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
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 February 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4 should state “two or more rear sight dots”. 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.
Claim 1 is 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. The use of the phraseology “forward of” or “at a rear of” is unclear because the applicant has failed to provide a point of reference for directional assertions to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether such limitations have been met by the references.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "and the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 is 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. The use of the phraseology “above” or “in front of” is unclear because the applicant has failed to provide a point of reference for directional assertions to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether such limitations have been met by the references.
Claim 7 is 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. The use of the phraseology “below” is unclear because the applicant has failed to provide a point of reference for directional assertions to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether such limitations have been met by the references.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 is 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. The use of the phraseology “at a front of” is unclear because the applicant has failed to provide a point of reference for directional assertions to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether such limitations have been met by the references.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: illuminators for the one or more front sight dots and the two or more rear sight dots. Claims 1 and 13 do not require an illumination assembly and the first claim that mentions such details is claim 11.
Note: The art rejections provided below are provided to address the claim limitations as best interpreted by the examiner in light of the aforementioned rejections.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0205194 by Teetzel et al (Teetzel).
Regarding claim 1, Teetzel discloses a gunsight and sighting system for mounting onto a firearm (See at least Figures 4-11 and 22, clearly illustrated), comprising: a mount portion (114/116, Paragraph 0058) coupled with a hood portion (132); a projection window (124) with a collimated image overlay (See at least Paragraph 0038-0039) secured to the mount portion by the hood portion (See at least Paragraph 0039); one or more front sight dots disposed forward of the projection window (536, See at least Paragraph 0053); and two or more rear sight dots disposed at a rear of the mount portion (568, See at least Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 2, Teetzel further discloses wherein the mount portion is configured to couple with any of handguns, rifles, shotguns, grenade launchers, BB guns, Airsoft guns, pellet guns, and directed laser weapons, and the like (See at least Paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 3, Teetzel further discloses wherein the mount portion is configured to be coupled toward a rear of the firearm, such as directly above a grip of the firearm to facilitate visibility by a shooter (See at least Paragraph 0058, understood).
Regarding claim 5, Teetzel further discloses wherein the mount portion comprises a battery compartment configured to house a suitably sized battery for powering internal circuitry and components comprising the gunsight and sighting system (See at least Paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 6, Teetzel further discloses wherein at least one of the one or more front sight dots is disposed above the battery compartment and in front of the projection window (See at least Figures 4-11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 7, Teetzel further discloses wherein the two or more rear sight dots are disposed below the projection window such that a shooter can accurately aim the firearm by aligning the one or more front sight dots with a target while centering the one or more front sight dots between the two or more rear sight dots (See at least Figures 4-11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 8, Teetzel further discloses wherein the proximity of the one or more front sight dots and the two or more rear sight dots to the projection window is configured to obviates the shooter having to shift focus among the one or more front sight dots and the two or more rear sight dots, and the target (See at least Figures 4-11, clearly illustrated).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0298703 by Gale et al (Gale).
Regarding claim 4, Teetzel further discloses wherein the mount portion is configured to be coupled with a Picatinny rail (See at least Paragraph 0058).
Teetzel does not disclose the specific details of the firearm, but teaches connecting the device to a firearm with a picatinny rail.
Gale, a related prior art reference, disclose a Picatinny rail comprising a slide of a handgun (See at least Figures 38-39, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Teetzel with the noted teachings of Gale. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to mount the device on an appropriate firearm as taught by Teetzel.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel in view of U.S. Patent 11,268,787 issued to Bernkrant et al (Bernkrant).
Regarding claim 9, Teetzel does not disclose backlit front or rear sight dots.
Bernkrant, a related prior art reference, discloses wherein any one or more of the one or more front sight dots and two or more rear sight dots are configured to be backlit so as to enhance visibility in various lighting conditions (See at least Figures 3-8, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Teetzel with the noted teachings of Bernkrant. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to brightly illuminate the sight dots to command the attention of the user as taught by Bernkrant.
Regarding claim 10, Bernkrant further discloses wherein any one or more of the one or more front sight dots and two or more rear sight dots are configured to be illuminated by way of any one or more of various desirable colors (See at least Col. 6 Line 30-Col. 7 Line 2).
Regarding claim 11, Bernkrant further discloses wherein any one or more of the one or more front sight dots and two or more rear sight dots are configured to be illuminated by way of a suitable electronically controlled lighting source (See at least Col. 8 Line 40-Col. 11 Line 41), such as an LED or chemical light generator (See at least Col. 8 Line 40-Col. 11 Line 41).
Teetzel further discloses an electrical or mechanical adjustment system (See at least Paragraph 0077).
Regarding claim 12, Teetzel further discloses wherein the electrical or mechanical adjustment system includes a Decrease Brightness button and an Increase Brightness button for altering the brightness of the illuminated one or more front sight dots and the two or more ear sight dots (See at least Paragraph 0077).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2018/0372448 by Noskowicz (Noskowicz).
Regarding claim 13, Teetzel does not disclose light sensors.
Noskowicz, a related prior art reference, discloses wherein two or more light sensors are disposed at a front of the mount portion (See at least Figures 6A-6B, elements 303, 304, and 305, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Teetzel with the noted teachings of Noskowicz. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to control the illumination assembly to change light intensity based on ambient and target lighting conditions as taught by Noskowicz.
Regarding claim 15, Noskowicz further discloses wherein the two or more light sensors are disposed in asymmetric locations of the mounting portion and configured to communicate with one another so as to overcome interference due to light arriving at angles other than in front of the gunsight and sighting system (See at least Figure 6A or 6B, clearly illustrated, and Paragraph 0054).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel in view of Noskowicz and further in view of Bernkrant.
Regarding claim 14, Noskowicz further discloses wherein the two or more light sensors are configured to detect ambient light and/or the amount of light in a target area and signal an electronically controlled lighting source to accordingly increase or decrease the illumination (See at least Figure 6A or 6B, clearly illustrated, and Paragraph 0054).
Teetzel as modified by Noskowicz does not disclose illuminated dots for the front or rear sights.
Bernkrant, a related prior art reference, discloses that the one or more front sight dots and the two or more rear sight dots are illuminated (See at least Figures 3-8, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Teetzel as modified by Noskowicz above with the noted teachings of Bernkrant. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to brightly illuminate the sight dots to command the attention of the user as taught by Bernkrant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 Form for a listing of applicable prior art references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641