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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 is listed with an incorrect status identifier. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winters, U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0333892, in view of Fabek et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,678,730. As to Claim 1, Winters teaches a launching apparatus (dart pistol) comprising a launch body (20) comprising a slot (21) adapted to engage with a projectile, paragraphs 0018 and 0032. An energy storage device (23) may be disposed below the slot, paragraph 0019 and see Figure 6. Winters teaches a latch (26, 27, 25), paragraph 0020. Winters is silent as to an arm support. Fabek teaches a launching apparatus (device for discharging a medium), Col. 3, ln. 53-54. The apparatus may include a launch body (38) and an arm support secured to the underside of the launch body by one or more straps wherein the one or more straps are adapted to secure the launch body to the arm of a user, Col. 4,ln. 41-44 and see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Winters with an arm support secured to the underside of the launch body by one or more straps adapted to secure the launch body to the arm of a user, as taught by Fabek, to provide Winters with a known alternative configuration for supporting a lauancher.
PNG
media_image1.png
695
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 2, 9, and 15, Winters teaches that the energy storage device may be a spring, paragraph 0019. As to Claims 5, 11, and 18, Winters teaches that the launch body may have an upper half (portion above the latch) and a lower half (portion including the latch, see Figure 6. As to Claims 6 12, and 19, Winters teaches that the slot may be disposed within the upper half of the launch body, see Figure 1. As to Claims 7, 13, and 20, Fabek teaches that the straps may comprise hook and loop (hook and pile) fasteners, Col. 4, ln. 8-39. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Winters, as modified, with hook and loop fasteners to secure the launch body to the arm of a user, as taught by Fabek, to provide Winters, as modified, with a known substitute strap fastener. As to Claim 8, Winters, as modified by Fabek, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, Fabek teaches that the arm support may be sized larger than the launch body, see Figure 2, and drawing above, noting that the arm support extends beyond the end of the launch body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Winters, as modified, with an arm support sized as claimed and as taught by Fabek, to provide Winters, as modified, with a larger arm support to yield the predictable result of placing the arm support between the arm of a user and the entire launcher body. The examiner finds that the launching apparatus of prior art possesses the structural features of the claimed apparatus and is capable of performing in the same matter, namely by securing the launch body and the arm support to the arm of a user such that the arm support is positioned against the arm and the launch body is positioned on top of the arm support. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112. As to Claim 14, Winters, as modified, is applied as in Claim 1, with regard to the launching apparatus, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Winters teaches a system for launching a projectile further including a projectile body (52) paragraph 0030. A launch rail (57) may be mounted on the projectile body and adapted to slidably engage with the slot of the launch body, paragraph 0032. As to Claim 17, Fabek is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winters, in view of Fabek, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemelson, U.S. Patent No. 4,064,647. Winters, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. Winters, as modified, is silent as to an elastic band serving as the energy storage device. As to Claims 3, 10, and 16, Lemelson teaches that the energy storage device, for a launching apparatus, may be an elastic band, Col. 1, ln. 66 – Col 2, ln. 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Winters, as modified, with an elastic band serving as the energy storage device as taught by Lemelson, to provide Winters, as modified, with a known alternative energy storage device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 July 2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 11 August 2025
Prosecution Insights