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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seibert (US Patent No. 5,486,425, hereinafter Seibert).
Regarding claim 1, Seibert discloses a self-healing target (10, Figs. 1-2) for projectiles (the bullet passing through the target “will initially stretch the material and form an opening which reseals itself after the bullet has passed,” col. 2:36-55), the target (10) comprising: a target body (10) defined by a sheet of resilient polymeric body material (“a sheet of ionomeric polymer,” col. 2:52-53), wherein the target body (10) defines a front surface, which is configured to face toward a shooter (12, Fig. 1; the front surface being shown at bottom in Fig. 2; col. 3:25-30), and a back surface (at top in Fig. 2), which is configured to face away from the shooter (12); and a target zone (“desired target indicia or aim points painted thereon” or “vacuum formed into a three dimensional structure of … a humanoid shape for use in military or police training application,” col. 4:1-10) on the front surface of the target body, wherein the target zone is at least partially defined by a surface feature (i.e., by the painted target indicia or aim points, or by the three-dimensional shape) that is defined within the target body (10) to provide a visual indication of the target zone to the shooter (col. 4:1-10; see, e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Seibert further discloses the target body (10) defines an average body thickness from 0.125 inches to approximately 0.500 inches (col. 3:54-62), or about 3.2 to 12.7 mm, measured between the front and back surfaces, which overlaps and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 5 mm to 30 mm.
Regarding claim 10, Seibert further discloses a coating material (“paint[],” col. 4:4-6) that coats the target zone, wherein the coating material (i.e., the paint) is clearly understood to have a coating material color that differs from a body material color of the resilient polymeric body material, since Seibert discloses that the paint creates “desired target indicia or aim points” on the body material.
Regarding claim 11, Seibert further discloses that, subsequent to passage of the projectiles (22, Fig. 2) through the target (10), the resilient polymeric body material is configured to at least substantially completely close holes formed therewithin as the projectiles (22) pass therethrough (“As the bullet 22 penetrates the target a hole is created in the target 10 which reseals once the penetration is complete,” col. 3:25-30; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Seibert discloses a method of manufacturing a self-healing target (10, Figs. 1-2), the method comprising: forming a target body (10) from a resilient polymeric material (“ionomeric polymer,” col. 2:35-55) such that the target body defines a sheet of the resilient polymeric material (col. 2:52-53) that includes a front surface, which is configured to face toward a shooter (12, Fig. 1; the front surface being shown at bottom in Fig. 2; col. 3:25-30), a back surface (at top in Fig. 2), which is configured to face away from the shooter (12), and an outer perimeter (see Fig. 1) which is defined around an exterior periphery of the front surface; and forming a surface feature within the target body (by painting or by vacuum-formation of three-dimensional features, col. 4:1-10) such that the surface feature defines a target zone on the front surface of the target body and provides a visual indication of the target zone to the shooter (col. 4:1-10; see, e.g., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Seibert further discloses that forming the surface feature includes manually defining (e.g., painting; col. 4:4-6) the surface feature.
Regarding claim 19, Seibert further discloses molding the resilient polymeric material in a mold (“vacuum formed,” col. 4:6-10), wherein the forming the target body and the forming the surface feature are responsive to the molding (col. 4:6-10).
Regarding claim 20, Seibert further discloses coating the front surface of the target body (10) with a coating material (i.e., paint; col. 4:4-6).
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by The Truth About Guns, “Gear Review: Rubber Dummies” by Jeremy S., posted December 21, 20151 (hereinafter Rubber Dummies).
Regarding claim 1, Rubber Dummies discloses a self-healing target for projectiles (“the ‘self-healing’ rubber compound ‘allows the projectiles to pass through with minimal deformation and degradation to the Dummy,” pg. 3) comprising: a target body defined by a sheet of resilient polymeric body material (i.e., three-dimensionally molded sheet of the “’self-healing’ rubber compound”; compare to Applicant’s disclosure at Fig. 15, pg. 19:1-18), wherein the target body defines a front surface configured to face toward a shooter (see Rubber Dummies image, pg. 2, reproduced below) and a back surface configured to face away from the shooter (see Rubber Dummies images showing black rubber material of back side, pg. 5-7); and a target zone (e.g., the simulated head, throat, or chest of the simulated torso) on the front surface of the target body, wherein the target zone is at least partially defined by a surface feature that is defined within the target body (e.g., the three-dimensional features of the simulated head, throat, or chest) to provide a visual indication of the target zone to the shooter.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Rubber Dummies further discloses the surface feature includes a recessed region (e.g., the simulated throat region; see image above) that extends from the front surface and toward the back surface (claim 7) and a protruding region (e.g., the simulated facial features) that extend from the front surface and away from the back surface (claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, Rubber Dummies further discloses a coating material (“white primer spray paint,” pg. 4) that coats the front surface of the target body, wherein the coating material has a coating material color (white) that differs from a body material color (black) of the resilient polymeric body material.
Regarding claim 11, Rubber Dummies further discloses that, subsequent to passage of the projectiles therethrough, the resilient polymeric body material is configured to at least substantially completely close holes formed therewithin as the projectiles pass through (“self-healing,” pg. 3; as shown in image on pg. 4, “there’s a .223 bullet hole just barely visible … On the backside, it’s basically impossible to find the pin pricks from the .223 rounds,” pg. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Rubber Dummies further discloses a method of utilizing the self-healing target of claim 1, comprising impacting the front surface of the target with a projectile to form a splatter mark on the front surface of the target (“one of the coolest features of this target is how clearly visible bullet impacts are … When a bullet hits, it flexes the black rubber and the white paint flakes off. It’s easily visible from a long distance away,” pg. 4; see image, pg. 4); and rejuvenating the target by coating at least the splatter mark with a coating material to cover the splatter mark with the coating material (“By simply using a can of white primer spray paint, which is included with the starter kit … you can cover up the impacts in no time flat,” pg. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Rubber Dummies discloses a method for manufacturing a self-healing target for projectiles (“the ‘self-healing’ rubber compound ‘allows the projectiles to pass through with minimal deformation and degradation to the Dummy,” pg. 3) comprising: forming a target body from a resilient polymeric body material (“’self-healing’ rubber compound,” id.) such that the target body defines a sheet of the resilient polymeric material (i.e., three-dimensionally molded sheet of the “’self-healing’ rubber compound”; compare to Applicant’s disclosure at Fig. 15, pg. 19:1-18) that includes a front surface configured to face toward a shooter (see Rubber Dummies image, pg. 2, reproduced above) and a back surface configured to face away from the shooter (see Rubber Dummies images showing black rubber material of back side, pg. 5-7); and forming a surface feature within the target body (e.g., the three-dimensional features of the simulated head, throat, or chest) such that the surface feature defines a target zone (e.g., the simulated head, throat, or chest of the simulated torso) on the front surface of the target body and provides a visual indication of the target zone to the shooter.
Regarding claim 19, Rubber Dummies further discloses molding the resilient polymeric material in a mold, wherein forming the target body and the surface feature are responsive to the molding (“the molding process,” pg. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Rubber Dummies further discloses coating the front surface of the target body with a coating material (“paint,” pg. 4).
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, 2, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battaglia, “Concealed Carry: Rubber Dummies Target DIY” Parts 1-3, Youtube.com, July 25, 20172 (hereinafter Battaglia).
Regarding claim 1, Battaglia discloses a self-healing target for projectiles (“rubber dummy target” made of “a rubber stall mat,” Battaglia transcript, pg. 3:1-11), the target comprising a target body (i.e., a torso target, see Battaglia image below, from Part 1 at 0:29) defined by a sheet of resilient polymeric body material (“rubber stall mat,” Battaglia transcript, pg. 3:113), wherein the target body defines a front surface configured to face toward a shooter and a back surface configured to face away from the shooter.
PNG
media_image2.png
816
1438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While the Battaglia videos themselves do not explicitly describe a target zone on the front surface of the target, the comments on the videos suggest adding a target zone on the front surface defined by a surface feature defined within the target body to provide a visual indication of the target zone to the shooter, “by attaching several layers and cutting them in the right way” to made the target three dimensional (see comment on Part 1 by jsouza), or by “stick[ing] the small bullseye targets onto it” (see comment on Part 3 by bungalobill794). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define a target zone on a front surface of the target by a surface feature defined within the target body to provide a visual indication of the target zone to the shooter (e.g., a 3D zone defined by attached layers, or a bullseye target attached to the front surface), in order to aid the shooter in improving accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Battaglia further discloses the target body defines an average body thickness as measured between the front surface and the back surface that is 0.75 inches (“3/4 inch thick,” pg. 12 of Battaglia transcript, AnthonyBattagliaPTE’s response to jowshu comment), or about 19 mm, which falls within the claimed range of at least 5 mm to at most 30 mm.
Regarding claim 9, the examiner notes that the surface features suggested in the comments include “small bullseye targets” stuck onto the target body (comment on Part 3 by bungalobill794). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a conventional small bullseye target sticker would have a different texture than the surface of a stall mat (e.g., the bullseye target surface having a smoother texture than the rougher stall mat surface). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the surface feature with a target zone surface texture (e.g., a smooth texture of a conventional bullseye sticker) that differs from the rougher front surface texture of the stall mat that forms the region of the front surface that surrounds the target zone, as a natural result of defining a visual target zone using a conventional bullseye sticker.
Regarding claim 10, Battaglia further discloses a coating material (“Krylon Color Master Paint and Primer,” Battaglia transcript, pg. 11:14-15) that coats the front surface of the target body (see Battaglia image below, from Part 3 at 3:05), wherein the coating material has a coating material color (white) that differs from a body material color (black) of the resilient polymeric body material.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Battaglia further discloses that, subsequent to passage of the projectiles (e.g., practice points), the resilient polymeric body material is configured to at least substantially completely close holes formed therewithin as the projectiles pass through (“practice points seal up really good,” Battaglia transcript, pg. 11:6-7).4
Regarding claim 12, Battaglia discloses a method of utilizing the self-healing target of claim 1, the method comprising: impacting the front surface of the target with a projectile to form a splatter mark on the front surface of the target (see Battaglia image below from Part 3 at 4:02; “those hits show really well,” Battaglia transcript, pg. 12:3), and rejuvenating the target by coating at least the splatter mark with a coating material to cover the splatter mark with the coating material (“then I just use some Krylon -- this is Fusion for Plastic in a white … You just do like you do any other self-healing target,” Battaglia transcript, pg. 12:3-5; see Battaglia image below from Part 3 at 4:13).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Battaglia discloses a method for manufacturing a self-healing target for projectiles for projectiles (“rubber dummy target” made of “a rubber stall mat,” Battaglia transcript, pg. 3:1-11), the method comprising forming a target body (i.e., a torso target, see Battaglia image below, from Part 1 at 0:29) from a resilient polymeric material (“rubber stall mat,” Battaglia transcript, pg. 3:115) such that the target body defines a sheet of the resilient polymeric material that includes a front surface configured to face toward a shooter, a back surface configured to face away from the shooter, and an outer perimeter (i.e., the torso-shaped perimeter) defined around an exterior periphery of the front surface.
While the Battaglia videos themselves do not explicitly describe forming a surface feature within the target body to define a target zone on the front surface of the target body, the comments on the videos suggest forming a surface feature within the target body such that the surface feature defines a target zone on the front surface of the body and provides a visual indication of the target zone to the shooter, “by attaching several layers and cutting them in the right way” to made the target three dimensional (see comment on Part 1 by jsouza), or by “stick[ing] the small bullseye targets onto it” (see comment on Part 3 by bungalobill794). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a surface feature within the target body such that the surface feature defines a target zone on a front surface of the target body and provides a visual indication of the target zone to the shooter (e.g., by attaching layers to define a 3D target zone, or by sticking a bullseye target on the front surface), in order to aid the shooter in improving accuracy.
Regarding claim 16, Battaglia further disclose forming the target body by cutting the target body from a larger sheet of resilient polymeric material (i.e., from the stall mat; see Battaglia image below from Part 2 at 4:49).
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Battaglia further discloses forming the surface feature by manually defining the surface feature (i.e., by manually attaching the additional layers to define 3D zones, or by manually sticking a bullseye target on the front surface).
Regarding claim 20, Battaglia further discloses coating the front surface of the target body with a coating material (i.e., with Krylon paint, as discussed above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibert in view of Spear (US Patent Pub. 2015/0362289, hereinafter Spear).
Regarding claim 3, Seibert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Seibert does not explicitly teach the target being rolled into an at least substantially tubular shape. However, Spear teaches that, in the art of shooting targets, it is desirable to roll a target (100/200, Fig. 8) into an at least substantially tubular shape (rolled position 300) with a compact inner diameter, which is “particularly useful for field usage … (i.e., outside of a designated shooting range) as often marksman are carrying supplies in a backpack or other travel-adapted storage container where space is limited.” ¶ 51. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an inner diameter of less than 20 cm would be desirable for this purpose, as a matter of obvious design choice for fitting the rolled target into backpack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Seibert by rolling the target into a tubular shape as taught by Spear, with an inner diameter of at most 20 cm, in order to facilitate compact storage and transport within a backpack or other travel-adapted storage container.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubber Dummies or Battaglia in view of Weide (DE 102008055773 A1, hereinafter Weide).
Regarding claim 4, Rubber Dummies and Battaglia each independently teach the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Rubber Dummies and Battaglia do not teach that the front surface is smooth with a front surface porosity less than a bulk porosity of the target body. However, Weide teaches a rubber granulate sheet (porous intermediate layer 12, Fig. 1; see Abstract) for use in a shooting range, comprising a smooth front surface (elastic cover layer 13, id.) with a front surface porosity that is less than a bulk porosity of the rubber granulate sheet (the cover layer 13 being “non-porous,” pg. 2, and the intermediate layer 12 being “porous,” Abstract). Weide teaches that the non-porous front surface reduces the risk of ricochet (“by means of the cover layer, on the one hand, a bouncing of a projectile is sufficiently avoided and, on the other hand, penetration into the intermediate layer absorbing the projectile energy is made possible,” pg. 2), improves durability (“Because of a seamless and non-porous design of the cover layer, for example, moisture … cannot penetrate into the covering. As a result, a particular high stability and longevity of the coating is guaranteed,” pg. 2), and facilitates local repairs (“damage to the covering must be remedied with little effort. For example, minor damage, in particular bullet holes, by means of the cover layer material rehabilitated locally, preferable filled,” pg. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Rubber Dummies or Battaglia to include a smooth front surface with lower front surface porosity than the bulk porosity of the target body, as taught by Weide, in order to reduce risk of ricochet, improve durability, and facilitate repairs.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battaglia in view of Cunningham (US Patent Pub. 2010/0240800, hereinafter Cunningham).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Battaglia teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the stall mats taught by Battaglia define a plurality of resilient polymeric body material particles (i.e., rubber crumbs) bound together to define the target body. Moreover, Cunningham teaches an elastomeric composition for stall mats (¶ 38) comprising a plurality of polymeric body material particles (“elastomeric granules,” ¶ 21) bound together to define the stall mat (claim 5); wherein the plurality of resilient polymeric body material particles define particle sizes in the range of “about 0.2 to about 5.0 mm” (¶ 21), which overlaps the claimed range of at least 0.1 mm and at most 2 mm. Moreover, Cunningham explicitly teaches that “[a] proper range of granule size for a certain composition can be determined by a person having ordinary skill in the art on a case-by-case basis.” ¶ 21. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a polymeric body material defining a plurality of resilient polymeric body material particles defining an average particle size within the range of 0.1 mm to 2 mm, as suggested by Cunningham, since Cunningham teaches that particles within this range were already known to be suitable for making stall mats such as those employed by Battaglia in forming the target.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibert in view of TexasCHLforum.com, “Self-healing targets” post by CoffeeNut, April 5, 20156 (hereinafter TexasCHLforum).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Seibert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Seibert further teaches that the target may be formed into “a three-dimensional structure” (col. 4:7-10), but Seibert does not explicitly disclose that the surface feature on the front surface includes a recessed region (claim 7) or a protruding region (claim 8). However, TexasCHLforum teaches a self-healing target comprising a recessed region that extends from the front surface toward the back surface (claim 7) or a protruding region that extends from the front surface away from the back surface (claim 8). See annotated TexasCHLforum image below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Seibert to include a recessed region (claim 7) or a protruding region (claim 8) extending from the front surface, in order to durably indicate the target zones on the front surface of the target.
PNG
media_image7.png
303
570
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubber Dummies or Battaglia in view of Bosik (US Patent No. 7,475,880, hereinafter Bosik).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Rubber Dummies and Battaglia each independently teach the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 12. Rubber Dummies and Battaglia do not explicitly teach a step of repairing the target (claim 13) by removing a damaged region to define a repair hole and positioning a repair plug within the repair hole (claim 14). However, Bosik teaches a method of utilizing a ballistic target (target assembly 1, Figs. 1-2), comprising the steps of repairing the target (1) (claim 13) by removing a damaged region (replaceable section 10) of the target (“with extended use the high impact area, such as the region having the bull’s eye or other target region, tends to deteriorate,” col. 1:17-20; “the replaceable section is easily removed and replaced,” col. 2:22-24) to define a repair hole (recess 5) within the target body and subsequently positioning a repair plug (i.e., the replacement section 10 when the damaged section 10 is “removed and replaced,” col. 2:22-24) within the repair hole (col. 2:8-10) (claim 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rubber Dummies or Battaglia to include the step of repairing the target by removing a damaged region of the target to define a repair hole and subsequently positioning a repair plug within the repair hole, as taught by Bosik, in order to extend the useful life of the target.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibert, Rubber Dummies, or Battaglia in view of Woodcock (US Patent No. 11,940,250, hereinafter Woodcock).
Regarding claim 18, Seibert, Rubber Dummies, and Battaglia each independently teach the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 15. Seibert, Rubber Dummies, and Battaglia do not teach forming the surface features utilizing a CNC router. However, Woodcock teaches a method of manufacturing a shooting target, including the step of forming surface features in a target body (e.g., in bear-shaped target 10, Fig. 18, col. 17:35-61; “the CNC router machine routes out any front surface 15 details as programmed. For example, the CNC router machine may route out one or more anatomical features of the grizzly bear. Also, the CNC router machine may form one or more depressions or cavities in the front surface 15 for receiving eyes, claws and teeth therein,” col. 17:55-61). Woodcock teaches that “[f]or purposes of forming a life size game animal silhouette such as a grizzly bear, a CNC router machine is effective in that it achieves smooth cuts … and is capable of routing intricate details on the front surface 15 of the first member 10. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that even though a life size game animal silhouette may be formed by hand using one or more cutting instruments, such a task may be time consuming and physically exhausting.” Col. 17:62-18:3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Seibert, Rubber Dummies, or Battaglia by forming the surface features utilizing a CNC router, as taught by Woodcock, in order to efficiently form surface details on the front surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baron (US Patent Pub. 2014/0042700), Lessnick (US Patent Pub. 2016/0010958), Mack (US Patent Pub. 2020/0400409), Gartrell (US Patent No. 2,535,280), Cummins (US Patent No. 9,797,694), Hatfield (US Patent No. 10,591,259), Boring (US Patent No. 11,280,594), and Vertanness (GB 2,212,892 A) each disclose a self-healing target for projectiles, cited here as further representative of the state of the art.
Loe (US Patent No. 3,895,803) and Edwards (US Patents No. 5,580,063, 5,188,371, and 8,596,643) each disclose a shooting target configured to produce a splatter mark for increased visibility of bullet hits, cited here as further representative of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gear-review-rubber-dummies/
2 Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr35EVayzXA; Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br3n0_Dggb8; Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l6XSO8t4ec
3 Compare to Applicant’s disclosure at pg. 12:5-6: “Examples of products that may be at least partially formed from and/or by resilient polymeric body material 26 include a gym mat and/or a horse stall mat.”
4 The examiner notes that Battaglia discloses the same resilient polymeric material disclosed by Applicant, i.e., stall mats. See Applicant’s specification at pg. 12:5-6. Because the material of Battaglia is the same as the material disclosed, the material of Battaglia is understood to be inherently capable of achieving the same claimed results.
5 Compare to Applicant’s disclosure at pg. 12:5-6: “Examples of products that may be at least partially formed from and/or by resilient polymeric body material 26 include a gym mat and/or a horse stall mat.”
6 https://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=72230