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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
Claim 1 is unclear in that it recites “a frame” then “a frame assembly” twice. These recitations indicate two distinct structures. As best understood by the Office the frame and frame assembly are the same structure. With this understanding, the terms should be made consistent and each “a frame assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 is unclear in that it recites “suspend a roll of paper above a frame assembly… a frame assembly consists of”. The second instance of “a frame assembly lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim also recites “a front frame and a back frame, both have holes in the corners”. The term “corners” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 continues, “so a hollow screw can be placed into the front frame and line up with the back frame and then tighten together with a hollow nut in each corner”. It is unclear if this it reciting intended use of the holes in the corners or if hollow nuts and hollow screws are required structural features of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a rod is used to hold a roll of paper, the paper is held horizontally above the frame”. As best understood by the Office the item that is held horizontally is the roll of paper”.
Claim 1 is unclear in that it recites “by loops in the cord” in the singular whereas “cords” in the plural were previously mentioned. It is unclear which of the cord has the loops.
Claim 1 recites “the cord stopper”. The term lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2-7 are unclear due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 2 is unclear in that it recites “a removable rod”. It is unclear if this is the same rod of claim 1 or a different rod.
Claim 3 is unclear in that it recites the relative term “slightly” which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 is unclear in that it recites “the window”. The term lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is unclear for its simultaneous dependency from claim 1 and claim 4.
Claim 7 is unclear in that it recites the relative term “minimal effort” which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rose US 2808266, Allen US 3512778 for the archery frame. Wiser US 5829753 for the horizontal rod and roll of paper.
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Rose and Allen teach archery targets that utilize a front and back frame to sandwich a target. Neither teach that the frame may be suspended from above but this is a known method of hanging targets. Neither teach a hollow screw and hollow nut “tightened together” to both hold the frame together and allow for the cords to suspend the frame but this is a known “hollow bolt” design. Neither teaches a rod holding a roll of paper by loops in the cords with a “cord stopper”. Wiser teaches an archery target holder comprising a rod holding a roll of paper with the ends of the rods in a slot. The paper is not fed between two frames.
Therefore, it is the feature of the paper target being fed through and being slidable between the two frames that is the allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
/BRIAN O PETERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745