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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 01/21/2026. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel (US PGPub. No. 2018/0087881 A1) in view of Massier (US Patent No. 2011/0233868 A1) and further in view of Eggiman et al. (US PGPub. No. 2013/0328268 A1).
In Reference to Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 12
Bickel teaches (Claim 1) A shooting target assembly comprising: a base (item 20, fig’s 5-8); an elongated upright member attached to said base (item 12, fig’s 5-8); an upper retaining member attached to said upright member, said upper retaining member having a first aperture (item 54, fig’s 5-8, paragraph 0066); a lower retaining member attached to said upright member, said lower retaining member having a second aperture (item 56, fig’s 5-8, paragraph 0066); []; and a target member (round portion of item 52, fig’s 5-8) attached to a base section (flat / elongated portion of item 52 extending from round portion and toward downwardly depending section that engages items 54 and 56) that is pivotably attached to said first and second apertures (fig’s 5-8), wherein an edge of said base section slides over [the retaining member] when said target member rotates between a first position and a second position (fig’s 5-8 and paragraph 0066, flat portion of item 52 slides over surface of item 54);
(Claim 2) wherein said base includes a plurality of legs (legs of items 22 and 24, fig’s 5-8);
(Claim 3) wherein said upright member includes a first surface that is configured to face a target shooter, and an opposed second surface to which said upper and lower retaining members are attached (front and back surface of item 12, fig’s 5-8);
(Claim 6) wherein said edge of said target member includes a flat surface positioned between a first curved surface and a second curved surface (items 52 include a flat notch that engages item 54, best seen in fig’s 7 and 8; which curves on one end toward the stem and on the other end to a thicker region connecting to circular target face);
(Claim 8) wherein said upper retaining member is removably attached to said upright member (fig. 8 and paragraph 0006);
(Claim 9) wherein said lower retaining member is removably attached to said upright member (fig. 8 and paragraph 0006);
(Claim 12) wherein said target member includes a target face that extends beyond a first lateral edge of said upright member when said target is in a first position, and wherein said target face extends beyond a second lateral edge of said upright member, when said target member is in a second position (fig’s 5 and 7 and paragraph 0066).
Bickel fails to teach the additional tapered members of claims 1 and 7 and the positioning of claim 1.
Massier teaches (Claim 1) a first tapered member (one side of item 191, fig. 7) and a second tapered member (the other side of item 191, fig. 7) attached to [a] lower retaining member and positioned proximate to [a] aperture (item 184 and opening therein); an edge sliding over said tapered members (item 190, fig’s 5-7);
(Claim 7) wherein an apex of said first and second angled members is distal to lateral edges of said upright member (peak of item 191 is distal to item 192, fig’s 5-7);
(Claim 10) wherein said first and second tapered members are angled downward toward respective lateral edges of said upright member (edges of item 191, fig’s 5-7).
Eggiman teaches (Claim 1) wherein a point of attachment of [a] target member to [a] base section is positioned between [an] upper retaining member and [a] lower retaining member (fig. 9, round portion of item 36a attached to straight portion of item 36a between items 62a and 62b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotating target device of Bickel with the feature of tapered members as taught by the rotating target device of Massier for the purpose of further biasing the target into one of two active positions, preventing the target from getting stuck in an inactive position as taught by Massier (paragraph 0063), making the device more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that making components of a device integral vs. separate but rigidly connected components is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). The tapered members being separate elements or one integral element, being attached to the lower retaining member or being integral to the lower retaining member, would not change the operation of the device or of these elements, therefore, making these components either integral components, or separate but rigidly connected elements is simply a matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the firearm target device of Bickel with the feature of a target member attachment position between the retaining members instead of above them as taught by the firearm target device of Eggiman for the purpose of mounting the target apparatus between two supports therefore ensuring that it is more securely affixed, preventing unwanted detachment of the target from the mounts as taught by Eggiman (paragraph 0049), making the device more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of engineering design choice where the operation of the device is not modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since the device would operate essentially the same way regardless of where the attachment point of the base section is located, merely claiming this minor rearrangement of parts is not a patentable distinction. Eggiman further supports this conclusion by teaching that both positioning this point above a retaining member (fig. 10) and between retaining members (fig. 9) are obvious expedients that would both work well for the purpose of mounting the target, and are simply alternate mounting locations (see paragraphs 0049 and 0050).
