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 .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 1, “reticle system comprising: one or more firearms” is alternative and indefinite. It is not clear how the reticle system could structurally comprise plural firearms. It is also not clear when or how it is determined if one or more firearms are being used.
In claims 1, 11, and 20, “the central hollow polygon is dimensioned to visually correspond to a cross-sectional silhouette of an aerial target at a predetermined range” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what “visually correspond” structurally requires, e.g. the exact same shape or just having the target within the polygon. This is especially unclear since the target might not be a polygon in shape but the polygon must be “dimensioned” to the target. In addition, since the “aerial target” is a general target, i.e. not a specified target but apparently any aerial target, it is not clear how a singe claimed central hollow polygon could meet the required limitations.
In claims 1, 11, and 20, “configured to provide selectable aiming references” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what configuration is required to perform the claimed function.
In claims 1, 11, and 20, “based on an estimated movement” is vague and indefinite since it is not clear what is making the estimation or how the estimation is used to provide the claimed function.
In claims 6 and 15, “a silhouette of a small unmanned aerial system” is vague and indefinite since small unmanned aerial systems come in many different silhouettes.
In claims 7, 8, 16, and 17, “a typical small unmanned aerial system” is vague and indefinite since there are many small unmanned aerial systems so it is not clear what “typical” means. And even if typical was defined, it would probably still provide unclear claim limitations since the parameters of the systems, including dimensions and operating parameters would vary greatly.
In claim 20, “providing one or more simulated firearms integrated with a reticle apparatus” is indefinite and alternative. It is not clear how the claimed reticle would operate with a plurality of firearms simultaneously. It is also not clear when or why the choice of one or more simulated firearms would be made.
In claim 20, line 24, “identify a position of the simulated aerial targets” appears to be an incorrect and impossible limitation, since plural “targets” cannot occupy a single position.
In claim 20, lines 25, 26, and 29 “the simulated target” has no proper antecedent basis in the claims. A plurality of simulated targets was claimed earlier and it is not clear which of these simulated targets are being referenced.
In claim 20, line 27, “aligning the central hollow polygon over the aerial target” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what target to being referenced. It would seem to be that a “simulated target” is being engaged.
Likewise, in claim 20, line 32, “the aerial target” is claimed instead of “the simulated aerial target”.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being clearly anticipated by Richards (2016/0169625).
Richards discloses in Figures 10A and 10B, especially in view of the above 112 rejections, a reticle 1002 system comprising all claimed elements including a central hollow polygon 1004 in a center of a sighting field 1000A; (note that the it is inherent that the polygon would be dimensioned to correspond to an aerial target at a predetermined range since there is an almost infinite number of combinations of target size and range); horizontal and vertical reference lines 106 which can inherently provide references to target displacement; and an aiming point 1008 within the polygon. Note that while Richards fail to specify particular targets 302, 304, it is inherent that the scope could aim at aerial targets.
Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Byars et al is cite as being of interest since they disclose a reticle system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. WOODROW ELDRED whose telephone number is (571)272-6901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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.
/J. Woodrow Eldred/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
JWE
Prosecution Insights