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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “locking mechanism” in claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “AK rifle” should read “AK pattern rifle”. 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, 3-6, 11, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SVD (see attached Notice of References Cited, Reference U) in view of Hoskisson (8726562).
In reference to claim 1, SVD discloses an adaptable optic mount comprising:
a main body with a groove (see provided copy of SVD, including marked-up photos, esp. page 4, top photo and page 14, marked-up photo);
a front stop block point positioned at the front of the main body (page 14, marked-up photo: the location having the stop pin thereat is the stop block point);
a stop block disposed at said stop block point (page 14, marked-up photo: SVD stop pin);
a locking mechanism positioned at the bottom of the main body and housed within a protrusion of the main body and a cutout of the groove (pages 14 and 15, marked-up photos), and
a front mounting projection and a rear mounting projection at opposite distal ends of the main body operably attachable and detachable to an optic, wherein the front mounting projection has a greater top-width than the rear mounting projection, wherein the width of the front mounting projection is consistent from top to bottom and the width of the rear mounting projection is consistent from top to bottom so that the front and rear mounting projections have a rectangular shape (page 14, marked-up photo).
Thus, SVD discloses the claimed invention, except for the front stop block point being a front stop block opening, a rear stop block opening, as claimed, and a stop block operably and selectively attachable and detachable at either one of the front or rear stop block openings, wherein the stop block is mated with the front stop block opening, and the rear stop block opening is unused, when the optic mount is mounted on a SVD rifle, and wherein the stop block is mated with the rear stop block opening, and the front stop block opening is unused, when the optic mount is mounted on an AK rifle.
SVD does disclose a single stop block point (set forth above) having a stop block (stop pin) disposed thereat, in order to provide repeatable positioning of the optic mount relative to a rail on a firearm and to resist recoil forces. It is unclear whether the stop pin of SVD is selectively detachable from the stop block point. Further, SVD discloses that it is known to use the stop block at the front stop block point when the optic mount is mounted on an SVD rifle, with there being no stop block at a rear stop block point/opening (page 1, last paragraph, to page 5). Further, SVD discloses it is known to use a stop block (stop pin) at a rear stop block point when an optic mount is mounted on an AK pattern rifle, with no stop block at a front stop block point (page 1, last paragraph, to page 5, esp. see page 4).
Hoskisson teaches it is known to form a stop block point of an optic mount as a stop block opening that selectively and removably receives a stop block (stop pin), in order to provide repeatable positioning of the optic mount relative to a rail on a firearm (figures 1-3C, stop block 62 in stop block point 162; column 4, lines 24-29; column 5, lines 15-17; column 6, lines 29-38). Further, Hoskisson teaches that a stop block point with a stop block thereat can be located at either one, or both, of the ends of a main body of an optic mount to provide repeatable positioning of the optic mount relative to a rail on a firearm in a manner that resists recoil forces (column 6, lines 29-38).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the singular stop block point and stop pin, of SVD, with two stop block openings positioned at front and rear ends of the main body, respectively, and a selectively removable stop block (stop pin) operably attachable and detachable at either one of the two stop block openings, wherein the adjustable stop block is mated with the front stop block opening when the optic mount is mounted on a SVD rifle, with the rear stop block opening unused, and wherein the adjustable stop block is mated with the rear stop block opening when the optic mount is mounted on an AK rifle, with the front stop block opening unused, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide repeatable positioning of the optic mount on either one of an SVD rifle or an AK pattern rifle in a manner that resists recoil forces.
In reference to claim 3, SVD in view of Hoskisson (the modified SVD) makes obvious the claimed invention (SVD, page 14, marked-up photo).
In reference to claim 4, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the groove runs the length of the main body. However, Hoskisson further teaches it is known to form a groove of an optic mount, similar to that of SVD, such that the groove runs the length of the main body, in order to provide enhanced stability of the optic mount relative to a rail of a firearm and/or enhanced installation guidance (figures 2A-2D, groove 60). 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 the modified SVD such that the groove runs the length of the main body, in order to provide enhanced stability of the optic mount relative to a rail of a firearm and/or enhanced installation guidance.
In reference to claim 5, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above (also see SVD: page 1, last para. to page 5).
In reference to claim 6, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1, including wherein each stop block opening is horizontally positioned within the groove, but not specifically at a distance of 4.4 mm from the respective edges of the main body. However, it is clear the stop block points are taught to be close to the edges of the main body (Hoskisson, stop block point 162). Further, it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select a distance from the edge for the formation of the stop block points, in order to balance edge strength and available groove length for a given mount length.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mount of the modified SVD such that each stop opening is horizontally positioned within the groove at a distance of 4.4 mm from the respective edges of the main body, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claim 11, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention (SVD: page 1, last para. to page 5; page 14, marked-up photo)
In reference to claim 12, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention (SVD: pages 14 and 15, marked-up photos, the back of the body faces into the page).
