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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II encompassing claims 2-16 and 21-24 in the reply filed on 16 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08 August 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0185978 by Dodd et al (Dodd).
Regarding claim 2, Dodd discloses an attachment for a gun, the attachment comprising: a top surface having a longitudinal axis defined therethrough, wherein the top surface comprises a peripheral component; a left surface extending from the top surface; a right surface extending from the top surface; and an electrical interface configured to mate with a complementary electrical interface of the gun, wherein the electrical interface is coupled with the peripheral component (See at least Title, Abstract, and Figures, clearly illustrated, especially Figures 4A-4C).
Regarding claim 8, Dodd further discloses wherein the attachment is configured to remain stationary relative to a frame of the gun while allowing a slide of the gun to reciprocate relative to the frame of the gun (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 13, Dodd further discloses a front surface extending from the top surface (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 14, Dodd further discloses wherein the front surface includes a muzzle aperture with a diameter of at least 5 millimeters (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 16, Dodd further discloses wherein the peripheral component is an electronic sight (See at least Paragraph 0018).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-7 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd in view of World Intellectual Property Organization Document WO 2011/075028 A1 by Östergren et al (Östergren).
Regarding claim 3, Dodd does not disclose the specific details of the peripheral component.
Östergren, a related prior art reference, discloses a controller that is coupled with the peripheral component (See at least Page 4 Lines 4-21, “Electronic control unit, ECU, e.g. a microprocessor or the like”), wherein the controller is configured to adjust a brightness of the peripheral component (See at least Page 4 Lines 10-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Dodd with the noted teachings of Östergren. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to provide an appropriate device with means for smooth adjustments as the user moves the reticle, i.e. the aim of the aiming device across the target and/or target scene as taught by Östergren.
Regarding claim 4, Östergren further discloses an ambient light sensor (40) that is coupled with the controller, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the peripheral component based on an output of the ambient light sensor (See at least Page 6 Lines 9-25).
Regarding claim 5, Dodd does not disclose the specific details of the peripheral component.
Östergren, a related prior art reference, discloses an ambient light sensor (40) positioned adjacent a window, wherein the window allows light to pass through (See at least Page 4 Lines 10-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Dodd with the noted teachings of Östergren. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to provide an appropriate device with means for smooth adjustments as the user moves the reticle, i.e. the aim of the aiming device across the target and/or target scene as taught by Östergren.
Regarding claim 6, Östergren further discloses wherein the window is configured to direct light towards an aperture of the ambient light sensor (See at least Page 4 Lines 10-21).
Regarding claim 7, Östergren further discloses wherein the ambient light sensor is coupled with a controller that is configured to adjust a brightness of the peripheral component based on an output of the ambient light sensor (See at least Page 4 Lines 10-21).
Regarding claim 21, Dodd discloses an attachment for a gun, the attachment comprising: a top surface having a longitudinal axis defined therethrough, wherein the top surface comprises an aiming sight; a left surface extending from the top surface; a right surface extending from the top surface; an electrical interface configured to mate with a complementary electrical interface of the gun, wherein the electrical interface is coupled with the aiming sight (See at least Title, Abstract, and Figures, clearly illustrated, especially Figures 4A-4C & 7).
Dodd does not disclose the specific details of the sight element.
Östergren, a related prior art reference, discloses a controller that is coupled with the aiming sight (See at least Page 4 Lines 4-21, “Electronic control unit, ECU, e.g. a microprocessor or the like”), wherein the controller is configured to adjust a brightness of the aiming sight (See at least Page 4 Lines 10-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Dodd with the noted teachings of Östergren. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to provide an appropriate device with means for smooth adjustments as the user moves the reticle, i.e. the aim of the aiming device across the target and/or target scene as taught by Östergren.
Regarding claim 22, Östergren further discloses an ambient light sensor (40) that is coupled with the controller, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the brightness of the aiming sight based on an output of the ambient light sensor (See at least Page 6 Lines 9-25).
Regarding claim 23, Östergren further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a message over the electrical interface and adjust the brightness of the aiming sight based on the message (See at least Page 6 Lines 9-25).
Regarding claim 24, Östergren further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a message over the electrical interface and illuminate the aiming sight with a color of light based on the message indicating that the aiming sight is to be illuminated with the color of light (See at least Page 5 Lines 11-20).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0111183 by Hochstrate et al (Hochstrate).
Regarding claim 9, Dodd does not disclose the means of attachment of the rail assembly.
Hochstrate, a related prior art reference, discloses a fastening mechanism configured to removably fasten the attachment to the gun (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Dodd with the noted teachings of Hochstrate. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to utilize an appropriate attachment means for joining the rail assembly to the firearm with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Hochstrate further discloses wherein the fastening mechanism is a takedown pin (See at least Paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 11, Hochstrate further discloses wherein the fastening mechanism is a clasp (See at least Paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 12, Dodd does not disclose the means of attachment of the rail assembly.
Hochstrate, a related prior art reference, discloses a fastening mechanism configured to fasten the attachment to a fastening structure of the gun such that the attachment remains stationary relative to the fastening structure while allowing a slide of the gun to reciprocate relative to the fastening structure (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Dodd with the noted teachings of Hochstrate. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to utilize an appropriate attachment means for joining the rail assembly to the firearm with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd.
Regarding claim 15, Dodd further discloses wherein the front surface includes a muzzle aperture (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Dodd discloses the claimed invention except for the material of device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select metal or alloy to construct the front surface and muzzle aperture, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 Form for a listing of applicable prior art references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641
