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 #19/175,505 and RCE filed on 02 September 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02 September 2026 has been entered.
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, 4-17, 19-25, 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2021/0293510 to Rosen et al (Rosen).
Regarding Claim 2, Rosen discloses a pistol sight (fig.2) comprising:
a base and mount structure (fig.2),
a sighting portion including a post (see fig.3),
a laterally protruding forward ridge extending upward on and along the post at a front edge of the post (see marked fig.1 below),
a laterally protruding rear ridge including a forward facing shoulder arranged to be engaged by a finger of a user to grip the pistol sight to rack the slide of the pistol (see marked fig.1 below),
the rear ridge including an upper segment and a lower segment, a lower end of the upper segment being connected to an upper end of the lower segment, the upper segment of the rear ridge extending upward from the upper end of the lower segment on and along the post at a rear edge of the post, the rear edge opposite the front edge, (see marked fig.1 below),
the lower segment of the rear ridge extending downward from the lower end of the upper segment on and along the base (see marked fig.1 below), and
a laterally protruding upper ridge extending on and along the post (see marked fig.1 below).
Regarding Claim 4, see fig.4 for first and second posts 208 and cross member 209.
Regarding Claims 9-15, see marked fig.1 below.
Regarding Claims 16-17, see fig.5, 220 as bound area, see middle triangle as having three sides, each side is considered a rib.
Regarding Claim 19, see marked fig.1 below.
Regarding Claim 20, at least a portion of the forward facing shoulder of the rear ridge is formed by the upper segment of the rear ridge (see marked fig.1 below).
Regarding Claims 21-22, see marked fig.1 below.
Regarding Claim 23, see figs. 3 and 5 for matching ridges for each side of the sight, and see rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claims 24-25, see marked fig.1 below; see fig.5, 220 as bound area, see middle triangle as having three sides, each side is considered a rib.
Regarding Claims 27-32, see marked fig.1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marked Figure 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.
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) 5-8, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2021/0293510 to Rosen et al (Rosen) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0170718 to Reese et al (Reese).
Regarding Claims 5, 26, Rosen discloses claim 2 but fails to specifically disclose the base having an upstanding ridge having a forward facing shoulder arranged to be engaged by a finger of a user to grip the pistol sight to rack the slide of the pistol.
However, Reese teaches a similar sight with multiple forward facing shoulders to aid in a user gripping (174, 156), with upstanding ridge 156 located on the base. It would have been an obvious engineering design choice to add the base ridge of Reese to the base of Rosen for the purpose of adding an additional textured surface as well as providing a rearward base surface extending laterally outward as far as the ridges on the post for overall continuity of outer surface between the base and post.
Regarding Claims 6-8, the combination of Rosen and Reese disclose the limitations of claims 6-8, see Rosen fig.3.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2021/0293510 to Rosen et al (Rosen) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0207928 to Brewer et al (Brewer).
Regarding Claim 18, Rosen is silent as to the materials used and fails to disclose the gripping area comprises elastomeric material.
However, Brewer teaches a laterally extending structure on the side post of a similar sight made of a rubber material (at least paragraph 34). Further, Rosen discloses the area 220 is for buttons or controls (at least paragraph 41), and it is old and well-known in the art to use elastomeric materials over buttons for the elasticity and protection from the elements. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to create the structure 220 as a whole from an elastomeric material as is known in the art, and as is taught by Brewer for added shock protection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Rosen fails to disclose the laterally protruding forward and rear ridges as recited in claim 2. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and believes that the border of Rosen would meet the claimed limitations as the border does project laterally, that is, away from the side, and would meet the definition under broadest reasonable interpretation.
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
Prosecution Insights