DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicant’s Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 12/1/25. Claims 6-7, 14 and 16-19 are cancelled; claims 1, 5, 8, 13 and 15 are amended; claims 1-5, 8-13 and 15 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
2. Amended claims 5, 13 and 15 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: collection unit is directed to a species distinct from the species originally examined. Specifically, amended claims 5, 13 and 15 require the collection unit to include a rubberized block, which is mutually exclusive and not an obvious variant to a collection unit that comprises an intake funnel, bullet decelerator and collection container, which was originally examined (See claims 2 and 9). Moroever, a serious search and/or examination burden would exist to examine the distinct species together (i.e. due to their separate classifications, and would require employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 5, 13 and 15 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-4 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anton (SK 7485) in view of Halverson (US Pat. No. 7,967,296).
With respect to claims 1-4, 8-12, Anton teaches a shooting range with a modular bullet bank comprising: a deployable target 11, a unitary rectangular box 1 configured for movement as a single unit from location to location and including an open side of the rectangular box (“mobile container”); a collection unit 5 contained within the unitary rectangular box 1 and configured for collecting bullets fired from outside of the modular bullet bank into open side of the unitary rectangular box 1 (Fig.’s 1-2); a first auxiliary panel 2 connected to the unitary rectangular box 1 and operable to rotate between an open state to be disposed angled upward above the open side of the unitary rectangular box and a closed state wherein the first auxiliary panel 2 covers an upper portion of the open side of the unitary rectangular box 1 (Fig.’s 1, 3, 4, 8, 10-12; “upper ballistic protector 2, which is hinged sideways on the upper pin 21”)
Anton further teaches a second auxiliary panel 3 connected to the unitary rectangular box 1 and operable to rotate between the open state to be disposed angled downward below the open side of the unitary rectangular box 1 and the closed state wherein the second auxiliary panel 3 covers a lower portion of the open side of the unitary rectangular box 1 (Fig.’s 2-4, 9-10; “lower ballistic protector 3 is hingedly mounted on the lower pin 31”);
Examiner takes alternative interpretations of Anton regarding the auxiliary panels 2 and 3. First, as shown in Fig.’s 3-4, 10-14, the container comprises both panels 2 and 3, and panel 3 is viewed as capable of being disposed angled downward below the open side of the unitary rectangular box. That is to say, the orientation of panel 3 shown in Fig.’s 2 and 9 is also considered to be applicable to the embodiment shown in Fig.’s 3-4, 10-14 since Anton expressly teaches that that “lower ballistic protector 3 is hingedly mounted on the lower pin 31”. See MPEP 2114, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this view, Anton teaches wherein the first auxiliary panel 2 and the second auxiliary panel 3 in the open state are configured to funnel bullets into the collection unit; wherein the first auxiliary panel and the second auxiliary panel in the closed state are configured to close the open side of the unitary rectangular box (Fig. 10, 12). Should applicant traverse this position, in the alternative, examiner submits that one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the container panel 3 of Fig.’s 3-4, 10-14 to be capable of being angled as shown in Fig. 2. The rationale to combine is to provide a funneling affect for the shooter such that stray bullets are deflected towards the intended collection region 5. As extrinsic evidence in support of this rationale, should applicant argue this rationale is merely lifted from applicant’s specification, examiner cites to Bateman (US Pat. No. 6,618,044) to show that utilization of first and second auxiliary deflector plates used to funnel bullets has been established well before applicant’s effective filing – Fig. 1 showing deflector plates 10, 16 creating funneling effect for the bullets. Based on this modification, Anton teaches wherein the first auxiliary panel 2 and the second auxiliary panel 3 in the open state are configured to funnel bullets into the collection unit; wherein the first auxiliary panel and the second auxiliary panel in the closed state are configured to close the open side of the unitary rectangular box. See MPEP 2114, In re Schreiber.
Anton teaches wherein the unitary rectangular box is constructed as a “standard” ship container, but does not expressly teach wherein it has sheet metal construction walls as claimed. However, analogous art reference Halverson teaches such feature to be known in the art - column 9, lines 20-24 – “metallic plate”. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize sheet metal construction as this is a known material for mobile shipping containers, providing durability and strength and a low price.
Anton does not teach the components of the collection unit as claimed. However, analogous art reference Halverson teaches the following to be known in the art: a collection unit 60 including: a tapered intake funnel 64 including a narrow center portion (Fig.’s 2A, 3); a cylindrical bullet decelerator 66 connected to the narrow center portion of the tapered intake funnel 64 and configured for receiving a bullet tangential to an inner wall of the cylindrical bullet decelerator 66/70; and a collection container 62 disposed below the cylindrical bullet decelerator 66/70 configured for catching bullets that drop out of the cylindrical bullet decelerator 66/70 (Fig.’s 2A; column 8, lines 56-67; column 9, lines 1-8); wherein the modular bullet bank 22 further includes a plurality of collection units 60 side-by-side (Fig. 3); wherein the cylindrical bullet decelerator 66/70 includes: a bullet receiving cylinder 66; and a bullet capture funnel 70 configured to channel dropping bullets into the collection container 62 (Fig.’s 2A; column 8, lines 56-67; column 9, lines 1-8). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the collection unit of Halverson into the modular bullet bank of Anton. The rationale to combine is to provide a known collection unit that will easily collect fired bullets. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as both Anton and Halverson teach bullet banks housed within shipping container like housings. Moreover, the primary functionality of Anton is not frustrated by the combination.
Lastly, Anton does not expressly teach a shooter stand as claimed. However, analogous art reference Halverson also teaches this feature to be known in the art - shooter stand 92 (column 9, lines 37-38). A person ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s effective filing would have found it obvious to provide a shooter stand for the shooting range of Anton. The rationale to combine is to ensure safe shooting conditions and provide a surface for shooters to organize their equipment.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. 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 MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711