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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
The examiner fully agrees Cain in view of Cao is not obvious and thus has removed the corresponding rejection. The claims have now been rejected under new art.
In regards to the arguments of claim 11 the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner holds that the combination teaches the subject matter. Sanchez being “self-contained” does not hinder its ability to read on these claims.
In regards to the arguments against claims 1-3 and 17, the claims do not require direct threaded connection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 “the back of the housing” should read “a back of the housing.
In claims 2-10 “The system of” should read “The secure fire arm storage system”.
In claim 14 “sectopm” should read “section”.
In claims 13-19 “The system of” should read “The firearm stabilization system of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Some of the previous 112 rejections however some remain and others have become apparent.
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 5-10 and 12-19 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.
In regards to claims 5 and 12 “the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture” is unclear this is because it appears the connector of the top cap passes through the aperture (note at least fig 3D and 2C) thus it’s unclear what constitutes as “without passing through the aperture” in light of the drawings (see drawing objection above). For the purpose of examination as long as the top cap cannot be pulled fully through the aperture the limitation is assumed to be met.
In regards to claim 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16-19, the term “guide rod” is used however it’s unclear if the term is reefing to the guide rod systems or guide rod sections. For the purpose of examination, the latter is assumed.
In regards to claim 17, the claim repeats features previously introduced in claim 14, making it unclear if the claim is referring to the same features or introducing new features. For the purposes of examination claim 17 is assumed to depend on claim 13.
Claims 8-9 and 15 are rejected due to their dependencies on the rejected claims above.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. KR 20170035454 A (hereinafter Lee).
In regards to claim 1, Lee teaches a secure firearm storage system (Lee is capable of storing a fire arm), comprising: a housing (101) with a top, bottom, front and sides defining an interior enclosure (see fig 1); a drawer (201) operable to be disposed within the interior enclosure (see fig 1), the drawer comprising a front surface (210), a bottom surface, and a rear surface (see fig 2); at least one guide (250) configured to facilitate pulling the drawer open and pushing the drawer closed (para 19); a lock (see fig 3) operable to disengage at least one lug (340) disposed in the front surface from at least one aperture (154) disposed in the front of the housing (see figs 1, 2 and 5); wherein pulling the drawer open and pushing the drawer closed comprises moving the entire front surface of the drawer a uniform linear distance relative to the front of the housing and the back of the housing (see fig 1).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hauser US 3467461 A (hereinafter Hauser).
In regards to claim 1, Hauser teaches a secure firearm storage system (fire arms may be placed inside), comprising: a housing (10) with a top, bottom, front and sides defining an interior enclosure (see fig 1); a drawer (12) operable to be disposed within the interior enclosure (see fig 1), the drawer comprising a front surface (surface of 15 seen in fig 1), a bottom surface (14b), and a rear surface (surface of 15 facing 10 in fig 1); at least one guide (19 and 20) configured to facilitate pulling the drawer open and pushing the drawer closed (Col 3 lines 5-18); a lock (see fig 3) operable to disengage at least one lug (25) disposed in the front surface from at least one aperture (of 32) disposed in the front of the housing; wherein pulling the drawer open and pushing the drawer closed comprises moving the entire front surface of the drawer a uniform linear distance relative to the front of the housing and the back of the housing (see fig 1).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinsella US 7963406 B2 (hereinafter Kinsella) in view of Hauser.
In regards to claim 1, Kinsella teaches a secure firearm storage system, comprising: a housing (60) with a top, bottom, front and sides defining an interior enclosure (see fig 3).
However Kinsella does not teach a drawer operable to be disposed within the interior enclosure, the drawer comprising a front surface, a bottom surface, and a rear surface;at least one guide configured to facilitate pulling the drawer open and pushing the drawer closed;a lock operable to disengage at least one lug disposed in the front surface from at least one aperture disposed in the front of the housing; wherein pulling the drawer open and pushing the drawer closed comprises moving the entire front surface of the drawer a uniform linear distance relative to the front of the housing and the back of the housing.
Hauser teaches a similar device with a housing (10) with a top, bottom, front and sides defining an interior enclosure (see fig 1); a drawer (12) operable to be disposed within the interior enclosure (see fig 1), the drawer comprising a front surface (surface of 15 seen in fig 1), a bottom surface (14b), and a rear surface (surface of 15 facing 10 in fig 1); at least one guide (19 and 20) configured to facilitate pulling the drawer open and pushing the drawer closed (Col 3 lines 5-18); a lock (see fig 3) operable to disengage at least one lug (25) disposed in the front surface from at least one aperture (of 32) disposed in the front of the housing; wherein pulling the drawer open and pushing the drawer closed comprises moving the entire front surface of the drawer a uniform linear distance relative to the front of the housing and the back of the housing (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Kinsella provided in a drawer and housing such as in Hauser in order to provide the firearms with a controlled environment while limiting their exposure to vibration or shock (Hauser abstract).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Lee applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao CN 104763280 A (herein after Cao).
In regards to claim 2, Lee teaches the system of claim 1.
However, Lee does not teach further comprising a fire-retardant material disposed between at least one of the top, bottom, front, and sides and the interior disclosure.
Cao teaches further comprising a fire-retardant material disposed between at least one of the top, bottom, front, and sides and the interior disclosure (see fig 6 and read paras 63-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Lee further comprising a fire-retardant material disposed between at least one of the top, bottom, front, and sides and the interior disclosure in order to fireproof the safe and protect its contents (Cao: para 5).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Lee in view of Cao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mosler et al. US 1117421 A (hereinafter Mosler).
In regards to claim 3, Lee in view of Cao teaches the system of claim 1, further system of claim 2, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a combination lock (230; see paras 24-25) and an engagement actuator (Lee: 360, para 35) in communication with the at least one lug (Lee paras 35-36), wherein entering the correct combination into the combination lock permits turning a handle (Lee: 220) to disengage the at least one lug from the at least one aperture in the front of the housing (paras 23, 31 and fig 3).
However, Lee does not teach the handle is an engagement wheel.
Mosler teaches a similar device with an engagement wheel (19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have replaced Lee’s lever handle with a wheel such as in Mosler in order to allow more gripping orientations and more area to grip.
In regards to claim 4, Lee in view of Cao and Mosler teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one guide is a telescoping bearing guide (paras 19 and 20) operable to guide the drawer into an open position when a force is applied to the drawer in a direction away from the front of the housing in the direction defined by the telescoping bearing guide (paras 19 and 20 and see figs 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 5-6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Hauser applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sanchez US 20180289153 A1 (hereinafter Sanchez).
In regards to claim 5, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Hauser teaches the system of claim 1.
However Hauser does not teach wherein the drawer further comprises a: a top rack disposed opposite the bottom surface of the drawer, wherein the top rack includes at least one aperture therethrough; and at least one guide rod system, the guide rod system further comprising at least one guide rod section and a top cap, wherein the at least one guide rod section has a diameter narrower than the at least one aperture, and is configured to be inserted through one of the at least one aperture, and the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture.
Sanchez teaches a top rack (18) disposed opposite a bottom surface (32), wherein the top rack includes at least one aperture (30) therethrough; and at least one guide rod system (see fig 3), the guide rod system further comprising at least one guide rod section (see fig 6; 9, 25, and/or 13) and a top cap (see reference image 1), wherein the at least one guide rod section has a diameter (diameter of 9 or 13 or 25) narrower than the at least one aperture (at least wide portion of 30, see fig 3), and is configured to be inserted through one of the at least one aperture (see fig 3), and the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture (see reference image 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
260
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Hauser’s drawer with a top rack system such as in Sanchez, in order to secure guns from theft while providing convenient access (para 3).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections Hauser in view of Sanchez teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one guide rod is configured to secure a long gun (Sanchez 17) that includes a barrel with a muzzle and a bore within the barrel, wherein the barrel and the bore are in a substantially vertical orientation relative to the linear travel of the drawer (Sanchez, see fig 1), and wherein the long gun is secured when the at least one guide rod is disposed within the bore of the muzzle (Sanchez: 13, para 19), and the top cap is resting on the top surface of the top rack (see reference image 1).
In regards to claim 10, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Hauser in view of Sanchez teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising a barrel stabilizer (Sanchez 8), that includes a top surface (top surface wrt fig 6) with an aperture therethrough (aperture for 25), an outer side surface (outside of 9), and an inner side surface (inside of 8), and a bottom cap (13), wherein the at least one guide rod (at least 25) is configured to be inserted through the aperture in the top surface of the barrel stabilizer (see fig 6), and wherein the bottom cap is configured to be removably connected to the at least one guide rod section (via 25, see fig 5), and wherein the barrel stabilizer is configured to maintain the barrel of the long gun in a substantially vertical configuration when the inside surface of the barrel stabilizer is placed over the muzzle of the barrel of the long gun (see fig 1).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinsella in view of Hauser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lazarus US 4290531 A (hereinafter Lazarus).
In regards to claim 5, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Kinsella in view of Hauser teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the drawer further comprises a: a top rack (Kinsella: in the case of multiple holes in the overhanging surface; see Col 3 lines 32-45) disposed opposite the bottom surface of the drawer (Kinsella: see fig 3); and at least one guide rod system (Kinsella: 10), the guide rod system further comprising at least one guide rod section (Kinsella: note fig 1).
However Kinsella is silent on how the guide rods are attached to the overhanging surface as described in Col 3 lines 32-45 and thus does not teach wherein the top rack includes at least one aperture therethrough a top cap, wherein the at least one guide rod section has a diameter narrower than the at least one aperture, and is configured to be inserted through one of the at least one aperture, and the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture.
Lazarus describes mounting guide rods to an overhanging surface wherein the top rack (1) includes at least one aperture therethrough(hole for 8) a top cap (15), wherein the at least one guide rod section (8) has a diameter narrower than the at least one aperture, and is configured to be inserted through one of the at least one aperture (see fig 2), and the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Kinsella with the top rack including at least one aperture therethrough a top cap, the at least one guide rod section has a diameter narrower than the at least one aperture, and is configured to be inserted through one of the at least one aperture, and the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture, such as in Lazarus, in order to allow for simple but strong fastening of the guide rods.
In regards to claim 6, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections Kinsella in view of Hauser and Lazarus teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one guide rod is configured to secure a long gun (Kinsella: 50) that includes a barrel with a muzzle and a bore within the barrel, wherein the barrel and the bore are in a substantially vertical orientation relative to the linear travel of the drawer (Kinsella: see fig 3), and wherein the long gun is secured when the at least one guide rod is disposed within the bore of the muzzle, and the top cap is resting on the top surface of the top rack (see Lazarus fig 2).
In regards to claim 8, Kinsella in view of Hauser and Lazarus teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one guide rod section is removably connected to the top cap (Lazarus see fig 2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cain in view of Cao and Sanchez as applied to claims 5-6, and 10 above, and further in view of NPL Limits & Fits.
In regards to claim 7, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Hauser in view of Sanchez teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising: a barrel stabilizer (Sanchez: 8) that includes a top surface (Sanchez: top of 8 wrt fig 6) with an aperture therethrough (Sanchez: aperture for 25), an outer side surface (Sanchez: outside of 8), and an inner side surface (Sanchez: inside surface of 8), wherein the inner side surface of the barrel stabilizer is configured to enshroud at least a portion of the outside of the barrel of the long gun (Sanchez: see figs 1 and 2), and the at least one guide rod section maintains the barrel stabilizer in a stable relationship with the barrel of the long gun when the at least one guide rod is inserted through the aperture in the barrel stabilizer into the bore of the barrel (Sanchez see fig 1).
However, Hauser does not teach the aperture in the top surface has a diameter greater than the diameter of the at least one guide rod section. This is because Sanchez is silent on the relationship between the guide rod 25 and aperture of 8.
NPL Limits & Fits teaches clearance fits (the shaft is smaller than the hole) in order to allow for easy assembly (page 5 under the subtitle “clearance fits”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used a clearance fit between a top aperture and a guide rod (25), in Cain, in order to allow easy assembly (NPL Limits & Fits page 5 under the subtitle “clearance fits”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinsella in view of Hauser and Lazarus as applied to claim 5, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of KR 200384286 Y1 (hereinafter KR ‘286).
In regards to claim 9, Kinsella in view of Hauser and Lazarus teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one guide rod section comprises at least two guide sections (larger diameter section and smaller diameter section see fig 1;) and wherein at least one of the at least two guide rod sections is removably connectible to the top cap (see Lazarus fig 2).
However, Lazarus does not teach the at least two guide rod sections removably connected to each other KR ‘286 teaches two sections of a rod removably connected to each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have Kinsella’s guide rod’s removably connected to each other in order to improve modularity, allow for more compact shipping, and smaller repairs.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk US 0554252 A (hereinafter Falk) in view of Sanchez.
In regards to claim 11, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Falk teaches a firearm storage system, comprising: a top rack (at least C) configured to be disposed within a firearm safe (Falk is capable of being placed in a safe), and including a top surface (surface c4 rests on see fig 4), a plurality of apertures (at least apertures for screw and c), and a bottom surface (a bottom surface of C, see fig 4); at least one guide rod section including a guide rod connector and a diameter smaller than the diameter of the plurality of apertures (see fig 4); a top cap (c4) comprising a flange (see fig 4), a top cap connector (portion of c4 connected to the rod, see fig 4) to connect the at least one guide rod section (rod of c see fig 4); and wherein the flange of the top cap has a diameter greater than the diameter of the plurality of apertures (see fig 4), the diameter of the at least one guide rod section is smaller than a diameter of a bore of a barrel of a firearm (page 1 lines 70-75), and wherein the guide rod secures the firearm in a substantial vertical orientation (page 1 lines 70-75, note c4 is resting on surface when the device is locked, and the device is locked to prevent access to the firearms) when the top cap rests against the top surface of the top rack, the at least one guide rod is removably connected to the top cap (see fig 4), and the at least one guide rod is disposed through one of the plurality of apertures into the bore of the barrel of the firearm (page 1 lines 70-75).
However, Falk does not teach a connector operable to removably connect the at least one guide rod section and the at least one guide rod is removably connected to the top cap (examiner emphasis added).
Sanchez teaches a similar device with a cap (13) with a threaded connected to a guide rod (25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided a threaded connection between the connector and the top cap in order to allow for a simple well know means of connection, while allowing easy assembly and disassembly of the device. The examiner would additionally like to note that making separable (i.e. removable) has been found a case for obviousness (See MPEP 2144 V C).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinsella in view of Lazarus.
In regards to claim 12, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Kinsella teaches a firearm stabilization system, comprising: a guide rod system (see fig 1), the guide rod system further comprising at least one guide rod section and a top cap (see fig 1); wherein the at least one guide rod section is attached opposite an interior bottom surface of a firearm safe (see fig 3 and note Col 1 lines 16-26),
However, Kinsella is silent on how the guide rods are attached to the overhanging surface as described in Col 3 lines 32-45 and thus does not teach wherein the at least one guide rod section is operable to be inserted through an aperture of a top rack the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture.
Lazarus teaches wherein the at least one guide rod section is operable to be inserted through an aperture (smaller hole 8 goes through) of a top rack (1) a top cap (15) is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture (see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Kinsella with the at least one guide rod section is operable to be inserted through an aperture of a top rack the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture, in order to provide for a simple cheap and strong connection for Kinsella’s guide rods.
In regards to claim 13, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Kinsella in view of Lazarus teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the at least one guide rod section is configured to secure a long gun that includes a barrel with a muzzle and a bore within the barrel, wherein the barrel and the bore are in a substantially normal relationship with the top rack, and wherein the long gun is secured when the at least one guide rod is disposed within the bore of the muzzle (Kinsella see fig 3), and the top cap is resting on the top surface of the top rack (Lazarus see fig 2).
Claim(s) 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Cao.
In regards to claim 12, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Sanchez teaches a firearm stabilization system (see fig 1), comprising: a guide rod system (see fig 3), the guide rod system further comprising at least one guide rod section (see fig 6; 9, 25, and/or 13) and a top cap (see reference image 1); wherein the at least one guide rod section is operable to be inserted through an aperture (30) of a top rack (at least 18) and the top cap is configured to rest on a top surface of the top rack without passing through the aperture (see reference image 1).
However, Sanchez does not teach the top rack is disposed opposite an interior bottom surface of a firearm safe.
