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 response filed on 20 February 2026.
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, 36-41, 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 third ridge being located rearward of the first and second ridges, the third ridge is on the base and extends to a bottom side of the base (fig.1, 156). 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.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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