Detailed Action
The following is a non-final rejection made in response to an election received on December 29th 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on December 29th 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-20 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 3311690 (hereinafter referred to as “CONTINUOUS MOLDING CORP”, “CMC”, or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claim 1, CMC teaches a method for forming a base housing of a targeting sight for a firearm, the method comprising: placing one or more metal components into an injection mold (see title; Figs. 1-5c illustrate a metal object inserted into a cast mold formed by portions 15 and 16); injecting material in liquid form into the injection mold to partially or fully encapsulate the one or more metal components (injection of a plastic substance is done through gate 18 into die cavity 17; see col. 4, ll. 48-49); curing the material injected into the injection mold and removing the cured material and the encapsulated one or more metal components from the injection mold as a single unit (“Then, upon completion of the injection cycle, the mold is opened and the die parts 15 and 16 are separated so that the molded article 29 can be ejected”; col. 8, ll. 11-13).
Regrading claim 2, CMC teaches in which curing the material injected into the injection mold precedes removing the cured material from the injection mold (the die parts are separated once the injection cycle is completed and the molded article is formed; col. 8, ll. 11-13).
Regrading claims 6 and 7, CMC teaches that the metal components comprise stainless steel and/or a metal frame (the reference teaches applicability to “metal objects”, which necessarily include both stainless steel and metal frames).
Regarding claim 8, CMC teaches attaching at least one sleeve (via sleeve element 19) to the metal frame (see Figs. 1-5c).
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 3311690 (hereinafter referred to as “CONTINUOUS MOLDING CORP” or “CMC”), as applied in the previous section of this action, further in view of US Pat. No. 5,168,108 (hereinafter referred to as “ALLIED SIGNAL INC” or “ASI”).
Regarding claim 5, CMC teaches a method involving injecting a material in liquid form into an injection mold, but fails to explicitly teach that the material is a glass-filled nylon.
As the Applicant is aware, glass-filled nylon is a composite thermoplastic made by blending nylon with glass fibers to significantly enhance its mechanical properties, resulting in improved strength, stiffness, heat resistance, dimensional stability, and wear resistance compared to plain nylon.
The application of this material to injection molded parts is not considered to be a novel and non-obvious advance, as evidenced in part by ASI.
ASI discloses a glass fiber reinforced nylon composition comprising a polyamide. The composition of ASI is made by a melt-blending process and can subsequently be used in “a conventional melt-forming processes such as injection molding” (see col. 4, ll. 28-39).
Given the facts presented by the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant application was effectively filed, to apply glass-filled nylon to the injection molding process taught by CMC under the motivation of providing an improved composite material in forming a molded body.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 3311690 (hereinafter referred to as “CONTINUOUS MOLDING CORP” or “CMC”).
Regarding claim 11, CMC teaches a metal component in the form of a frame being subjected to an over-molding injection molding process, but fails to teach that “at least one additional metal component” is further included.
MPEP 2144.04 cites “Duplication of Parts” as an exemplary common practice “which the court has held normally require[s] only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients”. In reviewing the Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner concludes that subjecting multiple metal components to the injection molding process does not yield any sort of new or unexpected result to the claimed method. Since there is no particular specialty afforded by this feature, it is reasonable to conclude that the prior art would not perform differently if more than one metallic component were inserted in the cast mold..
The Examiner, in congruence with proper examination procedure, therefore considers the differences between the claimed subject matter and the teachings of CMC to be within the scope of what is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
While the Examiner is available via telephone to help resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing the USPTO’s Inventor Assistance Center for general administrative and/or procedural matters at 800-786-9199. Issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. In accordance with current USPTO policy, this form must be submitted on the record prior to internet communications being authorized. A written statement by the Applicant authorizing internet communications on the record is not sufficient. Once authorization is submitted, the Applicant may contact the Examiner at samir.abdosh@uspto.gov. In the event that a telephone conversation would be the easiest means of resolving issues related to the subject matter of a pending patent application, the Examiner may be reached by telephone at 303-297-4454. Interviews will not be granted after issuance of a final rejection unless it is to discuss an amendment that either places the application in condition for allowance or simplifies issues for appeal.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Samir Abdosh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641