In reference to claim 14, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1, except for wherein the main body has a length of 112 mm and a height of 26 mm. However, it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select appropriate dimensions for the optic mount of a known rifle, e.g., an SVD rifle and/or an AK pattern rifle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mount of the modified SVD such that the main body has a length of 112 mm and a height of 26 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claim 15, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1, except for wherein the height of the front and rear mounting projections is each 19.1 mm. However, it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select appropriate dimensions for the optic mount of a known rifle, e.g., an SVD rifle and/or an AK pattern rifle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mount of the modified SVD such that the height of the front and rear mounting projections is each 19.1 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claim 16, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1, except for wherein the front mounting projection has a width of 22 mm. However, it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select appropriate dimensions for the optic mount of a known rifle, e.g., an SVD rifle and/or an AK pattern rifle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mount of the modified SVD such that the front mounting projection has a width of 22 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claim 17, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1, except for wherein the end-to-end distance between the rear mounting projection and front mounting projection is 95 mm. However, it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select appropriate dimensions for the optic mount of a known rifle, e.g., an SVD rifle and/or an AK pattern rifle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mount of the modified SVD such that the end-to-end distance between the rear mounting projection and front mounting projection is 95 mm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claim 18, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the rear mounting projection is spaced from the rear edge of the main body. However, SVD teaches another embodiment of an optic mount, similar to the relied-upon embodiment, wherein the rear mounting projection is spaced from the rear edge of the main body, in order to facilitate the use of a top-rail for mounting optics (SVD: page 6, bottom photo, the right-hand, upwardly extending mounting protrusion is spaced from right-hand edge of the main body). 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 modified SVD such that the rear mounting projection is spaced from the rear edge of the main body, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate the use of a top-rail for mounting optics.
In reference to claim 19, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention (SVD: page 14, marked-up photo, the left-hand end of the main body is the rear end).
In reference to claim 20, the modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1, except for wherein the protrusion is 32 mm in length. However, it is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to select appropriate dimensions for the optic mount of a known rifle, e.g., an SVD rifle and/or an AK pattern rifle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the mount of the modified SVD such that the protrusion is 32 mm in length, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified SVD, further in view of Waterman (64429883).
The modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, except wherein the stop block is attached to either of the stop block openings via a screw that is a separate and distinct piece from the stop block. However, Waterman teaches that it is known to attach a stop block to a stop block opening via the use of a screw received by the stop block opening, wherein the screw is separate and distinct from the stop block, in order to provide a secure connection (figure 1: stop block 104, screw 106, stop block opening 108). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively attach the stop block at either stop block openings via a screw received by the respective stop point, wherein the screw is separate and distinct from the stop block, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a secure connection between the stop block and main body.
Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified SVD, and further in view of Johnson, Sr. et al. (10612718).
The modified SVD makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the locking mechanism is spring-loaded and screwable into the bottom side of the groove of the main body; wherein at least one screw can be tightened into the cutout of the groove to raise the locking mechanism against a side rail plate; wherein when the at least one screw is tightened into the cutout of the groove, at least one spring is compressed against the cutout of the groove; and wherein the cutout receives the locking mechanism via at least one spring hole and at least one screw hole. The details of the SVD locking mechanism are unclear from the single, relied-upon photo.
However, Johnson teaches that it is known to form a quick-release assembly by configuring a main body of the assembly to include a groove configured to receive a rail, a threaded hole for receiving a screw, and a plurality of holes for receiving springs, and to provide a relatively movable, spring-loaded locking mechanism that is screwable into the threaded hole via a screw, wherein the screw can be tightened into the groove of the main body to move the locking mechanism against the rail; wherein when the screw is tightened into threaded hole, at least one spring is compressed against the main body; and wherein the main body receives the locking mechanism via at least one spring hole and at least one screw hole (figures 8 and 9: main body 210, groove defined in part by sidewall 302, threaded hole 224, screw 222, springs 230 and 232, spring holes shown in elements 214 and 314). Johnson teaches that such a quick-release assembly provides quick, selective engagement of the main body with a rail without the use of tools (column 4, lines 7-24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the cutout of the main body, i.e., the portion of the main body that accommodates the quick-release assembly, with a locking mechanism that is spring-loaded and screwable into a bottom side of the groove of the main body; wherein at least one screw can be tightened into the cutout of the groove to raise the locking mechanism against a side rail plate; wherein when the at least one screw is tightened into the cutout of the groove, at least one spring is compressed against the cutout of the groove; and wherein the cutout receives the locking mechanism via at least one spring hole and at least one screw hole, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide quick, selective engagement of the main body with a rail without the use of tools.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hoskisson does not teach a rear stop pin attached to a rear stop pin opening with an unused front stop opening, as claimed. However, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Specifically, it should be appreciated that SVD teaches a rear stop block (stop pin) attached to a rear stop block point with an unused front stop block point, as claimed (see above-rejection of claim 1; SVD, page 4, top photo). Further, Hoskisson also teaches a rear stop block (stop pin) attached to a rear stop block point with an unused front stop block point, as claimed (column 6, lines 29-38). Further, Hoskisson teaches that a stop block point can be formed as a stop block opening (see above-rejection of claim 1), and the examiner asserts that this teaching can be applied to any stop block point (front, rear, or both). Further, Hoskisson teaches that a stop block (stop pin) can be selectively removable from a stop block opening (see above-rejection of claim 1).
Thus, considering all of the above-noted teachings, together, the examiner concludes that the combination of SVD in view of Hoskisson renders obvious a stop pin selectively mated to a rear stop pin opening with an unused front stop opening, as claimed (see above-rejection of claim 1). Further, the combination of SVD in view of Hoskisson renders obvious each and every limitation of claim 1, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 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