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 .
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, 7-9, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baugher (US 2009/0019758).
Regarding claim 1, Baugher discloses a magnifying apparatus (Fig. 2; Abstract: “The present invention is an article providing a corrective and changeable lens for a rifle.”) comprising:
a lens including 17 a first region providing a first level of magnification, and a second region providing a second level of magnification that is different from the first level of magnification provided by the first region (Par. 0042: “A further advantage of the present invention provides for persons who wear lenses that are either progressive, bifocal, and/or trifocal. Such a user may use the article of the present invention while wearing prescription lenses of a single strength. In this manner, the lens that is placed within the holder of the present invention can be the progressive lens [or bifocal/trifocal]”; Applicant should note that progressive lenses are multifocal lenses that correct near, far, and middle vision, defining multiple levels of magnification; Bifocal lenses feature two distinct optical powers, separated by a visible horizontal line, designed to correct both near and distance vision in one lens); and
a housing 18 that at least partially encases the lens and that is configured for attachment to a user device.
PNG
media_image1.png
784
1382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Baugher further discloses wherein the first region and the second region cover different size areas of the lens (Applicant should note that bifocals are specifically designed with two distinct, different optical powers separated by a visible line: the top portion is for distance viewing, while a smaller bottom segment provides magnification for reading or close-up work).
Regarding claim 8, Baugher further discloses wherein the lens is configured to provide focus on an object at a range between 5 feet and 5000 feet from the lens. 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. Standard corrective lenses are generally designed to provide clear, focused vision from about 5 to 6 feet away all the way to infinity (5000+ feet).
Regarding claim 9, Baugher further discloses wherein the housing is sealed (by mounting bracket 11; Fig. 2, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Baugher further discloses a barrier at least partially encased by the housing that is configured to reduce glare on the lens (see Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
491
929
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Baugher discloses magnifying apparatus (Fig. 2; Abstract: “The present invention is an article providing a corrective and changeable lens for a rifle.”), comprising:
a lens 17 providing a first level of magnification that is greater than lx magnification (Par. 0042: “A further advantage of the present invention provides for persons who wear lenses that are either progressive, bifocal, and/or trifocal. Such a user may use the article of the present invention while wearing prescription lenses of a single strength. In this manner, the lens that is placed within the holder of the present invention can be the progressive lens [or bifocal/trifocal]”; Applicant should note that progressive lenses are multifocal lenses that correct near, far, and middle vision, defining multiple levels of magnification; Bifocal lenses feature two distinct optical powers, separated by a visible horizontal line, designed to correct both near and distance vision in one lens); and
a housing 18 that is configured for attachment to a user device, wherein the housing at least partially encases the lens and provides an open through view (fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
784
1382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Baugher discloses a user device, comprising: a magnifying apparatus (Fig. 1, 2; Abstract: “The present invention is an article providing a corrective and changeable lens for a rifle.”) comprised of:
a lens 17 including :a first region providing a first level of magnification, and a second region providing a second level of magnification that is different from the first level of magnification provided by the first region (Par. 0042: “A further advantage of the present invention provides for persons who wear lenses that are either progressive, bifocal, and/or trifocal. Such a user may use the article of the present invention while wearing prescription lenses of a single strength. In this manner, the lens that is placed within the holder of the present invention can be the progressive lens [or bifocal/trifocal]”; Applicant should note that progressive lenses are multifocal lenses that correct near, far, and middle vision, defining multiple levels of magnification; Bifocal lenses feature two distinct optical powers, separated by a visible horizontal line, designed to correct both near and distance vision in one lens) and
a housing 18 that at least partially encases the lens (Fig. 1, 2); and
a rigid structure (shown as rifle rail Fig. 2; rifle barrel Fig. 2; rifle scope Fig. 6) coupled to the housing of the lens for allowing a user of the user device to view through the lens (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 17, Baugher further discloses wherein the rigid structure is a rifle scope (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Baugher further discloses wherein the housing is detachably coupled to the rigid structure (Fig. 1, 2, 6).
Regarding claim 19, Baugher further discloses wherein the housing is rotatably coupled to the rigid structure (Par. 0034: “ FIG. 6 is the article rotatably connected to a conventional rifle scope”; see also Fig. 7, Par. 0035, 0040).
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feinberg (US 2014/0268323).
Regarding claim 1 and 13, Feinberg discloses (Fig. 1-4) a magnifying apparatus 100 comprising:
a lens (110, 112, 116, 126, 312) including: - a first region 102 providing a first level of magnification; and a second region 104 providing a second level of magnification that is different from the first level of magnification provided by the first region 102; and
a housing 106 that at least partially encases the lens (110, 112, 116, 126, 312) and that is configured for attachment to a rigid structure (Par. 0029, 0033) of a user device. (Applicant should note that the lens is understood as a compound lens (as shown in applicants Fig. 1b) with multiple lens with a common axis, which behaves as a single complex lens).
Regarding claim 2, Feinberg further discloses wherein the lens is circular (as shown in Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Feinberg further discloses wherein the lens is comprised of an ocular lens portion (110, 126) and an objective lens portion (112, 312; see fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 5, Feinberg further discloses wherein the ocular lens portion aligns with the objective lens portion to enable light to pass therethrough.
Regarding claim 6, Feinberg further discloses wherein the first region 102 and the second region 104 cover a same size area (Fig. 1, 4) of the lens (110, 112, 116, 126, 312).
Regarding claim 8, Feinberg further discloses further discloses wherein the lens is configured to provide focus on an object at a range between 5 feet and 5000 feet from the lens. 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 9, Feinberg further discloses wherein the housing is sealed (Par. 0032).
Regarding claim 12, Feinberg discloses (Fig. 1-4) a magnifying apparatus 100 comprising: a lens (110, 112, 116, 126, 312) providing a first level of magnification that is greater than 1x magnification (Par. 0041); and
a housing 106 that is configured for attachment to a rigid structure (Par. 0029, 0033) of a user device, wherein the housing 102 at least partially encases the lens (110, 112, 116, 126, 312) and provides an open through-view.
Regarding claim 15, Feinberg further discloses wherein the rigid structure is a handgun rest that supports at least a portion of a grip of a handgun (Par. 0029; “a housing 106 having a mounting surface 150 that facilitates mounting the scope to a projectile weapon, to a tripod, or to any other suitable support surface (not shown)”). Applicant should note that a tripod is capable of supporting a portion of a grip of a handgun and can be reasonably and broadly construed as a handgun rest.
Regarding claim 16, Feinberg further discloses wherein the rigid structure is a handgun (Par. 0022: “Embodiments of combination optical aiming device 100, such as those shown in FIGS. 1-4, are suitable for use with projectile weapons (e.g., a bow, a rifle, a sidearm, etc.)”).
Regarding claim 18, Feinberg further discloses wherein the housing 106 is detachably coupled to the rigid structure (Par. 0029; “a housing 106 having a mounting surface 150 that facilitates mounting the scope to a projectile weapon, to a tripod, or to any other suitable support surface (not shown)”).
Regarding claim 20, Feinberg further discloses a red dot sight 128 coupled to the magnifying apparatus 100 (Fig. 1-4).
Claims 1-2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grach (US 6,172,805).
Regarding claim 1, Grech discloses a magnifying apparatus 15/17, comprising: a lens 29, 31, 33, 35 including:
a first region providing a first level of magnification (periphery of 29, 31, 33), and a second region 35 (center of 29, 31, 33) providing a second level of magnification that is different from the first level of magnification provided by the first region; and a housing 27 that at least partially encases the lens and that is configured for attachment to a user device/rigid structure 13 of a user device 11.
Regarding claim 2, Grech further discloses wherein the lens is circular (Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Grech further discloses wherein the first region and the second region cover different size areas of the lens.
Regarding claim 8, Grech further discloses wherein the lens is configured to provide focus on an object at a range between 5 feet and 5000 feet from the lens. 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 9, Grech further discloses wherein the housing is sealed (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Grech further discloses wherein the rigid structure is a sporting glasses frame 13 (Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baugher (US 2009/0019758) in view of Capson (US 9,557,141).
Regarding claims 2, Baugher fails to disclose wherein the lens is circular or rectangular.
Capson teaches that it is known in the art of sighting optical components wherein the lens is circular 500 or rectangular (“the optical component be formed from, or separated as a part of, a circular lens. For instance, the optical component may have a triangular, square, diamond-like, trapezoidal, cross-shaped, or other shape as desired”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Baugher such that the lens was circular or rectangular, in view of Capson since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 10, Baugher fails to discloses wherein the housing is open.
Capson teaches that it is known in the art of gun sights that open sights are an obvious variant to closed sight. (Fig. 1a; “A variety of different types of gun sights have been widely used. Such sights have included, for instance, open sights, aperture sights, scopes, red dot sights, and laser sights”; “some embodiments of the present disclosure relate to a backlit open sighting device and/or mechanisms and methods for mounting a sighting device to a support structure”).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Baugher such that the sight was an open sight, in view of Capson, because the substitution of one known element (closed sight) for another (open sight) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Regarding claim 16, Baugher fails to disclose wherein the rigid structure is a handgun.
Capson teaches it is known in the art of sighting device to attach a sight to a handgun (Fig. 7a).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Baugher such that the sight was attached to a handgun, in view of Capson, because the substitution of one known element (rifle) for another (handgun) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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