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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 01 July 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-28, 31-40, and 43-45 is noted. The remainder of the instant Office Action is directed to claim 29, 30, 41, 42, and 46-59.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 41, line 1: “plater” should read “plate”.
Claim 41, line 2: “mountinginterface” should read “mounting interface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 29, 30, and 46-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (11313646) in view of Olmsted (2017/0211910), further in view of Dawson, JR. (2021/0270572; “Dawson”), and further in view of Kruzell (3559940).
In reference to claim 29, Simon discloses a sight for mounting to a sight mounting interface, the sight comprising:
a housing having a base comprising a rear face, a front face, and a bottom surface, and the rear face leans forwards to engage an oblong dovetail member forming a removable attachment element for securing the sight to the sight mounting interface (figure 10, sight 68B, the housing thereof clearly includes a rear face, a front face, and a bottom surface, and the rear face leans forwards such that it is capable of being engaged by an oblong dovetail member forming a removable attachment element for securing the sight to the sight mounting interface; it is noted that that the oblong dovetail member is NOT positively claimed, and, thus, the rear face need only be capable of being engaged by a hypothetical oblong member, known or unknown; identical structures are inherently capable of identical functions).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marked-up Figure 10 of Simon
Thus, Simon discloses the claimed invention, except for a longitudinal groove provided on the bottom surface, wherein the longitudinal groove has longitudinal inside surfaces leaning inwards by angles in a direction to the center of the bottom surface for engaging corresponding leaning longitudinal wall surfaces of a tenon of the sight mounting interface, and wherein the front face leans backwards to engage a leaning front wall of said sight mounting interface.
Regarding the front face, it is noted that Simon fails to provide a good view of the front face of the sight housing. However, Olmsted teaches it is known to form a sight housing with a front face that leans backward, such that it is capable of engaging a leaning front wall of a sight mounting interface, in order to provide a more secure engagement between the sight mounting interface and the sight housing vis-à-vis fasteners, alone (figure 2, the lead line for numeral 22 ends at the front face, which is shown as engaged by a leaning front wall of a sight mounting interface). It is noted that the leaning front wall of the sight mounting interface nor the sight mounting interface are positively claimed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a sight housing with a front face that leans backward, such that it is capable of engaging a leaning front wall of a sight mounting interface, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a more secure engagement between the sight mounting interface and the sight housing vis-à-vis fasteners, alone.
Regarding the longitudinal groove, Dawson teaches it is known to provide a sight housing with a longitudinal groove on a bottom surface thereof, in order to provide accurate, repeatable placement of the sight housing relative to a sight mounting interface. Further, Dawson teaches that said groove can take the form a plurality of longitudinal grooves, i.e., mortises, provided on said bottom surface, wherein said grooves are intended to mate with a plurality of longitudinal tenons formed an upper surface of the sight mounting interface (paragraphs 88 and 123). Further, Dawson does not limit the geometries of such grooves or tenons. Kruzell teaches it is known to form a plurality of grooves with corresponding leaning inside surfaces for engaging plurality of tenons having leaning longitudinal wall surfaces, in order to provide a wedging effect to more accurately position components of a firearm sight and mount relative to one another (figures 1, 2, and 6, grooves 19 engaging grooves with walls 21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the housing with at least one groove, as claimed, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide accurate, repeatable placement of the housing relative to a sight mounting surface via a wedging effect between said at least one groove and at least one corresponding tenon.
In reference to claim 30, Simon in view of Olmsted, further in view of Dawson, and further in view of Kruzell (the modified Simon) makes obvious the claimed invention, since none of the sight mounting interface, the oblong dovetail member, and the leaning front wall are positively claimed. The sight of the modified Simon includes a front surface that leans backwards and a rear surface that leans forwards, and, thus, said sight would be capable of being engaged by an oblong dovetail member and a leaning front wall, as claimed, since identical structures are inherently capable of identical functions.
In reference to claims 46 and 53, the modified Simon makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the angles of the tenon and groove are 15-35 degrees. However, based on the teachings of Kruzell, it would be within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select an angle for the tenon(s) and groove(s). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the angles of the tenon(s) and groove(s) as 15-35 degrees, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claims 47 and 54, the modified Simon makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the angles of the tenon and groove are 20 degrees. However, based on the teachings of Kruzell, it would be within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select an angle for the tenon(s) and groove(s). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the angles of the tenon(s) and groove(s) as 20 degrees, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claims 48 and 55, the modified Simon makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the rear face leans forwards by 30-60 degrees, with reference to the normal vector of the bottom surface, and the front face leans backwards by 30-60 degrees with reference to the normal vector of the bottom surface. However, it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select an angle for the front and rear faces, in order to carry out the disclosures and teachings of the applied references. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rear face leaning forwards by 30-60 degrees, with reference to the normal vector of the bottom surface, and the front face leaning backwards by 30-60 degrees with reference to the normal vector of the bottom surface, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claims 49 and 56, the modified Simon makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the rear face leans forwards by 45 degrees, with reference to the normal vector of the bottom surface, and the front face leans backwards by 45 degrees with reference to the normal vector of the bottom surface. However, it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select an angle for the front and rear faces, in order to carry out the disclosures and teachings of the applied references. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the rear face leaning forwards by 45 degrees, with reference to the normal vector of the bottom surface, and the front face leaning backwards by 45 degrees with reference to the normal vector of the bottom surface, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claims 50 and 57, the modified Simon makes obvious the claimed invention (Simon: marked-up figure 10, above, clearly shows a vertical portion extending up to the leaning portion).
In reference to claims 51 and 58, the modified Simon makes obvious the claimed invention, since the above-indicated rear face can be alternatively considered the front face, and vice versa. The claims do not recite any orientating limitations that preclude such an interpretation. Thus, looking at the marked-up figure 10 of Simon, above, it can be seen that the indicated leaning portion has a vertical portion there-below, and above said leaning portion is a horizontal portion and then another vertical portion. Thus, with the above-indicated rear face considered as the front face, it is clear that Simon discloses the limitations of claims 51 and 58.
In reference to claims 52 and 59, the modified Simon makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the sight is closed reflex sight, as claimed. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to form a red dot sight, like that of Simon, as a closed reflex sight, as claimed, to provide extra protection to the optical elements and other components thereof. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sight of the modified Simon as a closed reflex sight, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide extra protection to the optical elements and other components thereof.
Claims 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langdon (2021/0254933) in view of Dawson, and further in view of Kruzell.
In reference to claim 41, Langdon discloses an adapter plate for mounting a sight to a sight mounting interface, the adapter plate comprising a base having a rear face, a front face, a top surface, and a bottom surface, the front face leans backwards to engage a front wall of said sight mounting interface, and the rear face leans forwards to engage an oblong dovetail member forming a removable attachment element for securing the adapter plate to the sight mounting interface (figures 7 and 9, plate 402, front face 414, rear face being the right-hand face of element 404; none of the sight mounting interface, front wall of the sight mounting interface, and oblong dovetail member are positively claimed; the plate of Langdon would be capable of being engaged by an oblong dovetail member and a front wall, as claimed, since identical structures are inherently capable of identical functions).
Thus, Langdon discloses the claimed invention, except for the bottom surface provided with a longitudinal groove, wherein the longitudinal groove has longitudinal inside surfaces leaning inwards by angles in a direction to the center of the bottom surface for engaging corresponding leaning longitudinal wall surfaces of a tenon of the sight mounting interface.
Dawson teaches it is known to provide an adapter plate with a longitudinal groove on a bottom surface thereof, in order to provide accurate, repeatable placement of the plate relative to a sight mounting interface. Further, Dawson teaches that said groove can take the form a plurality of longitudinal grooves, i.e., mortises, provided on said bottom surface, wherein said grooves are intended to mate with a plurality of longitudinal tenons formed an upper surface of the sight mounting interface (paragraph 88). Further, Dawson does not limit the geometries of such grooves or tenons. Kruzell teaches it is known to form a plurality of grooves with corresponding leaning inside surfaces for engaging plurality of tenons having leaning longitudinal wall surfaces, in order to provide a wedging effect to more accurately position components of a firearm sight and mount relative to one another (figures 1, 2, and 6, grooves 19 engaging grooves with walls 21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plate with at least one groove, as claimed, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide accurate, repeatable placement of the plate relative to a sight mounting surface via a wedging effect between said at least one groove and at least one corresponding tenon.
In reference to claim 42, Langdon in view of Dawson, and further in view of Kruzell (the modified Langdon) makes obvious the claimed invention, since none of the sight mounting interface, the oblong dovetail member, and the leaning front wall are positively claimed. The plate of the modified Langdon includes a front surface that leans backwards and a rear surface that leans forwards, and, thus, said sight would be capable of being engaged by an oblong dovetail member and a leaning front wall, as claimed, since identical structures are inherently capable of identical functions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached Notice of References Cited. The relevance of each cited reference is made clear by at least the abstract and/or drawings thereof.
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
Prosecution Insights