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 .
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, 2, and 4-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahotra (4,551,920) in view of (Odle et al (2017/0350674).
Mahotra discloses an adjustable sight assembly for a firearm comprising most claimed elements including a base (the lower portion of 3 that is inserted in the firearm’s groove 1) for attachment to a firearm; a sight insert 5 coupled to the base, the sight insert having a notch 10 in a surface; a screw 8 with a screw head 9 and a threaded shaft; where the screw head engages with the notch of the sight insert to couple the sight insert to the base and allow elevation control of the sight insert via rotation of the screw and its threaded shaft; a square-notch sight in the sight insert; an interface (the upper portion of 3) coupled to the base and having sight tracks on opposing sides of the sight insert; and a windage adjustment screw 6. See especially Figure 1. Mahotra fails to disclose an interface configured to couple to the base, where the interface is not integrally formed with the base, and where the sight insert is coupled to the interface. Odle et al teach that it is known in a sight apparatus 100 to have a base 113 coupled to a firearm, an interface 101/103 coupled to the base, and a sight insert 105 coupled to the interface. Motivation to combine is the greater versatility found in having separate elements. For example, different bases could couple to different firearms, different interfaces could couple to different sight inserts, or just that a broken element could be replaced. To employ the teachings of Odle et al on the sight assembly of Mahotra and have an interface between the base and sight insert is considered to have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 10, Mahotra fails to show a second sight insert configured to couple to the base following decoupling of the sight insert from the base. However, this limitation merely describes having a replacement element (i.e. a second sight insert) that could be used in case the original element (i.e. the sight insert) is lost or damaged. It is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application’s filing to have a replacement element, since this would allow the sight to remain operational in case of a problem with the original sight insert.
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 J. WOODROW ELDRED whose telephone number is (571)272-6901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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.
/J. Woodrow Eldred/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
JWE
Prosecution Insights