to remain usable through the reflex sight if the electronic aiming system fails, thereby improving aiming redundancy and reliability.
Claims 26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nackel et al. (US 2021/0172704) and alternative embodiments.
Regarding claim 26, Nackel discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a kit of parts operable with at least one firearm part ([0066] and [0075] discloses: 140, rear sight, 144, threaded fasteners installable as components of 110, unit), the kit of parts installable ([0075], [0071-0072] discloses: rear sight attachment via threaded fasteners; 140 rear sight and 144, threaded fasteners collectively constitute the claimed kit of parts), with the at least one firearm part, into an assembly, characterized in that the assembly includes a mechanical backup sight co-witnessable with an electronic optic sight ([0066] discloses: 110, unit, includes 112, reflex sight assembly; and “iron sights” as a backup aiming systems, utilizing 138, front sight, 140, rear sight of iron sight system; Examiner notes that the “iron sights” are considered to be co-witnessable through the electronic sights, see Figure 1 for location of 138, front sights);
wherein the kit of parts comprises 1) the electronic optic sight and the mechanical backup sight is integral with a body of the electronic optic sight, or 2) a modular part comprising the mechanical backup sight ([0075] discloses: 140, rear sight, comprises 142, notch and secured using 144, threaded fasteners);
in a case the kit of parts comprises the electronic optic sight, in the assembly a frontmost part of an emitter of the electronic optic sight is intersected by a vertical plane, and a rearmost part of the mechanical backup sight is intersected by another vertical plane, which is parallel with the vertical plane, wherein when a user cowitnesses the mechanical backup sight through the electronic optic sight an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the other vertical plane, and
in a case kit of parts comprises the modular part, the modular part comprises at least one body configured to attach, threadibly, to a mounting surface of a firearm comprising the assembly ([0075] discloses: 140, rear sight, that constitutes the at least one body and is configured to attach to rear sight mounting portion F of the weapon mounted sight assembly by 144, threaded fasteners and 146, engaging openings), characterized in that:
when the at least one body is coupled with the mounting surface via a threaded fastener ([0075] discloses: 144, threaded fasteners, secure 140, rear sight against F, mounting portion), but not yet secured against the mounting surface, a body of the at least one body is not in contact with the body of the electronic optic sight (threaded fasteners are capable of being partially threaded into 146, openings while 140, rear sight remains spaced from F, mounting portions and before 140, rear sight is securely seated against F mounting portions; Examiner notes that 120, optical bench constitutes the body of the electronic reflex sight subassembly because 120, optical bench structurally supports the reflex sight components and includes rear sight mounting portions F), wherein the body of the at least one body comprises a rear sight of the mechanical backup sight, and
when the at least one body is secured against the mounting surface via the threaded fastener, the body of the at least one body is in contact with the body of the electronic optic sight (Examiner notes that upon tightening 144, fasteners 140, rear sights is considered to be drawn into contact with and seated against rear-sight mounting portion F of 120, optical bench; 120, optical bench constitutes the supporting body 112, electronic reflex sight assembly, See Figures 11, 13 and 15 [0066], [0070] and [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to partially engage the threaded fasteners with the openings while the rear sight remains spaced from the mounting portions and thereafter tighten the threaded fasteners until the rear sight is contacted and secured against the mounting portions. Such partial engagement followed by the final seating constitutes and ordinary and predictable manner of installing a removable component using threaded fasteners. Doing so would allow the rear sight to be retained before final seating, thereby facilitating installation.
Regarding claim 28, Nackel discloses the apparatus of claim 26, a portion of the modular part is installable in a slot or another opening in an optic guard, wherein the optic guard is part of the at least one firearm part, or included in the kit of parts ([0075], [0071-0072] discloses: rear sight attachment via threaded fasteners, the rear sight and other attachments is considered the kit of parts).
Regarding claim 29, Nackel discloses the apparatus of claim 26, wherein kit of parts comprises the electronic optic sight, wherein the electronic optic sight comprises a direct-mount optic sight (in at least abstract discloses: a reflex sight in a weapon-mounted sight assembly includes a reflex sight mounting portion).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nackel et al. (US 2021/0172704), as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Niswander et al. (US 2021/0025673).
Regarding claim 27, Nackel discloses the apparatus of claim 26,
Nackel fails to disclose an apparatus comprising the modular part, wherein when a user cowitnesses the mechanical backup sight through the electronic optic sight, an eye of the user is closer to a frontmost light transmissive surface of the electronic optic sight than the rear sight of the mechanical backup sight. Nackel and Niswander are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Niswander teaches an apparatus comprising the modular part, wherein when a user cowitnesses the mechanical backup sight through the electronic optic sight, an eye of the user is closer to a frontmost light transmissive surface (Figure 1A ,1B depicts: 170, reflector sight with a transmissive surface, a vertical plane flat would intersect the light transmissive surface in the middle and not the rear mechanical sight) of the electronic optic sight than the rear sight (Figure 1A, 1B depicts: 130, iron sight, a vertical plane flat would intersect the iron sight in the middle and not the light transmissive surface) of the mechanical backup sight (Figure 1A-1B depict: the front to rear arrangement of the forward positioned 130, iron sight, 170, reflector sight, and 148, butt end of 144, firearm slide, accordingly an eye positioned rearward of 170, sight reflector is closer to the transverse vertical plane intersecting the frontmost light transmissive surface than to the parallel transverse vertical plane intersecting the forward position 130, iron sight).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nackel in view of Niswander and provide an assembly comprising the modular part and the slot or the other opening, wherein when the modular part and the optic sight installed using the slot or the other opening and mounted, respectively: the frontmost light transmissive surface of the optic sight is intersected by a vertical plane; and the mechanical rear sight is intersected by another vertical plane, which is parallel with the vertical plane; wherein when a user is looking through the mounted optic sight, along the line of sight, an eye of the user is closer to the vertical plane than the eye is to the other vertical plane. Doing so would allow for a removable mechanical rear sight positioned forward of the optics light-transmissive surface, thereby improving configuration flexibility, aiming redundancy, and sight serviceability.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nackel et al. (US 2021/0172704), as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Holly (US 2021/0318099).
Regarding claim 30, Nackel discloses the apparatus of claim 26.
Nackel fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the kit of parts comprises the modular part and an adapter to mount the electronic optic sight to the firearm. Nackel and Holly are related because both disclose firearm assemblies.
Holly teaches an apparatus wherein the kit of parts comprises the modular part (Figure 4 depicts: 118, recessed area) and an adapter ([0087] teaches: 200, optic sight adapter) to mount the electronic optic sight to the firearm (Figure 4 depicts: mounting of parts of electronic sight via 118 and 200).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nackel in view of Holly and provide an apparatus wherein the kit of parts comprises the modular part and an adapter to mount the electronic optic sight to the firearm. Doing so would allow for compatibility between optical-sight and firearm footprints, thereby improving mounting strength and recoil stability.
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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights