DETAILED ACTION
In the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/19/2025:
Claims 1-13 were rejected.
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 2/16/2025 has been entered:
Claims 2 and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 14-18 are new.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-18 are active.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 2/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 9-12 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the amendment to claim 1 incorporates the discussed claim language to distinguish from Matthews (US 9057583), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As claimed, the limitation reciting “wherein changing the display of the optical image includes reducing the magnification of the optical image” is insufficient, as was discussed in the Examiner Interview, held 2/12/2026, since the specific time that the display is changed in the limitation is not indicated, such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that both (a) the controller can change the display in response to the discharge signal and (b) the controller can change the display by reducing the magnification of the image. As discussed in the Examiner Interview, amending the limitation to recite, for example, “wherein changing the display of the optical image responsive to the discharge signal includes reducing the magnification of the image”, would appear to teach away from Matthews.
Applicant's arguments, filed 2/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-12 under 35 USC 112(b), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the amendments to the claims address all of the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed below, several rejections under 35 USC 112(b) remain, including some which were made in the previous Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/16/2026, with respect to claim(s) 6-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/16/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 and 15-18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the word “wherein” should be inserted after “claim 6”.
Applicant is advised that should claims 9-12 be found allowable, claims 15-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). It is the examiner’s belief that applicant intended for claims 15-18 to depend from claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, and 14-18 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the optical image” in lines 11-12, “the optical image” in line 13, and “the image” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Do “the optical image” and “the image” refer to the optical image operable to be generated by the optical image generator in line 3 or the at least one optical image operable to be generated by the controller in line 6? Applicant first recites in line 5 that the display is configured to display the optical image (generated by the optical image generator). Applicant then recites in line 6 that the controller is operable to generate at least one optical image. Applicant then recites in lines 11-12 that the controller changes the display of the optical image. Applicant then recites in lines 13-14 that changing the display of the optical image includes reducing the magnification of the image. The result of these inconsistencies is that the functionality of the optical image generator, the controller, and the display as they pertain to the optical image (or at least one optical image) is unclear. For example, how (and why) do both the controller and the optical image generator generate an optical image? Is applicant attempting to claim that the optical image generated by the controller is the same as the optical image of the optical image generator? The examiner notes that an “optical image generator” is typically known in the art as some form of projector or display which is configured to generate an image, such as a reticle, onto an image. See, for example, McPhee (US 2014/0101982). Did applicant intend for the “optical image generator” to be some form of image detector for receiving light waves to generate a signal which is then transmitted to the controller to generate an optical image on a display? The examiner also notes that claims 3 and 8 each depend from claim 1 and make references to “at least two optical images”, “a first optical image”, and “a second optical image”, which also lack sufficient antecedent basis at least for the reasons above, and which should be addressed accordingly.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the optical image” in lines 11-12, “at least two optical images” in line 13, “the optical image” in line 15, and “the optical images” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Do the “optical image”, the “at least two optical images”, and the “optical images” refer to the optical image operable to be generated by the optical image generator in line 3 or the at least one optical image operable to be generated by the controller in line 6? Applicant first recites in line 5 that the display is configured to display the optical image (generated by the optical image generator). Applicant then recites in line 6 that the controller is operable to generate at least one optical image. Applicant then recites in lines 11-12 that the controller changes the display of the optical image. Applicant then recites in line 13 that the controller is operable to generate at least two optical images. Applicant then recites in lines 15-16 that changing the display of the optical image includes removing only one of the optical images. The result of these inconsistencies is that the functionality of the optical image generator, the controller, and the display as they pertain to the optical image(s) is unclear. For example, how (and why) do both the controller and the optical image generator generate an optical image? Is applicant attempting to claim that the optical image generated by the controller is the same as the optical image of the optical image generator? The examiner notes that an “optical image generator” is typically known in the art as some form of projector or display which is configured to generate an image, such as a reticle, onto an image. See, for example, McPhee (US 2014/0101982). Did applicant intend for the “optical image generator” to be some form of image detector for receiving light waves to generate a signal which is then transmitted to the controller to generate an optical image on a display? The examiner also notes that claims 5-7 each depend from claim 4 and make references to “the optical images”, “a higher magnification optical image”, “the optical image”, “a remaining one of the optical images”, and “a lower magnification optical image”, which also lack sufficient antecedent basis at least for the reasons above, and which should be addressed accordingly.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the optical image” in lines 10-11, “a first optical image” in line 12, and “a second optical image” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Do the “optical image”, the “first optical image”, and the “second optical image” refer to the optical image operable to be generated by the optical image generator in line 3 or the at least one optical image operable to be generated by the controller in line 6? Applicant first recites in line 5 that the display is configured to display the optical image (generated by the optical image generator). Applicant then recites in line 6 that the controller is operable to generate at least one optical image. Applicant then recites in lines 10-11 that the controller changes the display of the optical image. Applicant then recites in line 12 that the controller is operable to display a first optical image. Applicant then recites in line 13 that the controller is operable to display a second optical image. The result of these inconsistencies is that the functionality of the optical image generator, the controller, and the display as they pertain to the optical image (or at least one optical image) is unclear. For example, how (and why) do both the controller and the optical image generator generate an optical image? Is applicant attempting to claim that the optical image generated by the controller is the same as the optical image of the optical image generator? The examiner notes that an “optical image generator” is typically known in the art as some form of projector or display which is configured to generate an image, such as a reticle, onto an image. See, for example, McPhee (US 2014/0101982). Did applicant intend for the “optical image generator” to be some form of image detector for receiving light waves to generate a signal which is then transmitted to the controller to generate an optical image on a display?
Further regarding claim 14, the limitation "wherein the controller is operable to display a first optical image of a first greater magnification and a second optical image of a second magnification less than the first magnification" in lines 12-14 is unclear as claimed. Again, applicant appears to be conflating the functionality of specific structural components of the claimed invention. In this instance, it is believed that the display (as opposed to the controller) is the component which is operable to display the image(s), as recited in line 5.
Claims 3, 5-12, and 15-18 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
In light of the above issues, it is noted that the application was examined only as the scope of the claims was best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matthews et al. (US 9057583), herein ‘Matthews’.
Regarding claim 1, Matthews discloses an optic (700) for a firearm (190) comprising:
a body (Fig. 7) configured for connection to the firearm (claim 11);
an optical image detector (714) operable to capture at least one optical image (col. 1 lines 39-41) of a target area (410);
a controller (715) connected to the optical image detector and operable to receive the at least one optical image from the optical image detector (Fig. 7; col. 10 lines 16-18);
a display (724) connected to the controller and configured to display the at least one optical image (col. 10 lines 25-28); and
an environmental sensor connected to the controller and operable to generate a discharge signal in response to discharge of the firearm (col. 8 lines 17-27);
wherein the controller is operable to generate the at least one optical image at a magnification selected from a range of magnifications ranging between a low-power limit and a high-power limit (col. 10 lines 16-24);
wherein the controller is operable to change the at least one optical image displayed by the display in response to receipt of the discharge signal from the environmental sensor (col. 8 lines 27-64; col. 11 lines 8-25); and
wherein changing the at least one optical image displayed by the display includes reducing the magnification of the at least one optical image (Fig. 5A-5B; col. 2 lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 3, Matthews discloses wherein the at least one image which the controller is operable to generate comprises at least two images of different magnifications (Figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 15-16, Matthews discloses wherein the discharge signal is generated by the environmental sensor in response to detection of motion of the body or of an acoustic impulse resulting from the discharge of the firearm (col. 8 lines 17-35).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 17-18, Matthews discloses wherein the environmental sensor is a microphone or an accelerometer (col. 8 lines 17-35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 14 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.
Claim 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Firearm optics are known which include those that are capable of displaying multiple images of varying magnification, as well as those which are capable of changing a displayed image in response to detection of firearm discharge. However, the closest prior art neither discloses, nor provides a motivation of obviousness, for an optic for a firearm which is capable of generating a first image of a higher magnification and a second image of a lower magnification, displaying both images on the display when a user is both observing/tracking a target and aiming at the target, and then removing only the higher magnification image from the display upon detecting and determining that the firearm was discharged. Additionally, the closest prior art neither discloses, nor provides a motivation of obviousness, for an optic for a firearm which is capable of generating a first image of a higher magnification and a second image of a lower magnification, displaying the higher magnification image prior to the discharge of the firearm when a user is aiming at the target, and displaying the lower magnification image automatically upon detecting and determining that the firearm was discharged. These arrangements provide the unique benefit of enabling the user to automatically resume observation/tracking of the target on the display with the larger field of view image after firing without obscuring a portion of the display with the narrower field of view image used for aiming and without requiring the user to manually remove the narrow field of view image from the display.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-18 are rejected. Claims 2 and 13 are cancelled.
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 BENJAMIN S GOMBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-4802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM 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.
/BENJAMIN S. GOMBERG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3641