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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 4/1/2026 is acknowledged and appreciated. The claim amendments have been considered as follows.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. (U.S. Patent 8,001,714) in view of AR15.com Official Mark 12 Discussion Thread.
In regards to claim 15, Davidson et al (henceforth referred to as Davidson) disclose a system of producing a DOPE chart for an optical device comprising;
a configuration interface displayed on a user computer. Davidson teaches using a computer with a web based program to create and print ballistic charts/cards;
a DOPE chart configuration database connected to the user computer including a plurality of options from which a user may select to create the DOPE chart. Davidson teaches selection of various types of charts/cards;
Davidson teaches printing the chart/card including a printer connected to the dope chart configuration database for printing the DOPE chart onto a medium, but does not teach that the medium is specifically shaped and sized to be received and releasably retained within a cap of an optic cover. However, AR15.com Official Mark 12 Discussion Thread (henceforth referred to as AR15.com) shows configuring a produced range card into a shape and size that conforms to an optic cover cap and inserting the card into the cap, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the range card of Bay in a manner that allows it to conform to and be inserted into an optic cover cap as taught by AR15.com, for easy accessibility.
In regards to claim 16, Davidson discloses that the DOPE chart configuration database is stored on a server connected to the user computer via the internet. The web-based system inherently includes a server.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson et al. (U.S. Patent 8,001,714) and AR15.com Official Mark 12 Discussion Thread as per claim 15, and in view of Sanders et al. (U.S. Patent 4,734,9879).
In regards to claim 17, Davidson fails to disclose that the printer is an engraver. However, Sanders et al (henceforth referred to as Sanders) teaches producing a range card by engraving or printing and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to utilize any of various techniques to produce the charts/cards of Davidson including engraving as taught by Sanders, for a more durable display.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 1, that the selection of the DOPE chart style causes the configuration interface to display a style-specific DOPE chart data entry table corresponding to the selected style.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are allowed and claims 15-17 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights