DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments that: “As amended, the claims specify headless cylindrical pins. An example is shown in FIG. 1 as pins (3). Dawson does not disclose headless cylindrical pins as claimed” the examiner respectfully disagrees. While Dawson does disclosed “dual sized” pins applicant should note that this is optional. Dawson clearly states that “the use of dual-sized cylindrical pins is preferred (optional), but other forms of pins may also be used, for example pins having a cuboid or other polygonal prismatic shape, with or without dual-sized ends, or keys. As shown, pin borings 438 are blind, i.e., do not extend through base body 420, but in other embodiments the pin borings may be through holes, for example as depicted in FIG. 44B” (Par. 0118). Other forms of pins without dual sized ends is understood as headless.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawson JR. (US 2021/0270572) [hereinafter Dawson]
Regarding claim 1, Dawson discloses discloses a modular housing for firearm sights (Fig. 40-44B), comprising a recess 140 and screws 899, the modular housing comprising holes 146, 148, projections (Par. 0088: “instead of a tenon or other recesses, sight receiver floor 120 may be configured with a tenon or other projection, configured, arranged, and oriented to form interfitting parts with recesses disposed on a base”) and pins 890 (Fig. 40-44B), wherein said holes and projections allow the coupling of said sight in said recess, so that said pins are inserted into holes of said recess and of said sight, allowing the adjustment and maintenance of alignment of said sight in relation to the bolt of the firearm (Fig. 40-44B).
Dawson further discloses headless cylindrical pins (Par. 0018: “The use of dual-sized cylindrical pins is preferred, but other forms of pins may also be used, for example pins having a cuboid or other polygonal prismatic shape, with or without dual-sized ends, or keys. As shown, pin borings 438 are blind, i.e., do not extend through base body 420, but in other embodiments the pin borings may be through holes, for example as depicted in FIG. 44B”)
Regarding claim 2, Dawson further discloses wherein said pins have a length greater than the depth of their holes of the recess, so as to allow a portion of said pins to project out of said holes (Fig. 40-44B).
Regarding claim 3, Dawson further discloses wherein said housing is adaptable both for sights that have bases having the respective holes, where said pins can be coupled, and for sights that have bases without the respective holes, wherein said pins can be removed. Applicant should note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Dawson Fig. 1-44B clearly show the adaptability of the modular housing for firearm sights.
Regarding claim 4, Dawson further discloses wherein said screws and said pins can have a constant or variable diameter or width throughout their length (as shown in Fig. 40-44B).
Regarding claim 5, Dawson further discloses wherein, preferably, said pins are inserted into holes located in the rearmost portion of the recess, or behind said recess, while said screws are inserted into holes located in front of said holes for the pins (Fig. 40-44B).
Regarding claim 6, Dawson further discloses wherein said pins allow the adjustment and maintenance of alignment of said sight both in relation to the horizontal plane and in relation to the vertical plane, even if said sight is momentarily removed from the firearm. Applicant should note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Dawson further discloses wherein said recess is provided with at least two holes, preferably four or more holes, depending on each type of sight to be attached (Fig. 40-44B).
Regarding claim 9, Dawson further discloses wherein said housing allows the adaptation of an adapter plate for coupling said sight (Fig. 40-44B).
Regarding claim 10, Dawson further discloses wherein the recess is provided with four or more holes 146, 148 depending on each type of sight to be attached (Fig. 42B; see also Par. 90: “in other embodiments it may be advantageous to have more or fewer pin holes, which may be configured, arranged, and/or oriented in other ways”).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawson in view of Wolf (US 2015/0241175).
Regarding claim 8, Dawson further discloses wherein said projections are arranged a portion of said recess and are fitted into holes of the sight, serving as support points for said attachment of the sight (Par. 0088).
Dawson does not expressly disclose wherein said projections are arranged in the frontmost portion of said recess and are fitted into said front holes of the sight, serving as support points for said attachment of the sight.
Wolf teaches it is known in the art of modular housings for firearm sights to provide projections 141 arranged in the frontmost portion of said recess and are fitted into said front holes of the sight, serving as support points for said attachment of the sight (Par. 0028; Fig. 1A-3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Dawson such that the projections were arranged in the frontmost portion of said recess and are fitted into said front holes of the sight, serving as support points for said attachment of the sight, in view of wolf, since it has been held that rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 184. More specifically, the arrangement of the projections is an obvious matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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