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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed March 31, 2026. Claims 2, 4, 11, and 19 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-18 and 20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-6 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the arguments are not persuasive. Namely, Hamilton et al. discloses all of the limitations of newly amended claim 1, except, the outer sleeve shroud has at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance. However, Hamilton et al. does disclose a material with at least two areas, wherein each of the at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance (see e.g. paragraphs [0139], [0263] for use of different reflectance areas). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton et al. with the outer sleeve shroud has at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
Similar arguments apply to independent claims 10 and 18.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-7 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art rejection fails to disclose all of the limitations of claims 7 and 15 have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Namely, applicant argues that the Gibson reference discloses an opposite design approach for accommodating cam pins inside an erector system. Applicant further asserts Gibson’s solution “to cut open and enlarge the surrounding tube”. However, first, it is noted that the claim language requires the outer sleeve shroud to be positioned so as not to impede the cam pins. Having a larger opening satisfies that claim language of preventing impeding of the cam pins. Further, Figure 5 discloses “a surrounding retainer sleeve 70” which may be considered the outer sleeve shroud and satisfies the claim language.
Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected as set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an outer sleeve shroud coupled to the cam sleeve, wherein the outer sleeve shroud has a material with at least two areas, wherein each of the at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 2019/0324260 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Hamilton et al. discloses a viewing optic comprising (see e.g. Figures 1b,c):
a main body 38 (denoted “body”, see e.g. paragraph [0171] and Figure 1c) having an objective lens system 54 (denoted “objective lens”, see e.g. paragraph [0171] and Figure 1c) and an ocular lens system 56 (denoted “eyepiece”, see e.g. paragraph [0171 and Figure 1c);
an erector tube 14 (denoted “optical system”, see e.g. paragraph [0173]-[[0175] and Figure 1c) with an erector lens assembly 25 (denoted “erector system”, see e.g. paragraph [0173] and Figure 1c) located between the objective lens system 54 and the ocular lens system 56 (see e.g. Figure 1c);
a cam sleeve coupled to the erector tube 14 (see e.g. paragraph [0207] for cam tube around erector tube);
an outer sleeve shroud (see e.g. paragraph [0207] for “erector sleeve”) coupled to the cam sleeve (see e.g. paragraph [0207]), wherein the outer sleeve shroud has a material with at least two areas (see e.g. paragraph [0207] for “erector sleeve” and note that it may be divided into multiple areas),and
an active display for generating an image (see e.g. paragraph [0012] for integrated active display for generating and projecting an image).
Hamilton et al. fails to disclose
the outer sleeve shroud has at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance.
However, Hamilton et al. does disclose
a material with at least two areas, wherein each of the at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance (see e.g. paragraphs [0139], [0263] for use of different reflectance areas). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton et al. with the outer sleeve shroud has at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton et al. with the outer sleeve shroud has at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance.
Providing the portion of the riflescope with the two areas having different optical properties on the outer sleeve shroud would allow for a reflective material to be used to track magnification changes as a magnification lever is moved.
In regard to claim 3, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the material with at least two areas has four areas with each of the four areas having a different optical absorption or reflectance (see e.g. paragraph [0139] for four sections of different reflectivity).
In regard to claim 5, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein each of the at least two areas corresponds to a magnification setting (see e.g. paragraph [0139]).
In regard to claim 6, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
a photosensor configured to measure the optical absorption/reflectance from the material with at least two areas (see e.g. paragraph [0030]).
In regard to claim 8, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the active display is selected from the group consisting of: a transmissive active matrix LCD display (AMLCD), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, a Light-Emitting Diode (LED) display, a e-ink display, a plasma display, a segment display, an electroluminescent display, a surface-conduction electron-emitter display, and a quantum dot display (see e.g. paragraph [0060]).
In regard to claim 9, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the image generated by the active display is selected from the group consisting of: text, alpha-numeric, graphics, symbols, video imagery, icons, active target reticles, range measurements, wind information, GPS and compass information, firearm inclination information, target finding, recognition and identification (ID) information, external sensor information, temperature, pressure, humidity, real time ballistic solutions, and next round ballistic correction through in-flight tracer round detection and tracking (see e.g. paragraph [0021]).
In regard to claim 10, Hamilton et al. discloses a viewing optic comprising (see e.g. title and abstract, Figures 1b,c):
a main body 38 having an objective lens system 54 and an ocular lens system 56 (denoted “eyepiece”, see e.g. paragraph [0171]);
an erector tube (see e.g. paragraphs [0173]-[0175]) with an erector lens assembly 25 located between the objective lens system 54 and the ocular lens system 56 (see e.g. Figure 1c);
a cam sleeve coupled to the erector tube 14 (see e.g. paragraph [0207] for cam tube around erector tube);
an outer sleeve shroud (see e.g. paragraph [0207] for “erector sleeve”) coupled to the cam sleeve (see e.g. paragraph [0207]),
wherein the outer sleeve shroud has a material with at least two areas (see e.g. paragraph [0207] for “erector sleeve” and note that it may be divided into multiple areas).
Hamilton et al. fails to disclose
wherein each of the at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance.
