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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, the claim recited “pivotally coupled” should be “pivotally couple”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3, 5, and 13-20 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.
Claim 2: In lines 3-4, the claim recites “the pair of the vice holders”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis within the claim.
Claim 3: In lines 3-4, the claim recites “a pair of the vice holders”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Should this be “a pair of vise holders”?
Claim 5: In line 2, the claim recites “the opening cavity”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis within the claim. Should this claim depend from claim 4?
Claim 13: In line 6, the claim recites “a pair of the vice holders”. This limitation is unclear. Should this be “the pair of vise holders”?
Claim 14: In line 3, the claim recites “a pair of the vice holders”. This limitation is unclear. Should this be “the pair of vise holders”?
Claim 15: In lines 10-11, the claim recites “a main body”. This limitation is unclear. Should this be “the main body”?
Claim 17: In line 2, the claim recites “a main body”. This limitation is unclear. Is this the main body previously presented?
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 Geissele (US 2016/0202014) in view of Bigelow (US 4,175,306).
Claim 1: Geissele provides a multi-caliber self-tightening vise block for a lower receiver of a firearm (Fig. 1), that utilizes an affixing assembly (100, Fig. 1-3) but fails to disclose the affixing assembly comprising a first polymer lever, a second polymer lever, and an affixing pin configured to pivotally coupled the first polymer lever with the second polymer lever; wherein the first polymer lever comprises a first right wing and a first left wing and the second polymer lever comprises a second right wing and a second left wing.
However, Bigelow teaches an affixing assembly comprising a first polymer lever (23), a second polymer lever (22), and an affixing pin (44) configured to pivotally coupled the first polymer lever with the second polymer lever (Fig. 1); wherein the first polymer lever comprises a first right wing (31, Fig. 4) and a first left wing (32) and the second polymer lever comprises a second right wing (31, Fig. 4) and a second left wing (32, Fig.4).
Therefore, Geisesele provides a vise block configured to engage and secure a firearm lower receiver but utilizes a different retention mechanism. Bigelow teaches a pair of polymer levers connected by a pin, wherein portions of the levers extend opposite sides of the pivot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the pivotally connected lever arrangement of Bigelow into the vise block of Geissele because pivotally connected polymer levers were known to provide a simple, reliable, low-part count mechanism for producing relative movement between opposed engagement portions. The modification would have presented the predictable substitution of one known mechanical arrangement for another to perform the known function of securing an article in place. (MPEP 2143(B)).
Claim 2: Geissele as modified by Bigelow provides the first right wing (31) is integrally extended to form the first left wing (32, Fig. 4), wherein the second right wing (31) is integrally extended to form the second left wing (32), wherein the first left wing (32) and the second left wing (32) are squeezed by the pair of the vise holders and the first right wing (31) and the second right wing (31) are guided to bias against the lower receiver (placing the mechanical arrangement of Bigelow within the vise of Geissele would provide this result).
Claim 3: Geissele provides the first right wing (31) is integrally extended to form the first left wing (32), wherein the second right wing (31) is integrally extended to form the second left wing (32), the first left wing (32) and the second left wing (32) are squeezed by a pair of the vise holders and the first right wing (31) and the second right wing (31) are guided to bias against the lower receiver (placing the mechanical arrangement of Bigelow within the vise of Geissele would provide this result).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, and 6-12 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.
Claims 13-20 are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly disclose a vise block further comprising a main body having a first section, a second section integrally extended from the first section, a middle portion formed between the first section and the second section, and an opening cavity formed on the middle portion, wherein the affixing assembly is pivotally coupled with the main body by the affixing pin.
McClellan (US1,249,148) teaches a vise block (1) within a pair of vise holders (3, Fig. 1-3); but does not disclose the vise block including a first left wing and a second left wing and further comprising a main body having a first section, a second section integrally extended from the first section, a middle portion formed between the first section and the second section, and an opening cavity formed on the middle portion, wherein the affixing assembly is pivotally coupled with the main body by the affixing pin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda J Kreiling whose telephone number is (571)272-6091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Amanda Kreiling/Examiner, Art Unit 3726 6/23/26
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights