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 response dated 9/9/2025 is acknowledged and appreciated. New claim 19 is acknowledged and has been considered. The arguments are primarily directed to the motivation to combine the Rodgers and Keng references. Applicant indicates that the references teach away from each other and those of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the two and further that the combination would change the principle of operation for both the Keng and Rodgers inventions. In response, Examiner asserts that each of the references appear to teach different mechanical methods for easily providing multiple different interchangeable legs/feet for a multi-leg stand (i.e. bipod/tripod). The primary reference (Keng) describes interchangeable legs with differing end effecters that can be swapped while Rodgers teaches a rotating foot that includes selectable supporting members. Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to other known methods for implementing the multiple selectable end effecters of Keng including the option presented in Rodgers, since Rodgers reduces separate components.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0126250) in view of Rogers et al. (U.S. Patent 4,640,482).
In regards to claim 1, Keng et al (henceforth referred to as Keng) disclose a variably selectable surface interface for a small arms bipod leg. Keng teaches a bipod system with variably selectable contact portions (see figure 2) comprising:
an anchor for connecting to a small arms bipod leg a body mated to the modular anchor. The device of Keng teaches a connection mechanism to attach the leg portions to the bipod legs (see figures);
Keng teaches a distal support member, but not that it is pivotably connected to the body, or that the distal support member comprising an articulating surface interface. However, Rogers et al (henceforth referred to as Rogers) teaches a tripod with pivoting and/or articulating support members and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a pivotably connected and articulating support member in/on the Keng bipod as taught by Rogers, to allow for consolidation of different support configurations;
As modified, the Keng and Rogers support includes a control mechanism for selectively fixing the articulating surface interface with respect to the body. Note that the Rogers support member (item 96) includes a control for rotation to fix each of three different support types (see figures 1 and 8);
As modified, the Rogers control mechanism comprising a first disperse load bearing configuration such that the variably selectable surface interface is arranged with respect to the body to form a disperse load bearing support, and a first point force load bearing configuration such that the variably selectable surface interface is arranged with the body to form a point force load bearing support. Note that the Rogers device includes a “foot” support (item 96c) and a spike (item 96a).
In regards to claim 2, Keng as modified by Rogers discloses that the control mechanism comprises a tubular drive cylinder and a coil spring. Figure 8 of Rogers illustrates a tubular cylinder and a coil spring (item 104).
In regards to claim 3, Keng as modified by Rogers discloses that the tubular drive cylinder and the coil spring are housed in the body (see figure 8 of Rogers).
In regards to claim 4, Keng as modified by Rogers disclose that the tubular drive cylinder and the coil spring bias the articulating surface interface with respect to the body. The spring in the Rogers design biases the articulating portion so that the selected support portion is fixed.
In regards to claim 5, Keng as modified by Rogers disclose that the control mechanism further comprises a locking bar for blocking relative movement between the body and the articulating surface interface. As shown in figure 8, the collar constitutes a “locking bar” that blocks relative rotational movement between the body and the support members.
In regards to claim 6, Keng as modified by Rogers disclose that the articulating surface interface comprises a first receptacle, and in the first disperse load bearing configuration the first receptacle and the locking bar interlock to fix the articulating surface interface with respect to the base to form the disperse load bearing support. The tubular member of the Rogers support device functions as a receptacle and
In regards to claim 7, Keng as modified by Rogers discloses that the articulating surface interface further comprises a second receptacle, and in the first point force load bearing configuration the locking bar and the second receptacle interlock to fix the articulating surface interface with respect to the base to form the point force load bearing support. The pivoting device as modified includes a receptacle to lock the different supports in position.
In regards to claim 8, Keng discloses that the anchor comprises a base, a stem and latch. The Keng bipod includes an extension portion that attaches to the bipod leg and includes a base (see figures 12a, 12b and 12c), a protruding stem (item 204) and a biased latch (item 210).
In regards to claim 9, Keng discloses that the anchor is configured and adapted to be selectively received in a small arms bipod leg. Keng teaches using in a small arms bipod.
In regards to claim 10, Keng discloses that the disperse load bearing support is claw-shaped. Keng teaches at least one possible support mechanism in a claw like shape (item 229 of Keng).
In regards to claim 11, Keng as modified by Rogers discloses that the point force load bearing support is spike-shaped (see item 96a).
In regards to claim 12, Keng discloses a method of reconfiguring a bipod for a small arms weapon comprising: providing a bipod for a small arms weapon comprising a first leg assembly which comprises a rubberized foot. Keng teaches providing multiple leg assemblies with at least one being a rubberized foot (par. 84); providing a variably selectable surface interface of claim 1; and replacing the rubberized foot in the first leg assembly with the variably selectable surface interface. Keng teaches variable surfaces for the bipod legs (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0126250) in view of Rogers et al. (U.S. Patent 4,640,482) and further in view of Favory et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0063107).
In regards to claim 13, Keng discloses a bipod for a small arms weapon comprising:
a head portion for connecting to a small arms weapon. Keng teaches a bipod with a portion that connects to a small arm weapon constituting a head (see item 205 of figure 2);
a first leg assembly connected to the head portion, the first leg assembly comprising a first elongated member having a first longitudinal axis. In figure 2, Keng illustrates two legs attached to the “head” portion and including an elongate member with a longitudinal axis, and a first variably selectable surface interface connected to the first elongated member (item 215),
the first variably selectable surface interface comprising a first body secured to the first elongated member. At the bottom or opposite end of the elongate member, the Keng device includes an interface that allows variable attachment;
Keng does not explicitly disclose a first distal support member pivotably connected to the first body to form a first pivot axis about which the first distal support member is free to oscillate, the first pivot axis being transverse to the first longitudinal axis. However, Rogers teaches a tripod with pivoting and/or articulating support members and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a pivotably connected and articulating support member in/on the Keng bipod as taught by Rogers, to allow for consolidation of different support configurations. Additionally, Favory et al (henceforth referred to as Favory) teaches a bipod with supports that pivot or oscillate about an axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis of the first elongated member (par. 62). Note that swivel ball and socket configuration. It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a pivoting support member (at the foot) in/on the device of Keng as taught by Favory, to allow the bipod to stabilize on different surface slopes;
Keng as modified by Rogers discloses the first distal support member comprising a first articulating surface interface and a first control mechanism for selectively fixing the first articulating surface interface with respect to the first body. As modified, the device includes a controlling means for selecting,
the first control mechanism comprising a first disperse load bearing configuration such that the first variably selectable surface interface is arranged with respect to the first body to form a first disperse load-bearing support and a first point force load bearing support configuration such that the first variably selectable surface interface is arranged with the first body to form a first point force load bearing support. Note that the Rogers device includes a “foot” support (item 96c) and a spike (item 96a);
Keng in view of Rogers teaches a second leg assembly connected to the head portion, the second leg assembly comprising a second elongated member, and a second variably selectable surface interface connected to the second elongated member, the second variably selectable surface interface comprising a second body connected to the second elongated member; and a second distal support member pivotably connected to the second body, the second distal support member comprising a second articulating surface interface and a second control mechanism for selectively fixing the second articulating surface interface with respect to the second body, the second control mechanism comprising a second disperse load bearing configuration such that the second variably selectable surface interface is arranged with respect to the second body to form a second disperse load- bearing support, and a second point force load bearing support configuration such that the second variably selectable surface interface is arranged with the second body to form a second point force load bearing support. Note that Keng teaches a bipod with two legs.
In regards to claim 14, Keng as modified discloses that the head portion comprises a clamp. The attachment of the head portion of the Keng device includes a rail attachment as illustrated (see figures 3, 4, 5 and 6).
In regards to claim 15, Keng discloses that the clamp is configured and dimensioned to be secured to an accessory rail (par. 60).
In regards to claim 16, Keng discloses that the accessory rail is a Picatinny rail (par. 12).
In regards to claim 17, Keng discloses a method of supporting a firearm with a surface comprising:
providing a bipod of claim 13;
securing the head portion to a firearm. Keng teaches securing a bipod to a firearm (see figures);
deploying the first leg assembly to support the firearm on a surface. Keng teaches deploying each of two legs (see figure 1);
As modified with the Rogers teaching, the process includes changing the first variably selectable surface interface from the first disperse load bearing configuration to the first point force load bearing support configuration. Note that the disperse load foot is changed to the point load; and
implanting the first variably selectable surface interface into the surface to support the firearm. As modified, the point load of the teaching is placed in a loose surface.
In regards to claim 18, Keng as modified discloses replacing the first variably selectable surface interface with another distal support which comprises a rubberized foot. The teaching includes changing to a rubber foot (item 208).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 19, a distal opening spaced from the proximal receptacle and a starboard axial bore adjacent to the proximal receptacle.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are rejected and claim 19 is objected to.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641