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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for slidingly receiving the bottom of the magazine body” and “slidingly receiving means” in claims 1-3, 7-10, 14, 15, and 21-30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 7-10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Coggins (2021/0381787).
In reference to claim 1, Coggins discloses an apparatus (figures 33-59), comprising:
a firearm magazine base pad assembly (200) or magazine extension assembly comprising a top (211) to receive a bottom of a magazine body, a bottom (212), and a cavity between the top and bottom (interior of element 210), the cavity for a core or removable insert (220), the firearm magazine base pad assembly or magazine extension assembly further comprising:
means for slidingly receiving the bottom of the magazine body, the slidingly receiving means located above the cavity and including a channel (218) to receive a lip defined by the bottom of the magazine body and tab slots to mate with tabs above the lip (tab slots clearly shown about halfway along each channel 218); and
the core or removable insert located in the cavity (figures 54-55), wherein the core includes a topmost surface and a bottommost surface, and the core is overmolded in which a portion of the topmost surface or a portion of the bottommost surface is covered by the overmold material, and wherein a portion of a surface of the core is not covered by the overmold material, or wherein:
the removable insert comprises a rigid body (element 220; paragraph 162), and the removable insert forms part of a bottom of the magazine base pad assembly or magazine extension assembly, exposed by a toolless-access window (figures 54-55; the toolless-access window is the opening in the bottom of element 210), or
the removable insert is retained using a spring force generated by a different spring than a magazine feed spring (spring force provided by spring 260).
In reference to claim 2, Coggin discloses the claimed inventio (paragraph 162, plastic base pad, e.g., base plate 200).
In reference to claim 3, Coggins discloses the claimed invention, since the limitations thereof only apply to the embodiment of claim 1 having a core. Coggins discloses the removable insert embodiment, and, thus, need not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
In reference to claim 7, Coggins discloses the claimed invention (removable insert 220 includes a planar top portion defining top surface 221, and this portion can be considered a planar insert, i.e. plate, that forms a part of the removable insert; alternatively, see paragraph 187, the removable insert 220 can be considered to include a lock plate 40, as in figures 1-4, which reasonably constitutes a planar insert).
In reference to claims 8 and 9, Coggins discloses the claimed invention (paragraph 187 makes clear that the removable insert 220 can use a lock plate 40, as in figures 1-4, and, thus, the top of removable insert 220 would mate with a retaining plate 40 via the depending post of the retaining plate 40, the opening in the bottom of insert 220 provides tool access to a top of the post).
In reference to claim 10, Coggins discloses the claimed invention (figures 54-55, the opening in the bottom of element 210 exposes at least part of the bottommost surface of insert 220).
In reference to claim 14, Coggins discloses the claimed invention (paragraph 187, magazine assembly 10 in combination with base pad assembly 200).
In reference to claim 15, Coggins discloses the claimed invention (at least paragraphs 12 and 191: the magazine can be combined with a firearm, i.e., the magazine is combined with a firearm to perform its intended function as a firearm magazine).
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 21-25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coggins.
In reference to claim 21, Coggins discloses an apparatus comprising a body, comprising:
a firearm magazine base pad assembly (200) comprising a top to receive a bottom of a magazine body, a bottom, and a cavity between the top and bottom (set forth above in the reference to claim 1);
wherein in the case the apparatus includes the base pad body assembly, the apparatus body comprises a base pad body including:
a core located in the cavity, wherein the core comprises a removable rigid body (220);
the core comprising a core material, wherein at least the top of the base pad body is formed from an additional material optimized to prevent, or reduce, wear on the bottom of the magazine body when the firearm magazine base pad and the bottom of the magazine body are joined or separated (paragraph 162 discloses that the base plate, i.e., base pad assembly 210+220, can be formed from plastic).
Thus, Coggins discloses the claimed invention, except fails to explicitly disclose that the core (220) and base pad body (210) are formed from different materials. However, Coggins discloses that it is generally known to form cartridge magazines of metal, plastic, or a combination of metal and plastic (paragraph 6). Further, Coggins discloses that plastic and metal are both suitable materials for the formation of the base pad assembly (paragraph 162). Further, the base pad assembly of Coggins is a portion of a firearm magazine. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the base pad body (210) from plastic and the core (220) from metal, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Coggins discloses a magazine can be formed from a combination of metal and plastic, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use a matter of obvious design choice.
In reference to claim 22, Coggins makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above.
In reference to claim 23, Coggins makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 7.
In reference to claims 24 and 25, Coggins makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claims 8 and 9.
In reference to claim 28, Coggins makes obvious the claimed invention (slide channels 218 and associated tab slots render the top of the base pad as self-retaining).
In reference to claims 29 and 30, Coggins makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldus (4862619) in view of Vieweg (7093386).
In reference to claim 21, Baldus discloses an apparatus comprising a body, comprising:
a firearm magazine base pad assembly (11+17) comprising a top to receive a bottom of a magazine body, a bottom, and a cavity between the top and bottom (figures 1 and 2);
wherein in the case the apparatus includes the base pad body assembly, the apparatus body comprises a base pad body (11) including:
a core located in the cavity, wherein the core comprises a removable body (17);
the core comprising a core material, wherein at least the top of the base pad body is formed from an additional material optimized to prevent, or reduce, wear on the bottom of the magazine body when the firearm magazine base pad and the bottom of the magazine body are joined or separated (column 5, lines 35-45, resin or plastic material).
Thus, Baldus discloses the claimed invention, except fails to explicitly disclose that the core (17) and base pad body (11) are formed from different materials; the core is rigid. Baldus remains silent as to the material of the core. However, Vieweg teaches it is known to form a core, like that of Baldus, as a rigid metal body to provide strength and durability (column 5, lines 33-35). 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 core of Baldus as a rigid metal core, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide strength and durability.
In reference to claim 26, Baldus in view of Viewegg makes obvious the claimed invention (Baldus: figures 2, 7, and 8, bottom of base pad body 11 is open, but comprises a guard portion extending below the bottom surface of core 17).
Claims 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keng (2012/0198746) in view of Vieweg.
In reference to claim 21, Keng discloses an apparatus comprising a body, comprising:
a firearm magazine base pad assembly (22+100) comprising a top to receive a bottom of a magazine body, a bottom, and a cavity between the top and bottom (figure 3A, cavity 116);
wherein in the case the apparatus includes the base pad body assembly, the apparatus body comprises a base pad body (100) including:
a core located in the cavity, wherein the core comprises a removable body (22);
the core comprising a core material, wherein at least the top of the base pad body is formed from an additional material optimized to prevent, or reduce, wear on the bottom of the magazine body when the firearm magazine base pad and the bottom of the magazine body are joined or separated (paragraph 32).
Thus, Keng discloses the claimed invention, except fails to explicitly disclose that the core (22) and base pad body (100) are formed from different materials; the core is rigid. Keng remains silent as to the material of the core. However, Vieweg teaches it is known to form a core, like that of Keng, as a rigid metal body to provide strength and durability (column 5, lines 33-35). 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 core of Keng as a rigid metal core, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide strength and durability.
In reference to claim 27, Keng in view of Vieweg makes obvious the claimed invention (Keng: paragraph 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights