DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 March 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb (2016/0069627) in view of Kilpatrick (3744143).
Cobb disclose a firearm comprising:
a frame receiver, or slide (30) having an elongated upper portion defining a centerline (figure 3);
a front sight connected to a front portion of the upper portion (52); and
a rear sight connected to a rear portion of the upper portion (51).
Thus, Cobb discloses the claimed invention, except for a first one of the front sight and the rear sight being right of the center line; the other one of the front and rear sight being left of the center line; the front sight being scaled larger than the rear sight to present an equivalent angular dimension as the rear sight; and each of the front sight and rear sight being entirely to one side of the centerline.
Kilpatrick teaches it is known to form the front and rear sights of a firearm as a pair of arc-shaped sight posts, their length and radii being such that, when longitudinally aligned one with the other and viewed, a sight picture in the form of a perfect circle is seen by the viewer (figures 2-5; figure 3 shows the rear sight; figure 4 shows the front sight; abstract). Thus, it is clear that Kipatrick teaches a first one of the front sight and the rear sight is to the right of a center line; the other one of the front and rear sight being left of the center line (see figures 3 and 4, the vertical extending straight portions of the respective front and rear sights would need to be to opposite sides of a centerline in order provide a sight picture in the form of a perfect circle, e.g., see figure 5, which presents the same sight picture as the sights of figures 3 and 4, but with additional gold elements); the front sight being scaled larger than the rear sight to present an equivalent angular dimension as the rear sight (figures 2-4; column 3, line 33, to column 4, line 5); and each of the front sight and rear sight being entirely to one side of the centerline (see figures 3 and 4, the vertically extending straight, bottom portions of the respective front and rear sights would need to be to opposite sides of a centerline in order provide a sight picture in the form of a perfect circle, as disclosed).
Kilpatrick discloses that front and rear sights so designed provide a variety of benefits and advantages, e.g., an unobstructed view of a target and its contiguous surroundings (column 1, lines 44-60). Further, Kilpatrick discloses the front and rear sights as being applicable to the barrel of a pistol, a rifle, or other relatively elongate member or devices designed to be aimed or point at a target (column 2, lines 40-46). Further, the slide of Cobb constitutes a such an elongate member or device, and the slide of Cobb is clearly intended to include spaced apart front and rear sights. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the front and rear sight of Cobb with front and rear sights as taught by Kilpatrick, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the benefits and advantages associated therewith (see Kilpatrick, column 1, lines 44-60).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobb in view of Brack-Kaeser (CH 193658 A; “Kaeser”).
In reference to claim 1, Cobb disclose a firearm comprising:
a frame receiver, or slide (30) having an elongated upper portion defining a centerline (figure 3);
a front sight connected to a front portion of the upper portion (52); and
a rear sight connected to a rear portion of the upper portion (51).
Thus, Cobb discloses the claimed invention, except for a first one of the front sight and the rear sight being right of the center line; the other one of the front and rear sight being left of the center line; the front sight being scaled larger than the rear sight to present an equivalent angular dimension as the rear sight; and each of the front sight and rear sight being entirely to one side of the centerline.
Kaeser teaches it is known to form the front and rear sights of a firearm as a pair of non-circular sight posts, their size being such that, when viewed in an aiming orienation, a sight picture in the form of a cross shape is seen by the viewer (see provided translation: page 1, first full paragraph of description; paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2; figures 1-3, sight posts shown: as elements 1 and 2 in figure 1, as elements 13 and 14 in figure 2, and as elements 20 and 21 in figure 3). Thus, it is clear that Kaeser teaches a first one of the front sight and the rear sight is to the right of a center line; the other one of the front and rear sight being left of the center line (figures 1-3); the front sight being scaled larger than the rear sight to present an equivalent angular dimension as the rear sight (figures 2 and 3, e.g., in fig.2, the front sight 14 must be scaled larger in height than the portion of the rear sight 13 with which it aligns so as to place edges 15 and 17 in the illustrated alignment, since the front sight is further from a user’s eye); and each of the front sight and rear sight being entirely to one side of the centerline (figures 2 and 3, e.g., in fig. 3, the center line extends into the page to the center of the target circle 26).
Kaeser discloses that front and rear sights so designed provide a variety of benefits and advantages (translation, page 2, last paragraph). Further, Kaeser does not limit the type of firearm or weapon to which the front and rear sights can be applied. Further, the slide of Cobb is clearly intended to include spaced apart front and rear sights. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the front and rear sights of Cobb with front and rear sights as taught by Kaeser, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the benefits and advantages associated therewith (as set forth above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Kilpatrick fails to disclose non-circular front and rear sight posts. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kilpatrick discloses the front and rear sights as being “semi-circular” (column 2, last paragraph). It should be appreciated that “circular” and “semi-circular” mean two different things. The front and rear sights of Kilpartrick are clearly semi-circular sight posts, and, thus, each can be reasonably considered non-circular, per se. The term “non-circular” only precludes a sight post in the form of a circle, but NOT a sight post in the form of a segment of a circle. Thus, Kilpatrick clearly discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641