Cao teaches a safe with an interior bottom (see fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have placed Sanchez in a safe, such as in Cao, in order to protect Sanchez’s device and the long gun from fire damage (Cao para 64).
In regards to claim 13, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections Sanchez in view of Cao teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the at least one guide rod section is configured to secure a long gun (Sanchez 17) that includes a barrel with a muzzle and a bore within the barrel, wherein the barrel and the bore are in a substantially normal relationship with the top rack (Sanchez see fig 1), and wherein the long gun is secured when the at least one guide rod is disposed within the bore of the muzzle (Sanchez 13,para 19), and the top cap is resting on the top surface of the top rack (see reference image 1).
In regards to claim 17, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Sanchez in view of Cao teaches the system of claim 14 (assuming should depend on claim 13), further comprising a barrel stabilizer (Sanchez 8), that includes a top surface (top of 8 wrt fig 6) with an aperture therethrough (Sanchez aperture for 25), an outer side surface (outside of 8), and an inner side surface (Sanchez inside of 8), and a bottom cap (Sanchez 13), wherein the at least one guide rod (Sanchez 25) is configured to be inserted through the aperture in the top surface of the barrel stabilizer (Sanchez see fig 6), and wherein the bottom cap is configured to be removably connected to the at least one guide rod (Sanchez via 25’s threading), and wherein the barrel stabilizer is configured to maintain the barrel of the long gun in a substantially vertical configuration when the inside surface of the barrel stabilizer is placed over the muzzle of the barrel of the long gun (Sanchez see fig 1).
Claim(s) 14-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Cao as applied to claim 12-13 and 17 above, and further in view of NPL Limits & Fits.
In regards to claim 14, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Sanchez in view of Cao teaches the system of claim 13, further comprising: a barrel stabilizer (Sanchez: 8) that includes a top surface (Sanchez: top of 8 wrt fig 6) with an aperture therethrough (Sanchez: aperture for 25), an outer side surface (Sanchez: outside of 8), and an inner side surface (Sanchez: inside surface of 8), wherein the inner side surface of the barrel stabilizer is configured to enshroud at least a portion of the outside of the barrel of the long gun (Sanchez: see figs 1 and 2), and the guide rod maintains the barrel stabilizer in a stable relationship with the barrel of the long gun when the at least one guide rod sectopm is inserted through the aperture in the barrel stabilizer into the bore of the barrel (Sanchez: see fig 1).
However, Sanchez does not teach the aperture in the top surface has a diameter greater than the diameter of the at least one guide rod section. This is because it unclear the relationship between the guide rod 25 and aperture of 8.
NPL Limits & Fits teaches clearance fits (the shaft is smaller than the hole) in order to allow for easy assembly (page 5 under the subtitle “clearance fits”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have used a clearance fit between the top aperture and the guide rod (25) in order for allowing the easy assembly (NPL Limits & Fits page 5 under the subtitle “clearance fits”).
In regards to claim 15, Sanchez in view of Cao and NPL Limits & Fits teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the at least one guide rod section (Sanchez: 13) is removably connected to the top cap (Sanchez: via 25 see fig 6)
In regards to claim 16, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Sanchez in view of Cao and NPL Limits & Fits teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the at least one guide rod comprises at least two guide sections (Sanchez: at least 13 and 9) removably connected to each other (Sanchez: via 25), and wherein at least one of the at least two guide rod sections (Sanchez: 13) is removably connectible to the top cap (Sanchez: via 25).
In regards to claim 18, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Sanchez in view of Cao and NPL Limits & Fits teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the at least one guide rod (Sanchez: 25) is removably connected to the top cap via a connection consisting of one of a friction connection, a threaded connection (via 25, see fig 6), a push-and- turn connection, or a detent connection.
In regards to claim 19, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Sanchez in view of Cao and NPL Limits & Fits teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the at least one guide rod (Sanchez: 25) is removably connected to another a guide rod section (Sanchez: 13) via a connection consisting of one of a friction connection, a threaded connection (Sanchez: via 25 see fig 6), a push-and-turn connection, or a detent connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150259956 A1 – teaches a similar device.
EP 1245765 A1 – teaches a similar device.
US 1281923 A – teaches a similar device.
US 20090267470 A1 – teaches a similar cabinet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675