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 5/5/2026 is acknowledged and appreciated. The arguments and amendments with respect to claims 1-16 and 18 have been considered and are persuasive. However, Examiner asserts that claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected as follows.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5/5/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 12,287,178 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by LaRue et al. (U.S. Patent 7,908,782).
In regards to claim 17, LaRue disclose pivot mount for an optical sighting device, the pivot mount comprising:
a base configured to releasably engage a mounting interface of a firearm. Figures 1 and 2 of LaRue illustrates a base that releasably engages a mounting portion of a weapon; and
a sight support member rotatably coupled to the base. LaRue teaches a pivoting ring section to hold a sighting device;
wherein:
the sight support member includes a pivot portion rotatably connected to the base, the pivot portion being configured to rotate about a horizontal axis. In figure 3 and 4, the sight support of LaRue rotates at a pivot point that is connected to the base; and
the sight support member is configured to move an attached optical sighting-
device between a first position, in which the attached optical sighting device is in a use
position that is aligned with a sighting axis of the firearm, and a second position, in
which the attached optical sighting device is vertically offset from the sighting axis of the firearm and is positioned over the mounting interface. LaRue teaches that the sight supporting ring structure pivots from a use position aligned with the sighting axis of a firearm and to another position where the sighting device would still be at least partially over the mounting interface and vertically offset from the sighting axis. Note that when the ring mount begins to pivot from the use position as shown in figure 3, it immediately reaches a position vertically above the sighting axis, but still over the mounting interface;
LaRue teaches both the first and the second positions being laterally offset to one side of the horizontal axis about which the pivot portion rotates. Note the positions of the sight support in figures 3 and 4.
In regards to claim 19, LaRue discloses that the sight support member further comprises a sight attachment device configured to secure the attached optical sighting device to the sight support member. As shown in the photograph of LaRue, the optical sighting sighting component is attached to the sight support member.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRue et al. (U.S. Patent 7,908,782) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Patent 8,769,859).
In regards to claim 20, LaRue fails to disclose a spring-loaded ball detent
configured to releasably retain the sight support member in the first position. However, Li teaches a sight support device that moves from a first to a second position and includes a spring-loaded ball detent to releasably retain the support in each of the positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a ball detent device in/on the LaRue invention as taught by Li, to allow for repeated movement from one position to the other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowable.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 1 and 9, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claims 1 and 9, that the second position is laterally offset to one side of the horizontal axis and vertically offset below the first position. With respect to claim 18, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 18 and the base claim, that both the first and second positions are located substantially on a vertical plane that is substantially co-aligned with the sighting axis of the firearm.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected, claim 18 is objected to and claims 1-16 are allowed.
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