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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meredith (4330129) in view of Woitas (US 11391548). Regarding claim 1, Meredith discloses a plate target system, comprising: a base having an elongated frame having a length (fig. 1, main frame 12), a forward end, and a rearward end (figure 1, forward end is end furthest away from target), a target plate (8) pivoted to the base frame and configured to be set in a generally upright position (figure 1), and an extension frame (figure 1, stabilizer frame 32), the extension frame foldably mounted to the base frame and movable between an extended position and a folded position (figures 1 and 2).
Although Meredith discloses that target plate (8) is pivotable from an upright position to a horizontal position (col. 5, lines 47-50) via crank shaft 9, Meredith fails to disclose that the target is caused to fall rearwardly to a down position when struck on a front surface thereof and an impact pad located at rearward position of the base frame to be contacted by the target plate when it falls to the down position, the impact pad isolating impact forces of the target plate from the base frame. However, Woitas teaches that it is known to provide target systems like that of Meredith with construction such that the target is caused to fall rearwardly when struck (abstract, figs. 1 and 4) along with an impact pad (112) located at rearward position of the base frame to be contacted by the target plate when it falls to the down position, the impact pad isolating impact forces of the target plate from the base frame (col. 5, lines 33-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have provided the target system of Meredith with construction as taught by Woitas for the purpose of indicating a hit and reducing potential damage to the target.
Regarding claim 2, Meredith as modified by Woitas above meets such limitations due to the positioning of the impact pad of Woitas along the base frame as shown in figure 1 and the folded positioning of the extension frame of Meredith as shown in figure 2.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to arrange the impact pad, base frame and extension frame such that in the folded position the impact pad is positioned forward of the forward end of the base frame as such would depend on relative positioning of the impact pad, relative size and/or scalability or the target and base extension and regardless of the impact pad positioning, the device would not perform differently with either size/positioned impact pad. See MPEP 2144.04 IV, A and VI, C.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meredith (4330129) in view of Woitas (US 11391548), as stated above, and further in view of Burks (US 20140284880). Regarding claim 8, Meredith, as modified by Woitas, discloses most of the claimed elements but for the base frame includes stake down tabs to stake the base frame to the ground.
Burks teaches that it is known to provide a target base frame with stake down tabs to secure the frame to the ground (holes 22, fig. 2C, paragraph 27). Therefore it would have been obvious to include stake down tabs with the device of Meredith, as modified by Woitas, for the purpose of further securing the device in place.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
Claims 9-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRY SUHOL whose telephone number is (571)272-4430. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday - Friday 8am-4PM.
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.
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.
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715