Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/279,876

WEAPON SIGHT GRIP

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 24, 2025
Priority
Nov 07, 2021 — provisional 63/263,684 +2 more
Examiner
COOPER, JOHN
Art Unit
3641
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Crimson Trace Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
688 granted / 866 resolved
+27.4% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
891
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 866 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 #19/279,876 and RCE filed on 31 August 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 August 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) 31-34, 36-40, 43-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2022/0170718 to Reese et al (Reese). Regarding Claims 31, 43. Reese discloses a pistol sight comprising a lens and a housing including a base and a shroud disposed above and supported by the base (see figures), the shroud holding the lens configured to be viewed by a shooter of the pistol when aiming the pistol in a forward direction with respect to the pistol sight, wherein the housing has a first and second side (see figures, clearly illustrated), the first side including: a first ridge, a second ridge (see marked fig.1 below), and a third ridge (fig.1, 156), each of the first, second and third ridges being generally upstanding, the second and third ridges each having a forward facing shoulder arranged to be engaged by a hand of the shooter to grip the pistol sight to rack the slide of the pistol, the first ridge being spaced apart from and in front of the second ridge (see marked fig.1 below for the relative locations of the first and second ridges, then see fig.3 to see the first ridge extends farther forward than the second ridge), the third ridge being located rearward of the second ridge, wherein the third ridge is on the base and extends to a bottom side of the base (fig.1, 156), and the first and second ridges extend along the shroud (see marked fig.1 below). Regarding Claim 43, please see figure 7 as it shows a matching mirror image on the opposite side of the sight and the first, second, third and fourth ridges will be identical to the marked fig.1 below. Regarding Claims 32, 44, see marked fig.1 below. Regarding Claim 33, see marked fig.1 below. Regarding Claim 34, 45, see marked fig.1 below, the first and second ridges appear to be approximately along the base level of the sight. Regarding Claims 36, 46, see fig.1 at 190 for the first recess, and fig.1 at 192 for the second recess. Regarding Claims 37, 47, see fig.1, bottom of 192. Regarding Claims 38, 48, see fig.3. Regarding Claims 39, 49, see marked fig.1 below. Regarding Claim 40, see figures 1-2. Regarding Claim 41, see marked fig.1 below. PNG media_image1.png 880 846 media_image1.png Greyscale Marked Figure 1 Regarding Claim 50, a different interpretation of the claimed limitations of claims 31/43 will be provided, please see marked fig.2 below. PNG media_image2.png 880 846 media_image2.png Greyscale Marked Figure 2 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. Claim(s) 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0170718 to Reese et al (Reese). Regarding Claim 42, Reese discloses the sight of claim 31 but fails to specifically disclose the third ridge extends upward and rearward along the base. Reese has the ridge extending upward and forward. However, selecting a different angle would have been an obvious matter of engineering design choice to one having ordinary skill. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 4-12, 14-30 are allowed. Claim 35 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 31 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Reese does not disclose newly added limitations to claim 31, and argues Reese fails to disclose first ridge generally upstanding and spaced apart from the second ridge and in front of the second ridge. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the same manner the instant application has different ridge surfaces as the surfaces change angles, Reese is also interpreted as such. In the marked fig.1, one can see changes in height and angle of the ridges generally pointed out as 154, and identified by marked fig.1. Using this interpretation, which the Examiner believes meets the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations are clearly seen. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 24, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Feb 20, 2026
Response Filed
May 29, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Aug 31, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12742622
MULTI-PART PROJECTILE WITH ANTI-ROTATION COATING
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12742604
FIREARM MAGAZINE ASSEMBLIES
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12742605
MODULAR HANDGUN
1y 8m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12729939
WARHEAD FOR INTERCEPTOR
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12716681
BREECHLESS PROJECTILE ALIGNMENT MODULE AND LAUNCH METHODS FOR TOY BLASTER APPARATUS
1y 6m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+17.7%)
1y 8m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 866 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month