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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 September 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 15-18 are pending.
The examiner notes that claims 1-2 and 15-18 are only given the priority date of 5 September 2014, which is the filing date of parent application 14/478,697, because the provisional application 61/874,840 does not provide support for angular markings for use with a supersonic bullet or with a subsonic bullet.
Drawings
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous objections to the drawings are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3-14 have been canceled. Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 3-14 under 35 USC 112(a) and/or 112(b) are moot.
Response to Arguments
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 9 have been canceled. Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 3, 4, 7, and 9 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) are moot.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the remarks, filed 21 September 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of US 2010/0301116 to Bennetts et al. and US 2014/0373424 to Silvers, of record.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0301116 to Bennetts et al. (hereafter Bennetts), in view of US 2014/0373424 to Silvers et al., of record (hereafter Silvers).
Regarding claim 1, Bennetts discloses an optical sighting device (see at least the abstract and Fig. 3) comprising: an electronic reticle (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0028], where aiming component 310 is an electronic reticle), a controller for causing at least two marking patterns to be displayed on the electronic reticle (see at least Figs. 3 and 6A-6D and paragraphs [0028] and [0063]-[0065], where the controller/processor provides multiple marking patterns to be displayed on the electronic reticle), the patterns providing angular markings (see at least Figs. 6A-6D) and the patterns being customizable by ammunition type (see at least paragraph [0063]), wherein the controller comprises a memory for storing the first pattern and the second pattern (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0063]-[0065], where reticle information such as shape, ammunition type, and color are storable in a memory).
Bennetts does not specifically disclose that the first pattern illustrates angular markings for use with a supersonic bullet, and the second pattern illustrates angular markings for use with a subsonic bullet, the second pattern having greater spacing between the markings than in the first pattern.
However, Silvers teaches an optical sighting device comprising a reticle with two marking patterns (see at least the abstract and Figs. 3-4), wherein the first pattern illustrates angular markings for use with a supersonic bullet (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0023], where aiming marks 70a-g indicate points of impact for supersonic ammunition), and the second pattern illustrates angular markings for use with a subsonic bullet (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0023], where aiming marks 69a-g indicate points for subsonic ammunition), the second pattern having greater spacing between the markings than in the first pattern (see at least Figs. 3 and 4).
Therefore, 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 Bennetts to include the teachings of Silvers so that the first pattern illustrates angular markings for use with a supersonic bullet, and the second pattern illustrates angular markings for use with a subsonic bullet, the second pattern having greater spacing between the markings than in the first pattern for the purpose of using known angular markings for known ammunition types in order to provide ballistic information for reticle formation on an electronic reticle.
Regarding claim 2, Bennetts as modified by Silvers discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bennetts also discloses that the optical sighting device further includes a switch connected to the controller for switching between the first and second patterns (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0048], where the input system can be a switch).
Regarding claim 15, Bennetts as modified by Silvers discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bennetts also discloses that the reticle can comprise different colors (see at least paragraph [0057], where the LCD elements can have different colors).
Bennetts as modified by Silvers does not specifically disclose that the first pattern and the second pattern are illuminated in different colors from one another to differentiate the first pattern from the second pattern.
However, 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 so that the different colors of the reticle disclosed by Bennetts can be applied to the first and second patterns for the purpose of being obvious to try different colors for different patterns in order to be recognizable as different patterns (see at least paragraph [0057] of Bennetts where different aiming points can be differently colored in order to promote easier recognition).
Therefore, 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 Bennetts as modified by Silvers so that the first pattern and the second pattern are illuminated in different colors from one another to differentiate the first pattern from the second pattern for the purpose of being obvious to try different colors for different patterns in order to be recognizable as different patterns (see at least paragraph [0057] of Bennetts where different aiming points can be differently colored in order to promote easier recognition).
Regarding claim 16, Bennetts as modified by Silvers discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bennetts also discloses that the reticle can comprise different shapes (see at least paragraph [0063]-[0065], where the reticles can have one or more predetermined shapes).
Bennetts as modified by Silvers does not specifically disclose that the first pattern and the second pattern are differentiated from one another by different shapes.
However, 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 so that the different shapes of the reticle disclosed by Bennetts can be applied to the first and second patterns for the purpose of being obvious to try different shapes for different patterns in order to be recognizable as different patterns (see at least paragraph [0057], where a variety of shapes are disclosed such as a box, dot, and bull’s eye).
Therefore, 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 Bennetts as modified by Silvers so that the first pattern and the second pattern are differentiated from one another by different shapes for the purpose of being obvious to try different shapes for different patterns in order to be recognizable as different patterns (see at least paragraph [0057] of Bennetts where a variety of shapes are disclosed such as a box, dot, and bull’s eye).
Regarding claim 17, Bennetts as modified by Silvers discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bennetts also discloses that the electronic reticle comprises an OLED (see at least paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 18, Bennetts as modified by Silvers discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bennetts also discloses a non-electronic reticle positioned to remain visible and operative as a backup aiming reference in the event of a power failure of the electronic reticle (see at least paragraph [0066], where a mechanical reticle can be etched into the plano lens 1510).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,252,706 to Kaladgew discloses a telescopic sight comprising an electronic reticle with different patterns stored in a memory (see at least the abstract and Col. 3, lines 34-49).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
