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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species III, FIGS. 11-18 with adjustment knob and textured surface without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 6 and 8 merely recite that the leg comprises a textured surface, but every solid object surface inherently has some type of texture and so the limitations of this claim are inherently met by any structure that meets the limitations of the claims from which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #6,443,346 to Haass (Haass). Haass discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
A firearm holder, comprising: a leg (leg portion 20 or 21, see FIG. 4) configured to be interposed between two seats or a seat and a console within a vehicle (clearly capable of this use, noting it extends around the sides of the console and so will be interposed between a seat and the console when appropriately situated, see e.g. FIG. 1); a swivel bracket (either upper leg portion 50 or 51, see FIG. 4 for swivel/hinge) coupled to the leg (FIG. 4), the swivel bracket configured to swivel in relation to the leg (it swivels about the hinge 45); a support member (trough 17, alone or in combination with turnbuckle 30 and/or crossbar 16) coupled to the swivel bracket (coupled via the remainder of the crossbar 16, via the turnbuckle 30, or via integral formation), the support member configured to receive a stock of a firearm (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. abstract).
With Respect to Claim 2
The firearm holder of claim 1, wherein the support member (17) comprises a base (noting bottom of 17) couplable to the swivel bracket, a first arm (left side of 16 or alternately 32 or 34), and a second arm (right side of 16 or alternately 33 or 35) (for clarity, the term couplable is broad enough to encompasses one or more of the listed parts being attached via attachment to other listed parts).
With Respect to Claim 5
The firearm holder of claim 1, wherein the swivel bracket comprises a locking mechanism (they are disclosed as locking hinges and therefore inherently include a locking mechanism) configured to secure the swivel bracket and support member coupled thereto in a position desired by a user.
With Respect to Claim 6
The firearm holder of claim 1, wherein the leg further comprises a textured surface (it is Examiner’s position that the surface must, per se, have some type of texture as all solid objects do, i.e. even if the surface is smooth, smooth is a texture).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haass in view of official notice.
With Respect to Claim 6
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 6 above under 35 USC 102 using Haass, Examiner takes official notice that the use of decorative texture on surfaces to enhance aesthetic appeal is known in the art, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to add a decorative texture to the Haass legs (e.g. to the padding) in order to enhance aesthetic appeal.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2009/0026679 to Harman (Harman).
With Respect to Claim 1
Harman discloses a firearm holder, comprising: a leg (fixed hub 148, alone or in combination with mounting component 608) configured to be interposed between two seats or a seat and a console within a vehicle (the FIG. 6 embodiment is capable of being interposed in this location e.g. via screws through the openings 684); a swivel bracket (128 alone or in combination with related structures) coupled to the leg, the swivel bracket configured to swivel in relation to the leg; a support member (110, alone or in combination with related structures) coupled to the swivel bracket (either via intervening attachment structures such as flanges 130 or either part can be taken to also include the intervening structures), the support member configured to receive a portion of a firearm, but does not specify a particular size for the support or what portion of the firearm it receives and so does not disclose that it is configured to receive a stock of a firearm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to size the support portion so as to be adjustable in a range that is capable of receiving a stock of a firearm, as a mere selection of an art appropriate size for the parts and/or appropriate firearm part to clamp, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With Respect to Claim 2
The firearm holder of claim 1, wherein the support member comprises a base (116) couplable to the swivel bracket, a first arm (120), and a second arm (noting 112).
With Respect to Claim 3
The firearm holder of claim 2, wherein the distance between the first and second arms is adjustable via an adjustment knob (117, see e.g. FIG. 2).
With Respect to Claim 4
The firearm holder of claim 1, wherein the swivel bracket (taken to be 110 in combination with 130) comprises a first portion (130) configured to abut the leg (noting the tightening device/knob 132 which secures the flanges in position, it is Examiner’s position that this indicates that the flanges are tightened into an abutting position to secure them in place or alternately to the degree some other interpretation might be possible clearly renders such obvious) and a second portion (116) extending substantially perpendicular to the first portion.
With Respect to Claim 5
The firearm holder of claim 1, wherein the swivel bracket comprises a locking mechanism (152/154) configured to secure the swivel bracket and support member coupled thereto in a position desired by a user (it secures both in a desired rotational position relative to the support).
With Respect to Claim 6
The firearm holder of claim 1, wherein the leg further comprises a textured surface (as shown, it apparently has a smooth surface, alternately every surface has some kind of texture and so this limitation is inherently met).
Alternately, Examiner takes official notice that the use of decorative texture on surfaces to enhance aesthetic appeal is known in the art, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to add a decorative texture to the Haass legs (e.g. to the padding) in order to enhance aesthetic appeal.
With Respect to Claim 7
A firearm holder, comprising: a leg (fixed hub 148, alone or in combination with mounting component 608) configured to be interposed between two seats or a seat and a console within a vehicle (the FIG. 6 embodiment is capable of being interposed in this location e.g. via screws through the openings 684); a swivel bracket (128 alone or in combination with related structures) coupled to a first side of the leg via a locking mechanism (152/154), the swivel bracket comprising a first portion (noting internal portion opposite 154) abutting the leg (as tightening the knob causes 152/150 to abut the hub 148 to secure 128 in position relative to 148, this same motion also causes the interior porition of 128 to contact 148 as there is nothing to prevent such motion, and the two hubs are fixed in relative position via this clamping action between the screw and the inner portion of 128) and a second portion (137) extending substantially perpendicular to the first portion (FIG. 4, noting that 137 extends substantially parallel to 150/154 and so is substantially perpendicular to the inner portion of 128 opposite 150/152); a bracket (130) coupled to the second portion of the swivel bracket; and a support member (110) comprising: a base (116) configured to couple to the bracket (coupled via integral formation), a first arm (120) on a first side of the base, a second arm (112) on a second side of the base, and a first adjustment knob (117) configured to adjust the distance between the first and second arm.
With Respect to Claim 8
The firearm holder of claim 7, wherein the leg further comprises a textured surface (inherent or obvious in view of official notice, see the rejection of claim 6 above for details).
With Respect to Claim 10
The firearm holder of claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the support member is removable from the bracket coupled to the swivel bracket.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to replace the integral formation of the support member and bracket with a removable connection, in order to allow for separation of the parts for repair/replacement/cleaning, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2009/0026679 to Harman (Harman) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2013/0088792 to Jones (Jones).
With Respect to Claim 9
The firearm holder of claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the locking mechanism comprises a cam handle.
However, Harman discloses that a cam locking system including a cam handle (162) is a substitute for a set screw to maintain tension and biasing between two parts ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Jones, to replace the set screw of Harman with a cam locking system including a cam handle, in order to allow for simpler, single motion operation, to avoid potential loosening of the screw, and/or as a mere substitution of one art known locking mechanism for another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are 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: there is insufficient motivation based on the current art of record to add a magnet as claimed or a floor barrel bracket to the Harman structure, absent impermissible hindsight; additionally, none of the other prior art of record, alone or in combination, discloses this subject matter in combination with the subject matter of claim 7 from which these claims depend.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734