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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner except were struck through. Each non-English reference must have a full translation into English not just the abstracts.
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 17 and 19 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.
Claims 17 and 19 recites the limitation "the first color". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims will be examined as if dependent on claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 is a description of how the device is used during normal operation and does not limit how the device is to be used ore technical features of the device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-6, 9-10, 12-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brewer (US 20210207928).
Regarding claim 1, Brewer teaches an optical aiming apparatus (Fig. 1, 100), comprising: a transmissive screen (140) disposed at a first end of the optical aiming apparatus, the transmissive screen comprising a concave surface (Fig. 2, 140 is curved inward); and an active display apparatus disposed at a second end of the optical aiming apparatus (Fig. 5, 143), the active display apparatus facing the concave surface of the transmissive screen (Fig. 5); wherein: the active display apparatus is configured to project a first pattern on the transmissive screen (Fig. 14; Paragraph 100); the active display apparatus is further configured to project a second pattern on the transmissive screen (Paragraph 39); and the first pattern and the second pattern have different shapes (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 2, Brewer teaches the active display apparatus comprises a plurality of pixels (Paragraph 30, lines 1-3; the device can have more than one light source each can be a single pixel), wherein the active display apparatus is configured to turn on a first group of the plurality of pixels to form the first pattern on the transmissive screen (Paragraph 39; the display has the ability to change reticle shapes), and the active display apparatus is configured to turn on a second group of the plurality of pixels to form the second pattern on the transmissive screen (Paragraph 39; the display has the ability to change reticle shapes).
Regarding claim 3, Brewer teaches the first pattern comprises a first portion presenting a first color and a second portion presenting a second color, and the first color and the second color are different (Paragraph 100; the displayed reticle may be more than one color and can be different).
Regarding claim 4, Brewer teaches the first color (Paragraph 100, color can be red) and the second color (Paragraph 100, color can be green) are complementary colors (red and green are complementary).
Regarding claim 5, Brewer teaches the first color is red (Paragraph 100) and the second color is green (paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 6, Brewer teaches the first portion (Fig. 14) and the second portion (Fig. 14) of the first pattern have different thicknesses (some of the reticles have different shapes in different parts; Fig. 14, collum 2 row 4).
Regarding claim 9, Brewer teaches a button (Fig. 5, 120 and 122), wherein the button is configured to change the first pattern to the second pattern (Paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 10, Brewer teaches the second pattern (Fig. 14) comprises a third portion presenting a first color and a fourth portion presenting a second color (Paragraph 100; the displayed reticle may be more than one color and can be different; some of the reticles have different shapes in different parts, Fig. 14, collum 4 row 5).
Regarding claim 12, Brewer teaches a control unit (Fig. 8, 808) and an environment sensor (818), wherein the control unit is configured to adjust brightness of the active display apparatus in response to a signal provided by the environment sensor (Paragraph 39, the device has an automatic mode that can independently change the brightness of the reticle based on ambient conditions which inherently means the sensor 818 includes some form of light sensing system).
Regarding claim 13, Brewer teaches the active display apparatus is further configured to project information on the transmissive screen (Paragraph 74, the sight may display information sensed by the sight using sensors), the information comprises at least one of wind speed, ballistic deflection, or humidity (Paragraph 74, humidity can be displayed).
Regarding claim 14, Brewer teaches an optical aiming apparatus (Fig. 1, 100), comprising: a transmissive screen (140) disposed at a first end of the optical aiming apparatus, the transmissive screen comprising a concave surface (Fig. 2, 140 is curved inward); an active display apparatus disposed at a second end of the optical aiming apparatus (Fig. 5, 143), the active display apparatus comprises a plurality of pixels (Paragraph 30, lines 1-3; the device can have more than one light source each can be a single pixel) and faces the concave surface of the transmissive screen (Fig. 5); and a button (120 and 122); wherein: the active display apparatus is configured to turn on a first group of the plurality of pixels to project a first pattern on the transmissive screen (Paragraph 39; the display has the ability to change reticle shapes); and the active display apparatus is configured to, in response to a signal provided by the button, turn on a second group of the plurality of pixels to change the first pattern to a second pattern (Paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 15, Brewer teaches the first pattern comprises a first portion presenting a first color (Paragraph 100, color can be chosen); the second pattern comprises a second portion presenting a second color (Paragraph 100, color can be chosen); and the first color and the second color are different (Paragraph 100, multiple colors can be chosen from).
Regarding claim 19, Brewer teaches the first pattern is presented entirely in the first color (Paragraph 100, the reticle can be one color), and the second pattern is presented entirely in the second color (Paragraph 100, the reticle can be in a different color).
Regarding claims 16-17 and 20, Brewer teaches the optical aiming device as previously shown. Claims 16-17 and 20 are identical to claims 13, 5 and 12 respectively and the same rejection applies as previously shown.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7,11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer (US 20210207928).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Brewer teaches device as previously shown. Brewer also teaches the light source of the device is an LED, laser diode or other light source but does not teach it is one of the required light emitting sources. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to use Micro LEDs as the light source as they allow for more detailed images as more individual light sources can be added in the same area.
Regarding claim 11, Brewer teaches a memory unit (Fig. 8, 809) and a control unit (808) that can change the state of the device (Paragraph 88) depending on time of day or how much time has passed in a certain orientation/position. Brewer does not teach that that system changes the reticle shape depending on different times. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the ability to change the status of the device based on time to display different reticles that might require more power to be used at night when the device is running off battery power alone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached references sited page.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN W CAUDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-0481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET. Friday 8 a.m. - 12 p.m.
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.
/L.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3641
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights