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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 6, 2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: apparent inadvertent typographical errors. The examiner suggests (and will use for purposes of examination) the following:
in claim 2 line 1 “… a chassis to [[which]] which …”
in claim 2 line 2 “… and the hologram [[are]] are …”
in claim 14 lines 1-2 “includes [[a]] locating features”
in claim 19 line 3 “… and the hologram are directly coupled
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claims 11-12 and 14 be found allowable, claims 15-16 and 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 2, 6-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2 “further comprising a chassis …” has antecedent issues. It is unclear if this is referring to the chassis introduced in claim 1 (assumed) or if it is a new/different element. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “ wherein the chassis …”
Regarding claims 2 and 6 the abbreviation “MOA” fails to distinctly claim the limitation. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. See MPEP 2173. In this case the abbreviation does not clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. The specification does not shed any light on this issue, however the examiner best guess which will be used for purposes of examination is “[[MOA]] minutes of angle”.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 6 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claims 2 and 8 “wherein the diffraction grating has an efficiency of 60% or more and the hologram has another efficiency of 25% or less” raises clarity issues. In the invention the diffraction grating is a reflection grating and hologram is a transmissive grating. It is unclear if the efficiency is a reflection efficiency, or a transmission efficiency, or an absolute diffraction efficiency, or a relative diffraction efficiency. The specification paragraph [0051] states: “Each of the diffraction grating 170 and the hologram 180 have relatively high efficiency.” Specifically paragraph [0051] discloses the reflective grating (170) as having a “high efficiency, for example, by diffracting or transmitting 60%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 85%, 90% or more of the light received”; and paragraph [0052] discloses the transmissive grating (180) as having an “efficiency of approximately 25%, 20%, 15%, 10%, or lower”. The examiner’s best guess (since both gratings “have relatively high efficiency”) is that applicant means a reflection efficiency. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “wherein the diffraction grating has [[an]] a reflection efficiency of 60% or more and the hologram has another reflection efficiency of 25% or less”.
Regarding claim 14 “further comprising a chassis that includes a locating features by which …” has antecedent and clarity issues. It is unclear if this is referring to the chassis introduced in claim 1 (assumed) or if it is anew/different element. For purposes of examination the examiner will use “ wherein the chassis that further includes [[a]] locating features by which …”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai et al. US Patent 6,490,060, of record, in view of Mills US Patent Application Publication 2019/0383578, with evidence of certain facts provided by Barden et al. “Volume-phase holographic gratings and their potential for astronomical applications” Proceedings SPIE vol. 3355, "Optical Astronomical Instrumentation" pp. 866-876, 1998.
Regarding claim 1 Tai disclose a weapon sight (title e.g. figures 1-2 sight 10) comprising: a chassis (e.g. housing 24 and/or base 26) that is coupleable1 to a firearm (capable of e.g. see figure 1 coupled to handgun 12 & column 2 lines 25-27 & figures 15-16); and an optical system coupled to the chassis (see figure 2), the optical system including: a light source that is a light emitting diode (e.g. laser diode 14) that emits light (axiomatic, e.g. see figures 2-3); a collimator (e.g. collimator 18) that receives the light from the light source and reflects the light in parallel rays to form a collimated light beam (inter alia column 4 lines 40-41 “beam becomes collimated after it is reflected off the collimator 18” e.g. see figures 2-3); a diffraction grating (e.g. grating 20) that receives the collimated light beam from the collimator (e.g. see figures 2-3) and diffracts the light of the collimated light beam (inter alia column 4 line 43 “20 diffracts the laser light”); and a hologram (e.g. hologram 22) that receives the light from the diffraction grating (e.g. see figures 2-3) to output a holographic image of a reticle visible by a user of the weapon sight (inter alia column 4 lines 44-45 “the projected image of a reticle pattern”).
Tai does not disclose a folding mirror that receives the collimated light beam from the collimator and reflects the collimated light beam to the diffraction grating.
Mills discloses a similar weapon sight (title e.g. figure 1 holographic gunsight 100) capable of being attached to a firearm (inter alia paragraph [0027] “the holographic weapon sight according to the present invention may have a clamp (not shown) for attaching the housing to a weapon”) including: a light source that is a light emitting diode (e.g. light source 104 paragraph [0028] “LED or laser”), a collimator (e.g. combination of optical elements 108, 110 & 112) that receives the light from the light source and reflects the light in parallel rays to form a collimated light beam (e.g. collimated light beam 130); a diffraction grating that receives collimated light (e.g. DOE 118); and an image of a reticle visible by a user (e.g. user 90) of the weapon sight (e.g. image of the reticle 136); and further teaches a folding mirror (e.g. mirror 114) that receives the collimated light beam from the collimator (e.g. 130) and reflects the collimated light beam to the diffraction grating (e.g. reflected light beam 132) for the purpose of having a low profile (inter alia paragraph [0027]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the weapon sight as disclosed by Tai to have a folding mirror that receives the collimated light beam from the collimator and reflects the collimated light beam to the diffraction grating as taught by Mills for the purpose of having a low profile.
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 1, as set forth above. Tia further discloses wherein dispersions of the diffraction grating and the hologram compensate each other (inter alia column 5 lines 6-8 “the dispersion of the resulting grating is identical to but at the opposite direction of the reticle image hologram”), such that the holographic image of the reticle is three [[MOA]] minutes of angle or less (inherent given structure and function, particularly the dispersion of the gratings being identical in the opposite direction and column 5 line 1 “the output diffraction angle remains constant” see figure 3 showing parallel outputs).
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 6, as set forth above. Tia further discloses Tia further discloses wherein the diffraction grating (e.g. 20) is a phase (inter alia column 4 line 27 “holographic grating 20”) reflection grating (inter alia column 4 lines 42-43 “reflective diffraction grating 20” see figures 2-3), and the hologram (e.g. 22) is a phase transmission hologram (inter alia column 4 line 27 “hologram 22” see figures 2-3).
Tia is silent if the diffractive/holographic phase gratings are volume type or surface type and their efficiencies. Specifically, Tia does not disclose volume type diffractive/holographic phase gratings. However, there are a limited number of options for Tia’s diffractive/holographic phase gratings, i.e. are volume type or surface type. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). One would be motivated to choose a volume type instead of a surface type to improved performance and since it is between two substrates it is robust, environmentally stable device, can be cleaned and is capable of long lifetimes without degradation (as evidenced by Barden, see introduction). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the weapon sight as disclosed by the combination of Tai as modified by Mills to have volume type gratings since there are a limited number of options and one would be motivated to choose a volume type instead of a surface type to improved performance and since it is between two substrates it is robust, environmentally stable device, can be cleaned and is capable of long lifetimes without degradation, and since where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 6, as set forth above. Tia further discloses wherein the diffraction grating has a reflection efficiency of 60% or more and the hologram has another reflection efficiency of 25% or less (inherent given structure and function).
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 1, as set forth above. Tia further discloses wherein the collimator (e.g. 18) is an off-axis parabolic mirror (inter alia column 6 lines 66-67 “off-axis parabolic reflector should be used to collimate the laser beam”).
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 9, as set forth above. Tia further discloses wherein the LED (e.g. 14) includes an emission area from which the light is emitted (required by definition) and which is located at a focal point of the collimator (necessarily required, i.e. inherent, to for collimator to collimate light from a diverging source).
Regarding claims 11-13 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 1, as set forth above. Tai further discloses it is further comprising another folding mirror (e.g. folding mirror 16), as required by claim 13.
The combination of Tai as modified by Mills would necessarily further have 4 four central segments of an optical path from the light source (claims 11-12) or another fold mirror (claim 13) to the collimator to the folding mirror to the diffraction grating and to the hologram.
Tai and Mills do not disclose or teach wherein the four central segments are all within 45 degrees or less from vertical, as required by claims 11 and 13; or wherein three of the four central segments are within 30 degrees or less from vertical.
Tai teaches having a similar arrangement (inter alia abstract “wherein the optical elements are arranged within the compartment to direct and fold the laser beam in a substantially generally vertical path” figures 2-3) for the purpose of significantly shortening the sight thereby decreasing the weight of the unit (inter alia Tai column 2 lines 13-18). Further, 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 re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, the combination of Tai as modified by Mills disclose a weapon sight that would necessarily further have 4 four central segments with an optical path that is folded so the light propagation is primarily in the vertical direction (inter alia column 4 lines 36-37), fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to achieve smaller angles to reduce the size and weight of the sight (inter alia Tai column 2 lines 13-18). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the weapon sight as disclosed by the combination of Tai as modified by Mills to have the four central segments are all within 45° or less, and/or 30° or less from vertical as suggested by Tai for the purpose of significantly shortening the sight thereby decreasing the weight of the unit.
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 1, as set forth above. Tia further discloses wherein the chassis (e.g. 24 and/or 26) that further includes locating features by which the light source, the collimator, the folding mirror, the diffraction grating, and the hologram are located relative to each other (inherent since elements do not float in position, see figures 2 & 5-13c).
Regarding claims 15-17, the limitations of claims 15-17 are the same as the limitations of claims 11-13 and claims 15-17 are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 included in the limitations of claim 14 and claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 18 including the chassis coupled to the optical system including: the light source, the collimator, the folding mirror, the diffraction grating, and the hologram, as set forth above. Tai further discloses the majority of the optical system elements (e.g. 14, 18, 20 & 22) are directly coupled (inherent since elements do not float in position, see figures 2 & 5-13c) to the chassis (e.g. 24 and/or 26).
Tai does not disclose the chassis is a singular component. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the two parts of a base and housing as a single element, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893); and it was further held in In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." See MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the weapon sight as disclosed by the combination of Tai as modified by Mills to have the chassis be a singular component, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art and use of a one piece construction would be a matter of an obvious engineering choice.
Regarding claim 20 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 19, as set forth above. Tia further discloses wherein the chassis (e.g. 24 and/or 26) defines a first recess in a first side thereof into which the hologram (e.g. see annotated figure A below) is received and a second recess in a second side thereof into which the hologram is received, the second side being opposite the first side (e.g. see annotated figure A below).
[AltContent: textbox (recess in opposite side necessary for viewing target through the sight )][AltContent: textbox (hologram in a recess)]
PNG
media_image1.png
296
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated version of Tai figure 10.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai et al. US Patent 6,490,060, of record, in view of Mills US Patent Application Publication 2019/0383578 and in further view of ThorLabs “Product Specification Sheet, Laser Diode L650P007” 2010, with evidence of certain facts provided by Kishimoto et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0140496.
Regarding claims 3-5 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 1, as set forth above. Tia further discloses wherein the LED (e.g. 14) has a peak wavelength of between 640 nm and 660 nm (inter alia column 5 line 6 “nominal wavelength of 650 nm”), as required by claim 5.
Tia is silent on details of the emission area of the diode light source and its spectral width. Specifically, Tia and Mills do not disclose or teach wherein the LED has an emission area of approximately 500 square microns or less from which the light is emitted by the LED, as required by claim 3; or wherein the emission area is approximately 100 square microns or less, as required by claim 4; or the LED having a full width half maximum (FWHM) of approximately 40 nm or less, as required by claim 5.
ThorLabs sells appropriate laser diode, including operating at 650 nm; where it is a single transverse mode diode, which typically have an emission area 10 mm2 (as evidenced by Kishimoto paragraph [0122]) and has a FWHM ≤~40 nm (see graph on page 1). One would be motivated to choose this diode since it is a commercially available diode of within an appropriate wavelength, i.e. not destroy the user’s low light vision, and to reduce astigmatism. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the weapon sight as disclosed by the combination of Tai as modified by Mills to use a diode with emission area ~100 mm2 or less and having a FWHM ~40 nm or less, such as sold by Thorlabs, for the purpose of using a commercially available diode of within an appropriate wavelength that would not destroy the user’s low light vision, and to reduce astigmatism of the source.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Tai as modified by Mills discloses the weapon sight according to claim 1, as set forth above. Tai further discloses wherein the chassis to which the light source, the collimator, the folding mirror, the diffraction grating, and the hologram are coupled and located relative to each other (for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above); wherein the LED has an emission area of approximately 100 square microns or less from which the light is emitted by the LED (for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above); wherein the LED has a peak wavelength of between 640 nm and 660 nm, and a full width half maximum (FWHM) of approximately 40 nm or less (for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5 above); wherein dispersions of the diffraction grating and the hologram compensate each other, such that the holographic image of the reticle is three minutes of angle or less (for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above); wherein the diffraction grating has a reflection efficiency of 60% or more and the hologram has another reflection efficiency of 25% or less (for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above); wherein the collimator is an off-axis parabolic mirror and the emission area is located at a focal point of the collimator (for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9 above); and wherein the light travels along four central segments of an optical path in sequence from the light source to the collimator to the folding mirror to the diffraction grating and to the hologram, wherein the four central segments are all within 45 degrees or less from vertical (for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu US Patent Application Publication 2011/0228366; in regards to a similar weapons sight, e.g. see figure 2.
Dehmlow et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0003996; in regards to a similar weapons sight, e.g. see figure 2.
Volkov et al. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0244679; in regards to a similar weapons sight, e.g. see figures 2 & 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 4, 2026
1 The examiner notes that the suffix “-able” means “capable of” according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, thus coupleable means “capable of being coupled.” It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense; In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Also see Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991), MPEP 2114. IV and MPEP 2173.05(g).
Prosecution Insights