However, Hamilton et al. does disclose
a material with at least two areas, wherein each of the at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance (see e.g. paragraphs [0139], [0263] for use of different reflectance areas). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton et al. with the outer sleeve shroud has at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton et al. with the outer sleeve shroud has at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance.
Providing the portion of the riflescope with the two areas having different optical properties on the outer sleeve shroud would allow for a reflective material to be used to track magnification changes as a magnification lever is moved.
In regard to claim 12, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and
wherein the material with at least two areas has four areas with each of the four areas having a different optical absorption or reflectance (see e.g. paragraph [0139] for four sections of different reflectivity).
In regard to claim 13, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and
wherein each of the at least two areas corresponds to a magnification setting (see e.g. paragraph [0139]).
In regard to claim 14, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and
a photosensor configured to measure the optical absorption/reflectance from the material with at least two areas (see e.g. paragraph [0030]).
In regard to claim 16, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and
wherein the active display is selected from the group consisting of: a transmissive active matrix LCD display (AMLCD), an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, a Light-Emitting Diode (LED) display, a e-ink display, a plasma display, a segment display, an electroluminescent display, a surface-conduction electron-emitter display, and a quantum dot display (see e.g. paragraph [0060]).
In regard to claim 17, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and
wherein the image generated by the active display is selected from the group consisting of: text, alpha-numeric, graphics, symbols, video imagery, icons, active target reticles, range measurements, wind information, GPS and compass information, firearm inclination information, target finding, recognition and identification (ID) information, external sensor information, temperature, pressure, humidity, real time ballistic solutions, and next round ballistic correction through in-flight tracer round detection and tracking (see e.g. paragraph [0021]).
In regard to claim 18, Hamilton et al. discloses an viewing optic comprising(see e.g. title and abstract, Figures 1b,c):
a main body 38 having an objective lens system 54 and an ocular lens system 56 (denoted “eyepiece”, see e.g. paragraph [0171]);
an erector tube (see e.g. paragraphs [0173]-[0175]) with an erector lens assembly 25 located between the objective lens system 54 and the ocular lens system 56 (see e.g. Figure 1c);
a cam sleeve coupled to the erector tube 14 (see e.g. paragraph [0207] for cam tube around erector tube);
an outer sleeve shroud (see e.g. paragraph [0207] for “erector sleeve”) coupled to the cam sleeve (see e.g. paragraph [0207]) and
an active display for generating an image (see e.g. paragraph [0012] for integrated active display for generating and projecting an image), wherein the generated image is combined into an image of the outward scene in a first focal plane located between the objective lens system and the erector lens assembly (see e.g. paragraphs [0013], [0015], [0016]).
Hamilton et al. fails to disclose
the outer sleeve shroud having a material with a gradient grayscale and having at least two areas, wherein each of the at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance.
However, Hamilton et al. does disclose a portion with a gradient grayscale and having at least two areas, wherein each of the at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance (see e.g. paragraphs [0139], [0263], [0269] for cam sleeve, material of gradient grayscale with multiple areas of different absorption/reflectance). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton et al. with the outer sleeve shroud having a material with a gradient grayscale and having at least two areas, wherein each of the at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton et al. with the outer sleeve shroud having a material with a gradient grayscale and having at least two areas, wherein each of the at least two areas has a different optical absorption or reflectance.
Providing the portion of the riflescope with the two areas having different optical properties on the outer sleeve shroud would allow for a reflective material to be used to track magnification changes as a magnification lever is moved.
In regard to claim 20, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 18 above, and
wherein each of the at least two areas corresponds to a magnification setting (see e.g. paragraph [0139]).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (US 2019/0324260 A1) in view of Gibson (US 4,643,542).
In regard to claim 7, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the outer sleeve shroud is positioned so as not to impede cam pins inside the erector system.
However, Gibson discloses (see e.g. Figure 3):
wherein the outer sleeve shroud 70 (see e.g. Figure 5, Column 5, lines 40-49) is positioned is positioned so as not to impede cam pins 42 inside the erector system (see e.g. Column 4, line 38-Column 5 line 10).
Given the teachings of Gibson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton et al. with wherein the outer sleeve shroud is positioned so as not to impede cam pins inside the erector system.
Providing the surround materials of the device/outer sleeve shroud so as not impede cam pins would allow for improved focus adjustment of the device (see e.g. Column 2, lines 18-29 of Gibson).
In regard to claim 15, Hamilton et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the outer sleeve shroud is positioned so as not to impede cam pins inside the erector system.
However, Gibson discloses (see e.g. Figure 3):
wherein the outer sleeve shroud 70 (see e.g. Figure 5, Column 5, lines 40-49) is positioned so as not to impede cam pins 42 inside the erector system (see e.g. Column 2, line 38-Column 3 line 10).
Given the teachings of Gibson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hamilton et al. with wherein the outer sleeve shroud is positioned so as not to impede cam pins inside the erector system.
Providing the surround materials of the device/outer sleeve shroud so as not impede cam pins would allow for improved focus adjustment of the device (see e.g. Column 2, lines 18-29 of Gibson).
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights