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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. (US 7,344,320 B2) in view of Kruska et al. (US 10172345 B2).
Claim 1: Barker et al. discloses a device comprising: a frame (20, 30, 40, 61) comprised of an opening (interior of 32) and a leg (41-43); an attachment member (66) comprised of a top surface comprised of a first fastener (exterior threading on 66 above the flange), and a bottom surface comprised of a second fastener (ball 63 on 66 below the flange); a central shaft (all components of 20 and 31) comprised of a third fastener (22); and a locking member (34 or 64); wherein the central shaft is positioned within the opening (as seen in FIGS. 1-3), is adjustable in height (col. 3, lines 5-14), and is lockable at a plurality of heights via a locking clip (34; col. 3, lines 5-14; since the definition of a clip is “any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook”, see Merriam-Webster online dictionary).
Barker at al. lacks a folding camouflage member. Kruska et al. teaches a blind device comprising a frame (10 and hub member seen in FIG. 3 that receives 22) comprised of an opening (in center of hub that receives 22) and a leg (10); and a folding camouflage member (12) attached to the frame via a locking hinge (13, col. 4, lines 41-43 and 47-67 through col. 5, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barker et al. to include a folding camouflage member, as suggested by Kruska et al., so that the device and the user could be mostly hidden from view of animals if the device is being used for hunting or photographing wildlife.
Claim 2: It is noted that while Kruska et al. teaches a material with a plurality of slits/flaps to create a more realistic 3-D effect for the camouflage member (col. 3, lines 14-19), Kruska et al. does not explicitly teach the camouflage member to be comprised of a corrugated material. However, it would have been obvious to make the camouflage member out of corrugated material since it has generally been recognized that selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, using a corrugated material would also provide a 3-D effect for the camouflage member.
Claim 4: Barker et al. discloses the first fastener as being comprised of a thread (as seen in FIG. 6).
Claim(s) 6, 11, 13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. (US 7,344,320 B2) in view of Kruska et al. (US 10172345 B2).
Claim 6: Barker et al. discloses a device comprising: a frame (20, 30, 40) comprised of an opening (upper end of 32 has an opening surrounded by 34), a first leg (41), a second leg (42), and a third leg (43); an attachment member (80) comprised of a top surface comprised of a first fastener (magnet 88), and a bottom surface comprised of a second fastener (interior threading 83); and a central shaft (all components of 20 and 31) comprised of a third fastener (22), wherein the central shaft is positioned within the opening (as seen in FIGS. 1-3), is adjustable in height (col. 3, lines 5-14), and is lockable at a plurality of heights via a locking clip (34; col. 3, lines 5-14; since the definition of a clip is “any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook”, see Merriam-Webster online dictionary); and a firearm support attachment comprised of a further fastener (magnet 18) and a support structure (17), wherein the support structure is a U-shaped support (has the general shape of a “u” as seen in FIG. 3) comprising padding (16, col. 4, lines 4-6).
Barker at al. lacks a camouflage member and a folding camouflage member. Kruska et al. teaches a blind device comprising a frame (10 and hub member seen in FIG. 3 that receives 22) comprised of an opening (in center of hub that receives 22) and a leg (10); a camouflage member (18); and a folding camouflage member (12a) attached to the frame via a locking hinge (13, col. 4, lines 41-43 and 47-67 through col. 5, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barker et al. to include a camouflage member and a folding camouflage member, as suggested by Kruska et al., so that the device and the user could be mostly hidden from view of animals if the device is being used for hunting or photographing wildlife.
Claim 11: Barker et al. discloses the second fastener and the third fastener as being comprised of reciprocating threads (FIG. 3; col. 3, lines 58-60).
Claim 13: Kruska et al. discloses the camouflage member as attaching to the first leg and the second leg, to the first leg and the third leg, or to the second leg and the third leg (via 16).
Claim 15: Barker et al. discloses the first leg, the second leg, and the third leg as being comprised of folding legs (the legs fold outward and inward as evidenced by FIGS. 1 and 2).
Claim 16: Kruska et al. discloses the camouflage member as being comprised of a camouflage pattern (as seen in the figures).
