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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In Claim 4, the cocking slide is understood to refer to a feature of Claim 1, from which Claim 4 depends but Claim 1 introduces two cocking slides and it is not clear which is being modified by Claim 4. Further, it is not clear how the outwardly open surface may engage and slide along an outer surface of a housing. The limitation contradicts the limitation of Claim 1 wherein the cocking slide energizes the spring biasing element. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In Claim 5, the limitation providing that a singular cocking slide is attachable to the launchers is inconsistent with the limitation of Claim 1 from which Claim 5 ultimately depends, which provides a cocking slide in each launcher. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation providing that the sliding housing of the cocking slide is attachable to the launchers is unclear in that the cocking slide is understood to be a moving part in each launcher. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation providing that the sliding housing of the cocking slide is attachable to the launchers is unclear in that the cocking slide is understood to be a moving part in each launcher. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0144506, in view of Cuisinier, U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0072412, and in further view of Mead et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0067787. As to Claim 1, Sun teaches a dual launcher toy gun (10) comprising a left launcher (14) and a right launcher (14), paragraph 0010 and see Figure 2, noting lower two launchers, left and right. Each launcher may provide a spring biasing element (25) communicating with a cocking slide (24) movable backward to energize the spring biasing element to engage a trigger (16) actuated latch (42), paragraphs 0013 and 0017 and see Figures 3 and 4. Sun teaches that the launchers may be positioned side-by-side, see Figure 2 but Sun does not teach that each launcher may have a handgrip. Cuisinier teaches left and right launchers (20, 30) each having a handgrip, paragraph 0021 and see Figures 1a and 1b. Cuisinier teaches a transverse connecting structure (40) disposed between left and right launchers, paragraph 0021 and see Figure 1b. The launchers may be projectile guns (ball gun and dart gun) and the transverse connecting structure may be configured to provide jointly operable cocking mechanisms, paragraphs 0019 and 0029, suggesting that the transverse connecting structure communicates with the cocking mechanism of each launcher, noting that controllers of the launchers are integrated and with regard to the embodiment including projectile guns, joint cocking is provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Sun with a transverse connecting structure linking the cocking mechanisms of left and right launchers by communicating with cocking slides of each launcher, as taught and suggested by Cuisinier, to provide Sun with connected launchers having joint cocking capability to yield the predictable result of facilitating rapid cocking and firing of the launchers. Sun, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the transverse connecting structure may allow alternate cocking of the launchers by gripping the handgrips and exerting alternating push pull motion. Meade teaches two launchers (10) each having a cocking slide (26 28), paragraphs 0018 and 0019. Mead teaches that a user may employ two launchers, grip the handgrips, and alternately exert a push pull motion while hooking the launchers by a connector (24) to alternately draw the cocking slides to cock the launchers, paragraph 0023 and see Figure 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the transverse connector in communication with the cocking slides to be capable of alternately cocking each launcher by gripping the handgrips and exerting a push pull motion, as taught by Mead, to provide Sun, as modified, with a reciprocating pattern of movement to continuously cock each launcher, to yield the predictable result of facilitating rapid launcher action while maintaining a grip on the launchers. As to Claim 2, Cuisinier teaches that the transverse connecting structure may align the launchers with substantially parallel axes, see Figure 1b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the connected launchers with substantially parallel axes, as taught by Cuisinier, to provide Sun, as modified, with a known substitute configuration for the aiming line of two connected launchers. As to Claim 3, Sun, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that molded plastic may be selected as the material for the transverse connecting structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select molded plastic for the transverse connecting structure since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As to Clam 4, Sun teaches that the cocking slide may be a sliding housing providing an outwardly open surface engaging and sliding along an outer surface of a housing holding the spring biasing element, see drawing below. Claim 4 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 5, Sun teaches that the cocking slide may be releasably attachable to the launchers, see Figure 3, noting that when trigger assembly is withdrawn, the cocking slide may be removed from the housing. Claim 5 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claim 6, Sun, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the sliding housing may be attachable to the launchers by screws. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the sliding housing by screws, since it was known in the art that components may be releasably attachable by screws. Claim 6 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claim 7, Sun, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the sliding housing may be attachable to the launchers by resilient connectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the sliding housing by resilient connectors, since it was known in the art that components may be releasably attachable by resilient connectors. Claim 7 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b).
Conclusion
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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 19 December 2025