In Reference to Claims 13-15, 18, and 19
Bickel teaches (Claim 13) An unassembled shooting target kit comprising (paragraph 0006, target components are intended to be modular and assembled / disassembled): a base (item 20, fig’s 5-8); an elongated upright member configured to be attached to said base (item 12, fig’s 5-8); an upper retaining member having a first aperture, said upper retaining member configured to be attached to said upright member (item 54, fig’s 5-8, paragraph 0066); a lower retaining member having a second aperture, said lower retaining member configured to be attached to said upright member (item 56, fig’s 5-8, paragraph 0066); []; and a target member (round portion of item 52, fig’s 5-8) from which extends a base section at a point of attachment (flat / elongated portion of item 52 extending from round portion and toward downwardly depending section that engages items 54 and 56), said base section configured to be pivotably attached to said first and second apertures (fig’s 5-8), []; wherein an edge of said base section slides over [the retaining] members when said target member rotates between a first position and a second position (fig’s 5-8 and paragraph 0066);
(Claim 14) wherein said base includes a plurality of legs (legs of items 22 and 24, fig’s 5-8);
(Claim 15) wherein said upright member includes a first surface that is configured to face a target shooter, and an opposed second surface to which said upper and lower retaining members are configured to be attached (front and back surface of item 12, fig’s 5-8);
(Claim 18) wherein said edge of said target member includes a flat surface positioned between a first curved surface and a second curved surface (items 52 include a flat notch that engages item 54, best seen in fig’s 7 and 8; which curves on one end toward the stem and on the other end to a thicker region connecting to circular target face).
Bickel fails to teach the additional tapered members of claims 13 and 19 and the positioning of claim 13.
Massier teaches (Claim 13) a first tapered member (one side of item 191, fig. 7) and a second tapered member (the other side of item 191, fig. 7) attached to said lower retaining member and positioned proximate to said second aperture (item 184 and opening therein); an edge sliding over said tapered members (item 190, fig’s 5-7);
(Claim 19) wherein an apex of said first and second angled members is distal to lateral edges of said upright member (peak of item 191 is distal to item 192, fig’s 5-7).
Eggiman teaches (Claim 13) [a] point of attachment being positioned between said upper retaining member and said lower retaining member (fig. 9, round portion of item 36a attached to straight portion of item 36a between items 62a and 62b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotating target device of Bickel with the feature of tapered members as taught by the rotating target device of Massier for the purpose of further biasing the target into one of two active positions, preventing the target from getting stuck in an inactive position as taught by Massier (paragraph 0063), making the device more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that making components of a device integral vs. separate but rigidly connected components is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). The tapered members being separate elements or one integral element, being attached to the lower retaining member of being integral to the lower retaining member, would not change the operation of the device or of these elements, therefore, making these components either integral components, or separate but rigidly connected elements is simply a matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the firearm target device of Bickel with the feature of a target member attachment position between the retaining members instead of above them as taught by the firearm target device of Eggiman for the purpose of mounting the target apparatus between two supports therefore ensuring that it is more securely affixed, preventing unwanted detachment of the target from the mounts as taught by Eggiman (paragraph 0049), making the device more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of engineering design choice where the operation of the device is not modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since the device would operate essentially the same way regardless of where the attachment point of the base section is located, merely claiming this minor rearrangement of parts is not a patentable distinction. Eggiman further supports this conclusion by teaching that both positioning this point above a retaining member (fig. 10) and between retaining members (fig. 9) are obvious expedients that would both work well for the purpose of mounting the target, and are simply alternate mounting locations (see paragraphs 0049 and 0050).
In Reference to Claim 4
The modified device of Bickel teaches all of claims 1 and 3 as discussed above.
Bickel further teaches (Claim 4) wherein said first surface is [] planar (item 12, fig’s 5 and 6, is planar on each side from top to bottom).
