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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “characterized in that is has a main tube” which should be --characterized in that it has a main tube--. Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation “a main tube mounting diameter of less and thirty-five millimeters” which should be --a main tube mounting diameter of less than thirty-five millimeters Applicant should note that claims 2-9 are objected to because of their dependency from claim 1.
Claims 5 and 17 recites the limitation “distance from the pivot to start of” which should be --distance from the pivot point to a start of--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-10, 15, 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pivot" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the pivot” with --the pivot point-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the angle D" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the angle D” with --internal clearance angle-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second tapered section" in lines 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the angle D" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the angle D” with --internal clearance angle-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second tapered section" in lines 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the diameter" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the diameter” with --the main tube mounting diameter-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the diameter" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the diameter” with --the main tube mounting diameter-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a turret" in lines 1. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to the said adjustment turret or another separate turret.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the turret" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the turret” with --the adjustment turret-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the at least one tapering section" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant replace with --the at least one intermediary section-- AND make the claim dependent from claim 12 to overcome the rejection.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the pivot" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the pivot” with --the pivot point-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the diameter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the diameter” with --the main tube mounting diameter-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the diameter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the diameter” with --the main tube mounting diameter-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the at least one tapering section" in lines 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the turret" in lines 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant could replace “the turret” with --the adjustment turret-- to overcome the rejection.
All claims should be revised carefully to correct all other deficiencies similar to the ones noted above. In light of the above, the claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2016/0231554) in view of Thomas et al (US 11,067,364) [hereinafter Thomas].
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses a riflescope 100 or other optical device 100 (Abstract; Par. 0004), comprising:
a pivotable system erector 153 containing one or more lens or other optical elements (Fig. 2b; Par. 0032);
an adjustment turret 60 coupled to a first end of the system erector 153 (as shown in Fig. 2), the adjustment turret operable to pivot the system erector about a pivot point (not shown) associated with a second opposite end of the system erector (Fig. 2b; Par. 0034: “The second adjusting member 45 is also cylindrical and extends through the central hole 424 and the main body 20 to move the lens barrel 155 of the erecting lens system 153 in a first direction L which is perpendicular to the optical axis P”)
a main tube 20 to house the pivotable system erector and an interior of the main tube includes (Fig. 2b):
a cavity section at least partially defining at least one cavity (Fig. 2b), and an additional section (Fig. 2b below) located rearwardly of the cavity section; wherein at least part of the first end of the system erector is movable along a path terminating at one end in a cavity of the at least one cavity (Fig. 2b; see range of movement), wherein a total length of the path from the one end to another end of the path is greater than an interior diameter of the additional section of the main tube (as shown in Fig. 2b below).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tang fails to expressly disclose a main tube mounting diameter of less than thirty-five millimeters.
Thomas teaches it is known in the art to provide a rifle scope with a main tube mounting diameter of less than thirty-five millimeters (Col. 4, lines 54- Col. 5 line 5: “Main tube 102 may vary in size but is generally a hollow cylinder. In a preferred embodiment, tube length will be 201 mm. In another embodiment, the tube length will be 205 mm. The tube length may vary, and in some embodiments, ranges in size between 84 and 246 mm. The typical outer diameter may range from 19 mm to 40 mm, although sights intended for long range or low light usage, or both, may feature larger main tube diameters. In one embodiment, main tube 102 will have a diameter of 30 mm)”
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified Tang such that the main tube mounting diameter was less than thirty-five millimeters, in view of Thomas, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 2, Tang further discloses wherein the main tube 20 further includes an intermediary section located between the cavity section and the additional section (as shown in annotated Fig. 2b above), the intermediary section including a top space or a bottom space wherein at least a portion of the intermediary section has an interior width that is greater than the interior diameter (as seen in Fig. 2b); wherein when the at least part of the first end of the system erector is located in the cavity of the at least one cavity, a different part of the system erector is located in the top space or the bottom space of the intermediary section (Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 3, Tang further discloses wherein the main tube includes characteristics comprising an internal clearance angle (D), an erector tilt half-angle (G), a main tube internal diameter (J), and a distance from the pivot point to center line of adjustment (B); the main tube (inherent structure; Fig. 2b);
Tang fails to expressly disclose a product of a value of angle D and a ratio of a numerical value of the distance B over a numerical value of the main tube mounting diameter A is not greater than a numerical value of five, or a product of the angle G and said ratio is not greater than a numerical value of six,
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Tang further discloses wherein the characteristics further comprise a distance from the pivot to start of internal clearance angle (K) (Fig. 2b)
Tang fails to expressly disclose wherein a value of K is greater than, or less than, 43.434 millimeters.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, Tang fails to expressly disclose the angle D defines a slope of the part of the interior associated with the second tapered section, and wherein the angle D is greater than 1.70 degrees.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6, Tang fails to expressly disclose, the angle D defines a slope of the part of the interior associated with the second tapered section, and wherein the angle D is less than 1.70 degrees.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, Tang fails to expressly disclose wherein a ratio of the diameter A over the distance B is less than a numerical value of 0.3278.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, Tang fails to expressly disclose wherein a ratio of the diameter A over the distance B is greater than a numerical value of 0.3278.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, Tang further discloses wherein a turret of the riflescope or other optical device has an exterior flat arranged along a plane parallel with the centerline (Fig. 2b).
Tang fails to expressly discloses wherein a distance from the plane to the centerline is not greater than about 0.93 inches.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Tang further discloses wherein an exterior of the turret includes a sloped exterior section, a part of which is located rearwardly of the first end of the system erector (Fig. 2b).
Tang fails to expressly disclose the sloped exterior section angled by more than twenty-four degrees.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, Tang discloses a riflescope 100 or other optical device 100 (Abstract; Par. 0004), comprising:
a pivotable system erector 153 containing one or more lens or other optical elements (Fig. 2b; Par. 0032);
an adjustment turret 60 coupled to a first end of the system erector 153 (as shown in Fig. 2), the adjustment turret operable to pivot the system erector about a pivot point (not shown) associated with a second opposite end of the system erector (Fig. 2b; Par. 0034: “The second adjusting member 45 is also cylindrical and extends through the central hole 424 and the main body 20 to move the lens barrel 155 of the erecting lens system 153 in a first direction L which is perpendicular to the optical axis P”)
a main tube 20 to house the pivotable system erector and an interior of the main tube includes (Fig. 2b):
a cavity section at least partially defining at least one cavity (Fig. 2b),
at least one intermediary section located rearwardly of the cavity section (Fig. 2b), and an additional section located rearwardly of the at least one intermediary section (Fig. 2b);
wherein at least part of the first end of the system erector is movable along a path terminating at one end in a cavity of the at least one cavity Fig. 2b; see range of movement, wherein a total length of the path from the one end to another end of the path is greater than an interior diameter of the additional section of the main tube (see Fig. 2b below);
the at least one intermediary section defining a top space or a bottom space wherein at least a portion of the intermediary section has an interior width that is greater than the interior diameter of the additional section (see Fig. 2b, below);
wherein when the at least part of the first end of the system erector is located in the cavity of the at least one cavity, a different part of the system erector is located in the top space or the bottom space of the at least one intermediary section (Fig. 2b).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tang fails to expressly disclose a main tube mounting diameter of less than thirty-five millimeters.
Thomas teaches it is known in the art to provide a rifle scope with a main tube mounting diameter of less than thirty-five millimeters (Col. 4, lines 54- Col. 5 line 5: “Main tube 102 may vary in size but is generally a hollow cylinder. In a preferred embodiment, tube length will be 201 mm. In another embodiment, the tube length will be 205 mm. The tube length may vary, and in some embodiments, ranges in size between 84 and 246 mm. The typical outer diameter may range from 19 mm to 40 mm, although sights intended for long range or low light usage, or both, may feature larger main tube diameters. In one embodiment, main tube 102 will have a diameter of 30 mm)”
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified Tang such that the main tube mounting diameter was less than thirty-five millimeters, in view of Thomas, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 12, Tang further discloses wherein the at least one intermediary section comprises a first tapering section and a second differently tapering section located rearwardly of the first tapering section (clearly shown in Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 13, Tang further discloses wherein the second tapering section includes a more gradual taper than the first tapering section (clearly shown in Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 14, Tang further discloses wherein the at least one cavity includes an additional cavity opposite the cavity, wherein the other end of the path terminates in the additional cavity (Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 15, Tang fails to expressly disclose wherein a distance from a location of a longitudinal centerline of the main tube, exactly underneath a rearmost part of the at least one tapering section, to the pivot point is greater than 1.710 inches.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, Tang further discloses wherein the main tube includes characteristics comprising an internal clearance angle (D), an erector tilt half-angle (G), a main tube internal diameter (J), and a distance from the pivot point to center line of adjustment (B); the main tube (inherent structure; Fig. 2b);
Tang fails to expressly disclose a product of a value of angle D and a ratio of a numerical value of the distance B over a numerical value of the main tube mounting diameter A is not greater than a numerical value of five, or a product of the angle G and said ratio is not greater than a numerical value of six,
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, Tang further discloses wherein the characteristics further comprise a distance from the pivot to start of internal clearance angle (K) (Fig. 2b)
Tang fails to expressly disclose wherein a value of K is greater than, 43.434 millimeters.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18, Tang fails to expressly disclose wherein a ratio of the diameter A over the distance B is less than a numerical value of 0.3278.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, Tang fails to expressly disclose wherein a ratio of the diameter A over the distance B is greater than a numerical value of 0.3278.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 20, Tang fails to expressly disclose wherein a numerical value of the erector tilt half-angle (G) is less than 2.168 degrees.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 21, Tang fails to expressly disclose wherein an elevation adjustment travel from a centered position of a part of the adjustment turret to a fully raised position of the part of the adjustment turret is less than 0.159 inches.
Applicant should note that this limitation while not explicitly disclosed is nevertheless obvious, as no more than the discovery of an optimum range or value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum range or value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 22, Tang discloses a riflescope 100 or other optical device 100 (Abstract; Par. 0004), comprising:
a pivotable system erector 153 containing one or more lens or other optical elements (Fig. 2b; Par. 0032);
an adjustment turret 60 coupled to a first end of the system erector 153 (as shown in Fig. 2), the adjustment turret operable to pivot the system erector about a pivot point (not shown) associated with a second opposite end of the system erector (Fig. 2b; Par. 0034: “The second adjusting member 45 is also cylindrical and extends through the central hole 424 and the main body 20 to move the lens barrel 155 of the erecting lens system 153 in a first direction L which is perpendicular to the optical axis P”)
a main tube 20 to house the pivotable system erector and an interior of the main tube includes (Fig. 2b):
a cavity section at least partially defining at least one cavity (Fig. 2b), and an additional section (Fig. 2b below) located rearwardly of the cavity section; wherein at least part of the first end of the system erector is movable along a path terminating at one end in a cavity of the at least one cavity (Fig. 2b; see range of movement), wherein a total length of the path from the one end to another end of the path is greater than an interior diameter of the additional section of the main tube (as shown in Fig. 2b below);
PNG
media_image1.png
625
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tang fails to discloses wherein: a ratio of a main tube internal diameter (A) divided by a distance from a longitudinal centerline of the main tube to a horizontal surface of the turret (C) is not 1.498, or the main tube has a main tube mounting diameter of less than thirty-five millimeters.
Thomas teaches it is known in the art to provide a rifle scope with a main tube mounting diameter of less than thirty-five millimeters (Col. 4, lines 54- Col. 5 line 5: “Main tube 102 may vary in size but is generally a hollow cylinder. In a preferred embodiment, tube length will be 201 mm. In another embodiment, the tube length will be 205 mm. The tube length may vary, and in some embodiments, ranges in size between 84 and 246 mm. The typical outer diameter may range from 19 mm to 40 mm, although sights intended for long range or low light usage, or both, may feature larger main tube diameters. In one embodiment, main tube 102 will have a diameter of 30 mm)”
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified Tang such that the main tube mounting diameter was less than thirty-five millimeters, in view of Thomas, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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