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. (US 7,344,320 B2) in view of Kruska et al. (US 10,172,345 B2) as applied to claim above, and further in view of Jankura et al. (US 10,901,301 B2).
Claims 7 and 8: The combination of Barker et al. and Kruska et al. is discussed above but lacks the legs being telescopic and comprising a locking device. Jankura et al. teaches a device comprising: a frame comprised of an opening, a first leg, a second leg, and a third leg (three legs 160 as seen in the figures), wherein the first leg, the second leg, and the third leg are comprised of telescopic legs (comprised of telescopic sections 162), and wherein the first leg, the second leg, and the third leg are each comprised of a locking member (each legs 160 comprises locking members 172). 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 combination to include telescopic legs with locking members, as taught by Jankura et al., so that the height of the device could be adjusted and/or the device could be used on uneven terrain but adjusting the legs to different lengths to compensate.
Claim 12: The combination of Barker et al. and Kruska et al. is discussed above but lacks the second and third fasteners as comprising a ball and socket joint. Jankura et al. teaches a device comprising: an attachment member (110) comprised of a top surface comprised of a first fastener (180), and a bottom surface comprised of a second fastener (socket formed by elements 114); and a central shaft (150, 152) comprised of a third fastener (156), wherein the second fastener and the third fastener are comprised of a ball and socket joint (ball 156 gits into a socket formed by elements 114). 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 combination to include a ball and socket joint as the second and third fasteners, as taught by Jankura et al., so that the angle of the firearm and the firearm support could be changed easily relative to the remainder of the device so the user can more accurately aim at moving targets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 regarding the 103 rejection over Barker et al. in view of Kruska et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that joint 13 taught by Kruska is “clearly not a locking hinge that attaches the folding member to the frame” as now required by claims 1 and 6 (pages 6 and 7, Remarks). However, the joint 13 of Kruska does in fact attach the holding member 12 to the frame (20/14) as stated in col. 4, lines 41-43 and 47-67 through col. 5, lines 1-3 of Kruska’s specification. Joint 13 is a “locking hinge” since there are two elements that rotate relative to each other along an axis/pin (thus a “hinge”) and each element comprises teeth which mesh with each other to keep a specific angular rotation between the two elements so they don’t move (thus “locking”). As such, the Examiner maintains that Kruska teaches “a folding camouflage member attached to the frame via a locking hinge” as claimed.
Applicant argues that Barker “does not appear to teach or suggest that the central shaft is positioned within the opening of the frame, is adjustable in height, and is lockable at a plurality of heights via a locking clip”, as now required by claims 1 and 6 (pages 6 and 7-8, Remarks). As discussed in the rejection above, when the central shaft is considered to be comprised of all of the elements of 20 and element 31 and the opening is considered to be the top/interior of element 32, then the central shaft is positioned within the opening of the frame, is adjustable in height (as discussed in col. 3, lines 5-14), and is lockable at a plurality of heights via a locking clip (34; since the definition of a clip is “any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook”, see Merriam-Webster online dictionary). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Barker teaches “the central shaft is positioned within the opening of the frame, is adjustable in height, and is lockable at a plurality of heights via a locking clip” as claimed.
Applicant argues the sidewalls of concave member 17 of Barker “do not curve upward to 90 degrees to form a u-shape” and pad 16 is “clearly not part of a u-shaped structure” as now required by claim 6 (page 8, Remarks). Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “U-shaped” as “resembling a broad U in cross profile”. As such, concave member 17 of Barker has a resembles a “broad U”. Additionally, as seen in FIG. 5, padding 16 is located on the upper curved portion of the concave member 17 and clearly part of the structure. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Barker teaches a “the support structure is a U-shaped support comprising a padding” as claimed. However, it is also noted that if Applicant disagrees with this assertion, it would be obvious to have concave member had sidewalls that extend upward to 90 degrees since changes in shape involve only routine skill in the art, and U-shaped run rests are well-known and extremely common in the gun rest art.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection over Li in view of Kruska et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the corresponding claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection over Gearing et al. in view of Kruska et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the corresponding claims has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM EST.
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, David Dunn can be reached at (571)272-6670. 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.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636