Bickel fails to teach the first surface being “continuously” planar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the first surface of Bickel continuously planar simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that changes in shape are obvious matters of engineering design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Since there does not appear to be any significance to making the first surface continuously planar as opposed to two planar surfaces, merely claiming the shape of the first surface appears it is simply a matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable distinction.
In Reference to Claim 16
The modified device of Bickel teaches all of claims 13 and 15 as discussed above.
Bickel further teaches (Claim 16) wherein said first surface is [] planar (item 12, fig’s 5 and 6, is planar on each side from top to bottom).
Bickel fails to teach the first surface being “continuously” planar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the first surface of Bickel continuously planar simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that changes in shape are obvious matters of engineering design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Since there does not appear to be any significance to making the first surface continuously planar as opposed to two planar surfaces, merely claiming the shape of the first surface appears it is simply a matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable distinction.
In Reference to Claim 11
Bickel teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bickel further teaches (Claim 11) wherein said upright member includes a [angle] proximate to said base (fig. 6).
Bickel fails to teach a bend in the upright member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a bend in the upright member simply as a matter of design choice, since, it has been held that selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Since Bickel teaches the feature of mounting the upright member at an angle with respect to the base (fig. 6), providing this angle with a bend in the upright as opposed to an angle at the mount produces an identical result, is simply substituting one known element for another, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claim 20
Bickel teaches all of claim 13 as discussed above.
Bickel further teaches (Claim 20) wherein said upright member includes a [angle] proximate to said base (fig. 6).
Bickel fails to teach a bend in the upright member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a bend in the upright member simply as a matter of design choice, since, it has been held that selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Since Bickel teaches the feature of mounting the upright member at an angle with respect to the base (fig. 6), providing this angle with a bend in the upright as opposed to an angle at the mount produces an identical result, is simply substituting one known element for another, and is not a patentable advance.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bickel in view of Massier, Eggiman et al., and further in view of Lambert et al. (US Patent No. 6,994,349 B2).
In Reference to Claim 5
The modified device of Bickel teaches all of claims 1 and 3 as discussed above.
Bickel further teaches (Claim 5) further comprising a stop [on the] second surface to stop said target member at either of said first or second positions (items 52 engage terminal edge portions of item 12 which stop the target member in first and second positions; fig. 5 and paragraphs 0066).
Bickel fails to teach the stops extending from the second surface of claim 5.
Lambert teaches a stop extending from a second surface to stop a target member in first or second positions (items 62, fig’s 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotating target device of Bickel with the feature of stops extending from the upright as taught by the rotating target device of Lambert for the purpose of limiting rotation of the targets to the exact desirable angle in a more reliable manner as taught by Bickel (column 5 lines 58 - 67), making the device more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
The examiner further notes that it has been held that making components of a device integral vs. separate but rigidly connected components is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Since Bickel teaches stop members, and, since providing separate stop members does not appear it would change the operation of the device, merely making separate vs. integral stop components is simply a matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claim 17
The modified device of Bickel teaches all of claims 13 and 15 as discussed above.
Bickel further teaches (Claim 17) further comprising a stop [on the] second surface to stop said target member at either of said first or second positions (items 52 engage terminal edge portions of item 12 which stop the target member in first and second positions; fig. 5 and paragraphs 0066).
Bickel fails to teach the stops extending from the second surface of claim 17.
Lambert teaches a stop extending from a second surface to stop a target member in first or second positions (items 62, fig’s 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotating target device of Bickel with the feature of stops extending from the upright as taught by the rotating target device of Lambert for the purpose of limiting rotation of the targets to the exact desirable angle in a more reliable manner as taught by Bickel (column 5 lines 58 - 67), making the device more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
The examiner further notes that it has been held that making components of a device integral vs. separate but rigidly connected components is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Since Bickel teaches stop members, and, since providing separate stop members does not appear it would change the operation of the device, merely making separate vs. integral stop components is simply a matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Bickel fails to teach the feature of the point of attachment being between mounting members is noted, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection using the Eggiman reference. See action above for details. Eggiman teaches that this is a known alternative mounting method for targets which prevents easy detachment and is not a patentable advance.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711