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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-23 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
The recitation in claim 22 of “the target support arm leans forwardly and an angle of 10-25 degrees” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the recited limitation. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim recitation of “and an angle of 10-25 degrees” to mean --at an angle of 10-25 degrees --.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 is objected to because claim 7 included two periods at the end of the claim. The recitation in claim 7 line 2 of “rotated..” should be changed to --rotated.--.
The recitation in claim 15, line 15 of “disposed a hole in the first plate” should be changed to --disposed in a hole in the first plate--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babcock (20210033373) in view of Pixton (20150137455).
Regarding claim 1, Babcock (Figures 1-42) teaches a central bracket for a target stand comprising: a first plate (Fig. 1, Part No. 13) having an inner sidewall defining a void (See fig. 1, 13) and a slot (See fig. 1, 13) extending from the void, the first plate further defining a plurality of holes (See fig. 28 where part no. 31 goes through holes in plate 13) (Para. 0123) and at least one slot (Fig. 13, Part No. 13a) extending inwardly from a lateral exterior edge of the first plate (Para. 0085); a second plate (Fig. 1, Part No. 13) having an inner sidewall defining a void and a slot extending from the void (See fig. 1, 13), the second plate further defining a plurality of holes (See fig. 28) and at least one slot extending inwardly from a lateral exterior end of the second plate (See fig. 13), the second plate being disposed below the first plate (See fig. 1-10); and a first support arm (Fig. 4-8, part No. 18) (Para. 0073) attached to the first plate and the second plate for holding the first plate and the second plate in a spaced relationship, the first support arm being disposed in the slot extending from the void in the first plate and in the slot extending from the void in the second plate (See fig. 4-8) and wherein the support arm holds the first plate so that the void in the first plate is above and between about 10-25 degrees forward of the void in the second plate.
It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “about 10-25 degrees” is being interpreted to mean “near/reasonably close to 10-25 degrees”. The prior art of Pixton is also being used to teach the recited limitation.
Babcock does not teach the void in the first plate is above and between about 10-25 degrees forward of the void in the second plate.
Pixton (Figures 1-12) teaches the void in the first plate (Fig. 1, Part No. 130) is above and between about 10-25 degrees forward of the void in the second plate (120) (Para. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Babcock with the void in the first plate is above and between about 10-25 degrees forward of the void in the second plate as taught by Pixton as a means of providing a target stand bracket with offset openings in plates of the bracket (Pixton: Para. 0031; See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Babcock (Figures 1-42) teaches a second support arm (Fig. 1, Part No. 15) attached to the first plate and the second plate, the second support arm being disposed at one end of the first plate and the second plate and wherein the first support arm (18) has a first end and a second end, and wherein the first support arm is attached to the first plate at a central portion of the first plate and adjacent the first end of the first support arm and is attached to the second plate at a central portion of the second plate at a location along the first support arm adjacent the second end of the first support arm (See fig. 4-10).
It is noted that claim are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “adjacent” is being interpreted to mean “not distant; nearby”.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Babcock (Figures 1-42) teaches the second support arm (Fig. 1, Part No. 15) is attached to an end of the first plate and an end of the second plate so as to form a handle attached at one end to the first plate and attached at an opposing end to the second plate.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Babcock (Figures 1-42) teaches the first plate has a first portion and a second portion (See fig. 13) and wherein the first portion has at least two holes of the plurality of holes (See fig. 13) and at least two slots (See fig. 13) and wherein the second portion has at least one hole of the plurality of holes and at least one slot (See fig. 13).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Babcock (Figures 1-42) teaches a projection disposed adjacent to one slot of the at least one slot in the second portion (See fig. 13).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Babcock (Figures 1-42) teaches a central bracket for a target stand comprising: a first plate (Fig. 1, Part No. 13); a second plate (Fig. 1, Part No. 13); and a first support arm (Fig. 4-8, part No. 18) (Para. 0073).
The modified Babcock does not teach the first support arm is welded to the first plate and is welded to the second plate.
Pixton teaches the first support arm is welded to the first plate and is welded to the second plate (Para. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Babcock with the first support arm is welded to the first plate and is welded to the second plate as taught by Pixton as a means of securing parts of a target stand using welds (Pixton: Para. 0034).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Babcock (Figures 1-42) teaches a void and a slot in the first plate (See fig. 1, 13), and a void and a slot in the second plate (See fig. 1, 13), and wherein said slot extending from the void is smaller than the void in the first plate (See fig. 1, 13), and wherein the slot extending from the void in the second plate is smaller than the void in the second plate (See fig. 1, 13).
It is noted that the prior art of Babcock teaches slots that are smaller than voids in the first and second plates (See fig. 1, 13). As an alternative rejection, it is noted that changing the size of the voids or slots would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a mean of (See: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), where the court held that limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the void in the first plate is sized for receiving a target support arm, and wherein the void in the second plate is sized to receive the target support arm” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babcock in view of Pixton, further in view of Bickel (20180087881).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Babcock (Figures 1-42) teaches the void (See fig. 1, 13) in the first plate overlaps vertically with the slot (See fig. 1, 13) in the second plate (See fig. 1, 13).
The modified Babcock does not teach when a target support arm is extended through the void in the first plate and the void in the second plate the target support arm leans forwardly at an angle of 10-25 degrees.
Bickel (Figures 5-8) teaches when a target support arm (23) is extended through the void in the first plate and the void in the second plate (See fig. 5-8) the target support arm leans forwardly at an angle (Fig. 6, part No. 14) of 10-25 degrees (See fig. 6)(Para. 0065).
It is noted that the prior art of Bickel teaches a support arm that leans forward at a predetermined angle (14) (Para. 0064-0065). Providing the combination of Babcock and Bickel with the target support arm leans forwardly and an angle of 10-25 degrees would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), where the court held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Babcock with the target support arm leans forwardly at an angle as taught by Bickel as a means of providing a target stand with a target support that leans forward a predetermined angle (Bickel: Para. 0064-0065).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 9-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (Babcock (20210033373), Heller (4010922), Pixton (20150137455), Kimblad (9829285), Bickel (20180087881)) does not teach the recitation in claim 4 of “the support arm comprises an extension extending directly below the void in the second plate so that the support arm is positioned to engage a target support when the target support extends though the void in the second plate”, the recitation in claim 7 of “the top plate extending into the slot perpendicular to the first pin when the first pin is disposed in one of the plurality of holes in the first plate and the leg rotated”, the recitation in claim 12 of “the first pin being disposed in one of the plurality of holes in the first plate, wherein the first leg comprises a second pin disposed adjacent a bottom of the first leg, the second pin extending downwardly, and being disposed in one of the plurality of holes in the second plate, and wherein the at least three legs further comprises a second leg, the second leg having a first pin disposed in the first plate and a second pin disposed in the second plate”, the recitation in claim 15 of “a first leg of the plurality of legs being disposed in one slot of the plurality of slots and having a pin which is disposed in a hole in the first plate adjacent the slot in the first plate in which the first leg is disposed”, the recitation in claim 16 of “the first leg having a first projection and a second projection for sliding into holes in the first plate and the second plate respectively, and slots disposed adjacent the first pin and the second pin such that the first plate and the second plate can slide into the slots adjacent the first projection and the second projection as the first projection and the second projection rotate in holes formed in the first plate and the second plate”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Babcock does not teach the recitation in claim 1 of “a first support arm attached to the first plate and the second plate for holding the first plate and the second plate in a spaced relationship”, this is not found persuasive because claim 1 recites “for holding the first plate and the second plate in a spaced relationship”. The recited limitation is a functional limitation as the claim does not state that the first support arm “holds” the first plate and the second plate in a spaced relationship. Rather, claim 1 states that the support arm is “for holding” the first plate and the second plate in a spaced relationship. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Applicant argues that the prior art of Babcock does not teach the recitation in claim 1 of “the support arm holds the first plate so that the void in the first plate is above and between about 10-25 degrees forward of the void in the second plate”, this is not found persuasive because claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “about 10-25 degrees” is being interpreted to mean “near; close to” 10-25 degrees because the term “about” is defined to mean “near; close to”. The prior art of Pixton is also used to teach the recitation in claim 1 of “about 10-25 degrees”. Pixton (Fig. 1) discloses offset voids in first and second plates of a target stand (Para. 0031). Applicant argues that Pixton appears to have support posts positioned vertically, this is not found persuasive because Pixon (See fig. 1) discloses multiple openings (see smaller openings in members 130, 120) that are offset (See figures 1 and 3-4 where members 130 and 120 are shown with openings that are offset relative to each other).
Applicant argues that there is not motivation for the combination of Babcock and Pixton, this is not found persuasive because obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the prior art of Babcock and Pixton are both directed to brackets for targets and therefore suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art different configurations and designs for target brackets.
Applicant argues that the combination of Babcock and Pixton is based on hindsight reconstruction, this is not found persuasive because it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the combination of Babcock and Pixton is based on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure. As noted, the claim recitation of “about 10-25 degrees” is being interpreted to mean “near; close to” 10-25 degrees. Also, the prior art of Pixton teaches offset openings (See Pixton: Figures 1 and 3-4).
Applicant argues that the prior art of Babcock does not teach a first support arm having a first end and a second end, this is not found persuasive because Babcock (See figures 4-10) teaches the first support arm (18) has first and second ends.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Babcock does not teach the limitations of claim 3, this is not found persuasive because Babcock teaches the second support arm (Fig. 1, Part No. 15) is attached to an end of the first plate and an end of the second plate so as to form a handle attached at one end to the first plate and attached at an opposing end to the second plate. It is noted that the claim recitation of “handle” is being interpreted under BRI to mean “a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand”.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 5 does not provide the claimed structure, this is not found persuasive because Babcock (Figures 1-42) teaches the first plate has a first portion and a second portion (See fig. 13) and wherein the first portion has at least two holes of the plurality of holes (See fig. 13) and at least two slots (See fig. 13) and wherein the second portion has at least one hole of the plurality of holes and at least one slot (See fig. 13). As shown in figure 13 of Babcock, each plate (13) includes two holes and two slots, and the second portion has one hole and one slot. It is noted that a “hole” is defined to mean “an opening through something”. A slot is defined to be “a narrow opening or groove”. The prior art of Babcock teaches the claimed holes/slots in first and second portions of the first plate.
Applicant argues that rejection of claim 21 is based on hindsight reconstruction, this is not found persuasive because it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Babcock in view of Pixton. Applicant argues that the prior art of Babcock teaches the first support arm is made of wood and wood is not ordinarily welded. This is not found persuasive because Babcock (Para. 0036) discloses: “the post can be made from steel or other material—the bracket works with essentially any type of post suitable for shooting targets, and the cross center cutout 14b can be appropriately sized for whatever posts it needs to mate with”. Applicant argues that the first support arm of Babcock is movable along the target stand and therefore would not be welded. This is not found persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the prior art of Pixton teaches securing parts of a target stand using welds (Pixton: Para. 0034) as opposed to the tightening mechanism disclosed by Babcock.
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 CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 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, 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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights