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 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 – 5 recite “A U-Clamp as in claim” believed to be “The U-Clamp as in claim”.
Claims 6 – 9 recite “A Card Holder as in claim” believed to be “The Card Holder as in claim”.
Claim 10 recite “A Ballistic Data Display Card as in claim” believed to be “The Ballistic Data Display Card as in claim”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
MPEP 2112.01 states “Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. The critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.").”
The fact that the content of the printed matter (i.e., “a Ballistic Data”) placed on the substrate (“Display Card”). Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. There is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate which is required for patentability. Accordingly, there being no functional relationship of the printed material to the substrate, as noted above, there is no reason to give patentable weight to the content of the printed matter which, by itself, is non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nestegard (US 3,360,876)
Re claim 1:
Nestegard teaches 1. A ballistics display apparatus comprising:
a U-Clamp 1; (Nestegard, figs 1 – 4, fig. 4, 22,26,27)
a Card Holder 2 (Nestegard, figs. 1 – 4, fig. 4, 13, 15); and
a Ballistics Data Display Card 3 ((Nestegard, figs. 1 – 4, fig. 1, 20).
Re claim 4:
4. A U-Clamp as in claim 1, wherein said U-Clamp adheres to a cylindrical portion of a firearm mounted optic by elastic force generated when Internal Diameter 9 is less than external diameter of said cylindrical portion and Guide Slot 8 widthis less than Internal Diameter 9 (Nestegard, fig. 4 has an inner diameter larger than the opening diameter).
Re claim 8:
8. A Card Holder as in claim 1, wherein said Card Holder contains a Restraining Slot 7 providing overlap between said Card Holder and said Ballistics Data Display Card (Nestegard, fig. 14, 15).
Re claim 10:
10. A Ballistics Data Display Card as in claim 1, wherein said Ballistics Data Display Card contains no mechanism for the purpose of attachment to a physical object (Nestegard, fig. 1, 20; display card rests in the slot 15).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestegard (US 3,360,876) in view of Glynn et al. (US 5609317 A).
Re claim 2:
Nestegard does not explicitly disclose said U-Clamp is made of a solid polymer. Glynn teaches a magnetic clamp releasably engageable by magnetism to a metallic surface includes a housing with an interior and opposing resilient walls (Glynn, Abstract). Glynn teaches 2. A U-Clamp as in claim 1, wherein said U-Clamp is made of a solid polymer (Glynn, col. 2, lines 45 – 52, “magnetic clamp 10 is comprised of a housing 12 suitably made of a plastic, such as thermoplastic or thermoset. A plastic housing 12 will permit the housing 12 to somewhat flex or be resilient. Housing 12 includes a top wall 14 with a support means 16 for threaded rod 58”). Therefore, in view of Glynn, 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 u-clamp described in Nestegard, by providing the plastic U-clamp as taught by Glynn, since magnetic clamp is comprised of a housing suitably made of a plastic, such as thermoplastic or thermoset. A plastic housing will permit the housing to somewhat flex or be resilient.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestegard (US 3,360,876) in view of Allison (US 5546691 A).
Re claim 3:
Nestegard does not explicitly disclose 3. A U-Clamp as in claim 1, wherein said U-Clamp attaches to a cylindrical until said cylindrical portion is enclosed by Internal Diameter 9 (Nestegard, figs. 1 – 4; i.e., fig. 3, 26 encloses 23). Nestegard does not explicitly a Clamp attaches to a cylindrical portion of a firearm mounted optic. Allison (US 5546691 A) teaches a cylindrical casing holds a spring mounted tape upon which is printed ballistic information (Allison, Abstract). Allison teaches Clamp attaches to a cylindrical portion of a firearm mounted optic by passing Guide Slot 8 over said cylindrical portion until said cylindrical portion (Allison, col. 2, lines 41 – col. 3, line 3). The substitution of one known element (garment racks as shown in Nestegard) for another (a chart of ballistic information as shown in Allison) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since the substitution of the signs in Allison would have yielded predictable results, namely, providing an easy and inexpensive way for the user of a rifle to calculate the proper aim of the rifle for varying loads and distances (Allison, col. 2, lines 28 – 38)
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestegard (US 3,360,876) in view of Breiwa et al. (US 2016/0259374 A1).
Re claims 5 and 7:
Nestegard does not explicitly disclose U-Clamp contains Magnet or Ferromagnetic Material; not disclose said Card Holder contains Magnet or Ferromagnetic Material. Breiwa teaches a magnetic mounting system (Breiwa, Abstract). Breiwa teaches 5. A U-Clamp as in claim 1, wherein said U-Clamp contains Magnet or Ferromagnetic Material 4 attached to or embedded in said U-Clamp (Breiwa, fig. 7, 127; [0081], “indexing magnetic attachment means 127 is mounted to a flashlight 117”). 7. A Card Holder as in claim 1, wherein said Card Holder contains Magnet or Ferromagnetic Material 4 attached to or embedded in said Card Holder (Breiwa, fig. 9, 107; [0070], “a second device mount section 105 having a mating magnetic attachment means 107 which is likewise attached to the desired host or second device”). Therefore, in view of Breiwa, 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 U-clamp described in Nestegard, by providing the magnetic mounts as taught by Breiwa, since magnetic device mount allows for easy, rapid, and non-specific alignment for attachment and positioning of the device (Breiwa, [0014]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestegard (US 3,360,876) in view of Yu (US 2005/0237701 A1).
Re claim 6:
Nestegard teaches A Card Holder as in claim 1, wherein Card Holder and said U-Clamp (Nestegard, figs. 1 - 4). Nestegard does not explicitly disclose said Card Holder contains a Restraining Slot 6 providing overlap between said Card Holder and a base. Yu teaches a portable electronic device includes a host, a display screen and a universal pivot member (Yu, Abstract). Yu teaches 6. A Card Holder as in claim 1, wherein said Card Holder contains a Restraining Slot 6 providing overlap between said Card Holder and said U-Clamp (Yu, fig. 2, 12b, 12b1, 12b2). Therefore, in view of Yu, 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 U-clamp described in Nestegard, by providing slots as taught by Yu, in order to allow the card holder and u-clamp to be swiveled relative to each other (Yu, [0011], “The universal pivot member comprises a mount provided on the host; a first shaft component pivotally mounted in the mount in a manner to swing back and forth; and a second shaft component pivotally mounted in the first shaft component in a manner to laterally swing”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestegard (US 3,360,876) in view of Masek (US 2021/0020075 A1).
Re claim 9:
Nestegard does not explicitly disclose a retaining screw. Masek teaches a sign holder grips a sign by pressing gripper jaws against opposite sides of the sign at an edge region of the sign (Masek, Abstract). Masek teaches 9. A Card Holder as in claim 1, wherein said Card Holder is penetrated by a Retaining Screw 5 for the purpose of attaching said Ballistics Data Display Card to said Card Holder (Masek, fig. 1, 26; [0020], “The pressing portion 24 is secured to the body 20 by a screw 26. The screw 26 is tightened to press the edge portion 12a of the sign 12 against the high friction strip 22. A Phillips head screw 26 is shown, although any type of screw may be provided. The sign 12 is gripped tightly to reduce the chance that the sign 12 may become dislodged when bumped”). Therefore, in view of Masek, 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 U-clamp described in Nestegard, by providing retaining screw as taught by Masek, since the screw is tightened to press the edge portion of the sign against the high friction strip. The sign is gripped tightly to reduce the chance that the sign may become dislodged when bumped (Masek, [0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/JACK YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715