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 . This action is in response to Application #19/172,359 filed on 07 April 2025.
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) 2-6, 9, 13, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 7,647,721 issued to Gaber et al (Gaber).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, Gaber discloses an accessory system for a firearm comprising:
a target sight structured to be secured to the firearm (28), the target sight including an accessory mount position sensor that is an ambient light sensor (39); and
an accessory mount structured to be secured to the firearm (30), the accessory mount operable to be placed in a first physical position and a second physical position relative to the target sight (see fig.4 to fig.5);
wherein the accessory mount position sensor of the target sight is structured to generate a signal when the accessory mount is moved between the first physical position and the second physical position relative to the target sight (inherent in the operation of powering on/off the red dot sight when the sensor is open or covered, see at least column 5 lines 37-50).
Regarding Claim 3, Gaber discloses the accessory mount is structured to secure a firearm accessory to the firearm (secured to the firearm via the sight that is secured to the firearm).
Regarding Claim 4, Gaber discloses the firearm accessory is a second target sight (38, see at least column 5 lines 8-14), or a magnifier (36 is disclosed as a lens filter, which inherently magnifies certain wavelengths of light).
Regarding Claim 5, Gaber discloses a processor in the target sight structured to receive input from the accessory mount position sensor and adjust an operating mode of the target sight based on the received input (the processor is inherent based on the operation disclosed in at least column 5 lines 37-50).
Regarding Claim 6, Gaber discloses the accessory mount position sensor (39) is structured to sense a component mounted to or integrated into the accessory mount (sensing 38, see figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 13, Gaber discloses the target sight includes two or more pre-stored operating modes (on with the red dot and off are considered two modes).
Regarding Claims 16, 19, Gaber discloses a method of operating a target sight (28) having an accessory mount position sensor (39), the method comprising:
sensing a change in physical proximity of a component of an accessory mount when the accessory mount is physically moved between a first physical position and a second physical position relative to the target sight (at least column 5 lines 37-50, figs. 4 to 5); and
changing an operating mode of the target sight based on the change in physical proximity (at least column 5 lines 37-50) from a light sensor (39).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-15, 17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7,647,721 issued to Gaber et al (Gaber) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0055536 to DeAngelis.
Regarding Claims 11-12, Gaber discloses the accessory system but fails to specifically disclose an accelerometer, in which the processor is configured to receive input from the accelerometer, and the processor is configured to adjust the operating mode of the target sight based on the input from the sensor and from the accelerometer.
DeAngelis teaches a reflex sight with a magnifier (185), the reflex sight comprising an accelerometer where the processor is configured to adjust the operating mode of the target sight based on input from the accelerometer (at least paragraphs 26, 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include an accelerometer as taught by DeAngelis in the sight of Gaber for the taught advantage of utilizing the accelerometer as well as other sensors to better calculate an aim point of the sight for a user.
Regarding Claims 13-15, 20-21, If Applicant disagrees with the rejection of claims 13/20 above, Gaber is silent as to the target sights user inputs and operating modes including brightness levels and reticle designs. Gaber is concerned with the functions specific to the cover and sensor.
DeAngelis teaches a reflex sight with a magnifier (185), the reflex sight comprising user inputs (see at least fig.2c and 2d) including brightness adjustments, reticle adjustments (at least paragraphs 26-28, 71), for the advantage of allowing greater flexibility in conditions of use for a user and to provide a better more accurate aiming solution to a user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to incorporate these teachings into the sight of Gaber for the advantages taught by DeAngelis.
Regarding Claim 17, Gaber discloses sensing a change in physical proximity comprises producing a mode change signal (at least column 5 lines 37-50).
Gaber fails to specifically disclose generating a signal in the target sight, comparing the sensor signal to a threshold signal, and producing a mode change signal based on the comparison of the sensor signal to the threshold signal. However, Gaber discloses the target sight having a sensor (39) that senses a change in physical proximity to element 38 to change a mode of operation of the sight (at least column 5 lines 37-50). Selecting the method of generating a signal, comparing to a threshold, and initiating a mode change based on the signal would have been an obvious solution to the disclosed structures of Gaber to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 10, 18 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for pertinent art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D COOPER whose telephone number is (571)270-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 - 4:30 MST.
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.
/JOHN COOPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641