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 .
Specification
The use of the terms “Docter,” “Noblex,” “Aimpoint,” “Acro,” “Aimpoint Acro,” “RMSc,” and “RMR,” which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
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 1-9 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 reference to claims 1 and 2, the term “conventional” renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear what optics thread mounting patterns are covered/precluded by the limitation “conventional optics thread mounting patterns.” Applicant provides an exemplary list of “conventional optics thread mounting patterns,” but it is unclear whether said limitation extends to all optics thread mounting patterns to have ever existed, or not. Also, what is considered conventional at present, may not be considered conventional in the future, and, thus, the metes and bounds of the limitation are inconstant. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider said term “conventional” as omitted from the claims. Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claims 2 and 6 contain the trademark/trade names “Docter,” “Noblex,” “Aimpoint,” “Acro,” “Aimpoint Acro,” “RMSc,” and “RMR.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
In the present case, the trademarks/trade names are used to identify/describe specific mounting patterns and lug positions and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider claim 2 as requiring the plurality of distinct optics thread mounting patterns as including “at least two distinct optics thread mounting patterns.” Further, regarding claim 6, the examiner will consider the claim as requiring a position of the at least one adapter plate-optic lug as corresponding to “only one recoil lug position.” Correction and/or clarification are required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McKelvain (2025/0224210).
In reference to claim 1, McKelvain discloses a handgun comprising:
a barrel (60);
a firing mechanism including a firing pin (160) and a trigger assembly (110);
a slide assembly (figures 1, 4, and 7) including a slide (50; the slide assembly can be considered as including the front iron sight and/or backplate and/or rear iron sight);
a frame (30); and
an optics mount configured to facilitate mounting of an optic assembly to the slide, wherein the optics mount includes an optics mount surface (454) that is at least partially defined by the slide, at least one receiver recoil lug-receiving region that extends into the slide from the optics mount surface (456 or 458), and a plurality of threaded holes that extends into the slide from the optics mount surface (457 and 459),
wherein the plurality of threaded holes defines a plurality of distinct mounting patterns that correspond to a plurality of distinct conventional optics thread mounting patterns (paragraphs 96 and 98).
In reference to claim 2, McKelvain discloses the claimed invention, since at least two distinct thread mounting patterns are provided.
In reference to claim 3, McKelvain discloses the claimed invention (paragraphs 94 and 108, adapter plate 480).
In reference to claim 4, McKelvain discloses the claimed invention (receiver lugs 426 or 428 can be considered as included with the first plate side via holes 486 and 488; paragraph 108).
In reference to claim 7, McKelvain discloses the claimed invention (optic assembly mounting holes 482).
In reference to claim 8, McKelvain discloses the claimed invention (paragraphs 94 and 108; figure 13).
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.
Assuming, arguendo, that McKelvain fails to anticipated claim 2, the following rejection is also applied:
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKelvain.
McKelvain discloses the claimed invention, except for at least two of the listed thread mounting patterns. However, McKelvain contemplates the inclusion of multiple thread mounting patterns on formed in the mounting surface to accommodate multiple brands of optics (paragraph 21). Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that each of the listed thread mounting patterns are well-known in the art for mounting known optics to optic mounts of handguns. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the optic mount of McKelvain with at least two of the listed thread mounting patterns, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate mounting of known optics to the optic mount of the handgun.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKelvain in view of Gradisnik (see attached Notice of References Cited, Reference U).
In reference to claim 5, McKelvain discloses the claimed invention, including wherein the adapter plate (480) may include attachment features for securing an optic to the plate, but fails to explicitly disclose at least one adapter plate-optic lug, as claimed. However, Gradisnik teaches it is known to provide an adapter plate with such a lug, as clamed, in order to connect the plate to an optic (pages 8 and 12, Docter Mounting Standard; page 12 show adapter plates with lugs at each corner, each lug configured to be received by a socket of a corresponding optic).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adapter plate of McKelvain with at least one adapter plate-optic lug, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to connect the adapter plate to a specific optic.
In reference to claim 6, McKelvain in view of Gradisnik makes obvious the claimed invention (Docter or Noblex).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKelvain in view of Toner (2018/0087871).
McKelvain discloses the claimed invention, except for an undercut region, as claimed. However, Dawson teaches it is known to provide an optics mount surface with an undercut, as claimed, and to provide the plate with corresponding features, in order to provide additional mounting features for the enhanced securement of a plate (paragraphs 44 and 45; figures 4 and 5: undercut regions 408a and 408b, corresponding features 404a and 404b). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mount surface with an undercut region, as claimed, and the adapter plate with corresponding regions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional mounting features for the enhanced securement of the adapter plate.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribic et al. (2021/0222970; “Ribic”) in view of Dawson, JR. (2021/0270572).
In reference to claim 1, Ribic discloses a handgun comprising:
a barrel (paragraph 58, “barrel”);
a firing mechanism including a firing pin (210) and a trigger assembly (para. 58, “trigger assembly”);
a slide assembly (100) including a slide (102);
a frame (paragraph 50, “firearm frame”); and
an optics mount configured to facilitate mounting of an optic assembly to the slide, wherein the optics mount includes an optics mount surface (figures 2A-2C, lead line 104 ends at the optics mount surface) that is at least partially defined by the slide and a plurality of threaded holes that extends into the slide from the optics mount surface (mounting holes 142a-142d; paragraphs 51, 59, and 61),
wherein the plurality of threaded holes defines a plurality of distinct mounting patterns that correspond to a plurality of distinct conventional optics thread mounting patterns (paragraph 61).
Thus, Ribic discloses the claimed invention, except for at least one receiver recoil lug-receiving region that extends into the slide from the optics mount surface. However, Ribic also discloses the mounting holes can be formed with various different patterns and/or to accept various different fasteners, depending upon the particular pattern required for a given optic (paragraphs 59 and 61).
Dawson teaches it is known for an optic to have a pattern that receives two threaded fasteners and two non-threaded pins (recoil lugs) that extend into two threaded holes and two non-threaded holes (lug-receiving regions), respectively, wherein the threaded and non-threaded holes extend into the mount surface of an optic mount, in order to provide a selectively securable connection that resists recoil forces (translation and rotation; figures 20-21, recoil lugs 490, recoil lug-receiving holes 438, threaded holes 439 and associated threaded fasteners 499).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handgun of Ribic with a mounting pattern including two recoil lug-receiving regions (unthreaded holes) and two threaded holes, extending into the optic surface and corresponding to a mounting pattern of an optic, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a selectively securable connection that resists recoil forces.
In reference to claim 2, Ribic in view of Dawson teaches the claimed invention (Ribic, paragraph 61). However, assuming, arguendo, that Ribic fails to disclose at least two of the listed thread mounting patterns, the examiner takes Official Notice that each of the listed thread mounting pattern are well-known in the art for mounting known optics to optic mounts of handguns. Ribic clearly discloses a plurality of thread mounting patterns can formed on the mounting surface to provide mounting for a variety of optics (paragraph 61). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the optic mount of Ribic with at least two of the listed thread mounting patterns, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate mounting of known optics to the optic mount of the handgun.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached Notice of References Cited. The relevance of each cited reference is made clear by at least the abstract and/or drawings thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights