DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ arguments “that Indeed, in Schlierbach, the display source is an LED and not a transparent screen”, The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner did not point to the LED as a transparent screen. Schlierbach clearly discloses “A support element 9 of transparent material is arranged on the side of the reflection sight 1 facing toward the user. A light source 5, here an LED 7, is mounted by means of this support element 9. A light guide could also be provided instead of the light source, emitting a light beam directed along the mid-axis” (Col. 2, lines 46-55) The combination of the support element and the LED define the transparent screen which displays and image defined by the light beam emergent from the light source. The light beam emergent from the light source is propagated along an axis 14, which coincides with the mid-axis 15 of the reflection sight 1. The light beam strikes the partially reflecting layer 13 and is reflected by the partially reflecting layer into the eye 11 of the user. The light reflected at the partially reflecting layer 13 is superposed on the light incident into the reflection sight. A sharply imaged sight marking at infinity becomes visible to the user, lying within his visual field angle 4 (as shown in Fig. 1). Applicants’ arguments are too narrow with respect to the broad limitation of the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Applicant wishes to point out that use of a transparent screen is of particular advantage in the claimed invention. Indeed, in the claimed invention the light beam to be collimated is derived from an image originating from a transparent screen. This feature enables display of more complex images with different contours. It allows projection of images with larger fields of view than a simple crosshair, with a viewfinder that remains compact and provides good viewing comfort”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
If applicant wishes to amend the claim to require a transparent OLED, such a limitation would be obvious in view of Brumfield. Brumfield teaches it is known in the art to provide a transparent OLED reticle display (Par. 0035: “In one embodiment, illustrated in FIG. 4, the display screen 60A of riflescope 5A includes a transparent electronic reticle display, such as a pixelated transparent micro-OLED display, positioned in the optical path intersecting optical axis 70A and coincident with or proximate the rear focal plane 50A”) which provides more complex images (Par. 0052: “Preferably, the reticle pattern 95, formed at least in part by the first set of marks 96, is a type of close-quarters reticle (CQB reticle) having minimal marks 96 to provide a less cluttered viewable area, such as illustrated in FIG. 9A. As used herein, the term "marks" may comprise any of various visually perceptible lines, circles, dots, cross hairs, horseshoe patterns, geometric shapes, characters, numbers, letters, indicia, or symbols”).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Such that such that the reticle display was a transparent OLED reticle display, in view of Brumfield, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The replacement would be expected to yield a reflection sight that displays are reticle.
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Such that such that the reticle display was a transparent OLED reticle display, in view of Brumfield, to obtain the desired result providing a reticle that comprise any of various visually perceptible lines, circles, dots, cross hairs, horseshoe patterns, geometric shapes, characters, numbers, letters, indicia, or symbols.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlierbach et al (US 6,519,889) [hereinafter Schlierbach]
Regarding claim 1, Schlierbach discloses a sight (abstract; Title) for a shooting system (Par. 0001), comprising:
a transparent screen 9, 7 able to display an image (“support element 9 of transparent material is arranged on the side of the reflection sight 1 facing toward the user. A light source 5, here an LED 7, is mounted by means of this support element 9”), and
a catadioptric optical device 19 (lens system: partial reflecting plate 13 and lens 17) able to collimate an incident light beam, from the image displayed on the transparent screen 9,7, into a sighting window superimposed on the direct vision of a scene (Fig. 1, 3; Col. 2, lines 46-64; Col. 3, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 2, Schlierbach further disclose wherein the optical device 19 comprises: a first optical unit 13 able to collimate an incident light beam coming from the displayed image, the first optical unit having optical power and a second optical unit 19 able to compensate the power of the first optical unit for direct vision of the scene (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Schlierbach further discloses wherein the first optical unit comprises a semi-reflecting mirror 13 (partially reflecting plate can be reasonably and broadly construed as a semi-reflecting mirror) able, on the one hand, to reflect and collimate the incident light beam coming from the displayed image and, on the other hand, to transmit the light beam resulting from direct vision of the scene (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Schlierbach further discloses wherein the second optical unit 17 is a counter-form comprising diopters only (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Schlierbach further discloses wherein the optical device is centered on an optical axis, the transparent screen being centered on the optical axis of the optical device (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Schlierbach further discloses wherein the sight is devoid of any element having optical power between the transparent screen and the sighting window (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Schlierbach further discloses a shooting system and a sight according to claim 1 (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 20-35; Col. 2, lines 14-35).
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.
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlierbach in view of Larsson et al (US 2022/0099409) [hereinafter Larsson].
Regarding claim 4-5, Schlierbach does not expressly disclose wherein the semi-reflecting mirror is a Mangin mirror.
Larsson teaches that it is known in the art to provide a reflective surface 104a of a lens 104 to be a Mangin mirror (Par. 0048; Fig. 2) wherein the Mangin mirror is formed by a doublet comprising a divergent lens coupled to a convergent lens (Fig. 2).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Schlierbach such that a catadioptric optical device included a Mangin mirror formed by a doublet comprising a divergent lens coupled to a convergent lens, in view of Larsson, because the substitution of one known a catadioptric optical device for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The replacement would be expected to yield where the light from the LED reflects off the special coating on the mirror and is redirected back toward the user's eye as a concentrated, aiming dot.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlierbach in view of Steck, III (US 3,967,876) [hereinafter Steck].
Regarding claim 8, Schlierbach disclose wherein the optical device (22) presents an exit pupil (Fig. 1), but fails to expressly disclose the dimensions of the exit pupil.
Steck teaches it is known in the art of gun sights to provide the dimensions of the exit pupil being greater than or equal to 30 mm in diameter when the exit pupil is circular, and greater than or equal to 30 mm in length and 30 mm in width when the exit pupil is rectangular (abstract: “an exit pupil of greater than about 25 mm” applicant should note that an exit pupil greater than 25 includes an exit pupil greater than or equal to 30mm; See also Col. 1, lines 65 – Col. 2, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Schlierbach such that the exit pupil was greater than 30mm, in view of Schlierbach, to obtain the desired result of enabling the viewer to quickly pick up the target with the scope.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4269. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM MST M-F.
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.
/JOSHUA E FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641