Detailed Action
The following is a non-final rejection made in response to preliminarily amended claims received on August 21st 2025. 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 § 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(s) 12, and by extension all claims dependent therefrom1, is/are 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.
In the limitation directed at “a computing device” there is a requirement that the device “control operation of the plurality of light emitters to generate a bullet drop pattern of two or more indicating the one or more aiming positions.” It is unclear what the “two or more” is referencing (e.g. blank pixels, illuminated pixels, minutes of angle, etc.). Further clarification and amendment are required for compliance with this section.
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2009/0059219 (hereinafter referred to in this section as “ALOT ENTERPRISE COMPANY LTD”, “AEC”, or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, AEC teaches a target sighting system for a firearm, comprising a reflex sight, including:
an emitter array (via display panel 6) including a plurality of light emitters (via light emitting diodes, see para. [0011]), each of the plurality of light emitters capable of being independently operated to produce light (a microcontroller 12 “operates the activation or otherwise of each lighting element in each pixel of the matrix” shown in Figs. 3A-3F; see para. [0015]),
a surface (via object lens 8) structured to reflect light from the emitter array to a user of the firearm (see Fig. 1), and
a controller (via printed circuit board 2 and/or the microcontroller discussed in para. [0012]) configured to individually control operation of the plurality of light emitters in the emitter array; and
a computing device (via the selection panel) having a communication channel with the reflex sight (“selection panel 3 is also electrically connected with the MCU for controlling operation of the MCU”; para. [0012]), the computing device including a ballistics application program operating on the computing device and structured to send data or commands over the communication channel to the controller of the reflex sight (Applicant should note that “a ballistics application program” does not necessarily imply any specific functionality; the selection panel is programmed to affect the microcontroller unit, through an electrical connection shared between the two, based on an operator issuing commands through a series of buttons stationed thereon2).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 13 and 14, AEC teaches that the plurality of light emitters are light emitting diodes or organic light emitting diodes (see para. [0011]).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 15, AEC teaches that the controller is structured to drive a single of the plurality of light emitters in the emitter array (the controller is capable of “driving” each of the pixels shown in the exemplary aiming patterns of Figs. 3a-3f), wherein the controller is structured to receive an indication to move a relative position of a point of aim generated by the reflected light from the emitter array, and, in response, turns off the single of the plurality of emitters drives and turns on another single of the plurality of emitters in the emitter array (in addition to being able to project the patterns shown by Figs. 3A-3F by selectively driving individual pixels, the scale or size of the displayed reticle-pattern may also been adjusted; see para. [0013]).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 17-19, AEC teaches that the controller is structured to drive some but not all of the plurality of light emitters in the emitter array in which driving some but not all of the plurality of light emitters in the emitter array creates a point of aim pattern in which the point of aim pattern is a line formed by driving multiple of the plurality of light emitters, the multiple of the plurality of light emitters arranged in a line in the emitter array (several examples of this are shown in Figs. 3A-3F).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, AEC teaches that the surface structured to reflect light from the emitter array is a collimating surface (the light reflected from the reflective surface on object lens 8 is considered to maintain the parallel light emitting from the display panel; an operator looking through the sight device, as shown in Fig. 1, would clearly see the reticle patterns provided by the display panel and reflected off the lens surface 8).
Regarding claim 11, AEC teaches that the emitter array (6) is disposed on an adjustable carrier plate (the plate supporting the emitter array is shown atop the optic device; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, AEC teaches that the computing device is structured to receive an indication to move a relative position of a point of aim generated by the reflected light from the emitter array, and, in response, turns off the single of the plurality of emitters drives and turns on another single of the plurality of emitters in the emitter array (an operator can select various reticle forms each affecting the display of different light diodes, see Figs. 3A-3F).
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2009/0059219 (hereinafter referred to in this section as “ALOT ENTERPRISE COMPANY LTD”, “AEC”, or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, AEC teaches a plurality of emitters in an emitter array, but fails to teach that the spacing between the emitters is non-uniform.
While the reference fails to expressly teach this limitation, affecting the spacing between the emitters is not considered to yield any sort of new and/or unexpected result. Paragraph [0020] states that “In other embodiments the light emitters may be pre-arranged in other patterns, or in non-evenly spaced arrangements” but does not set forth any new or unexpected effect resultant therefrom. The Applicant appears to present the limitation as an alternative design based on an arbitrary preference that reflects a simple rearrangement of known parts (i.e. the light emitters).
MPEP 2144.04 cites “Rearrangement of Parts” as an exemplary common practice “which the court has held normally require[s] only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients”. In reviewing the Applicant’s disclosure to determine whether the claimed limitation yields any sort of new or unexpected result, the Examiner concludes that claiming the spacing between light emitters to be non-uniform is arbitrary design preference of the Applicant. Since there is no particular specialty afforded by this limitation, it is reasonable to conclude that the prior art would not perform differently with non-uniform spacing between the light emitters.
The Examiner, in congruence with proper examination procedure, therefore considers the differences between the claimed subject matter and the teachings of AEC to be within the scope of what is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
While the Examiner is available via telephone to help resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing the USPTO’s Inventor Assistance Center for general administrative and/or procedural matters at 800-786-9199. Issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. In accordance with current USPTO policy, this form must be submitted on the record prior to internet communications being authorized. A written statement by the Applicant authorizing internet communications on the record is not sufficient. Once authorization is submitted, the Applicant may contact the Examiner at samir.abdosh@uspto.gov. In the event that a telephone conversation would be the easiest means of resolving issues related to the subject matter of a pending patent application, the Examiner may be reached by telephone at 303-297-4454. Interviews will not be granted after issuance of a final rejection unless it is to discuss an amendment that either places the application in condition for allowance or simplifies issues for appeal.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Samir Abdosh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
1 Claims 13-21 are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 12.
2 “A user, by operating a number of buttons 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 3e on the selection panel 3, may activate or deactivate the multi-reticle function of the scope 22, choose the reticle-pattern to be displayed, adjust the intensity of the light generated by the display panel 6, effect rotation of the displayed reticle-pattern, or adjust the scale or size of the displayed reticle-pattern.” para. [0013]