DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,879,943. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same essential portable object system but in a narrower manner including all the same components but broader terms. For example: portable object support = firearm support; first unit = stock unit; belt unit = second unit; first and second complementary components are the same; the catch, ramp and channel, and four slots are all the same.
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 1-8, and 10 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 1 recites the limitation "the rear plate” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-8 are also indefinite as depending from indefinite claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the rear plate" in lines 12 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Copeland (US 5,014,892).
Regarding claim 1, Copeland discloses a portable object support system (Figure 10), comprising: a first unit 26 configured to be carried by a portable object, the first unit comprising a first complementary component 52; and a second unit 25/27 configured to be carried by a strap 22, the second unit comprising a second complementary component 33/34/35 configured for selective engagement with the first complementary component; wherein the second complementary component comprises a channel 35 extending generally in a vertical direction and wherein the first complementary component is configured to selectively move within the channel in the vertical direction; wherein the second unit comprises at least two openings 29 extending substantially longitudinally in the vertical direction and configured to receive a strap 22, at least one of the at least two openings being located leftward relative to the channel when the second unit is viewed from a front side of the second unit and at least one of the at least two openings being located rightward relative to the channel when the second unit is viewed from the front side (see Figure 10 showing relative positioning of each element); and wherein the second complementary component comprises a ramp 61 that extends forward from the rear plate 27 (Figure 11), wherein the at least two openings 29 are formed in the rear plate 27, and wherein the at least two openings are located rearward relative to the ramp when the second unit is viewed from above (Figure 10 and 12).
Regarding claim 3, the first complementary component comprises a disc shaped head 52 attached to a shaft 57.
Regarding claim 4, the second complementary component comprises a U-shaped channel (see bottom near 33 which is u-shaped to degree claimed).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maxwell (US 4,424,981).
Regarding claim 11, Maxwell discloses a quick connect system, comprising: a pin 20; a first receiver C/S/W1/W2 (left side of Figure 4) selectively secured to a first end 22 of the pin; and a second receiver C/S/W1/W2 (right side of Figure 4) selectively secured to a second end 22 of the pin; wherein each of the first receiver and the second receiver comprise a concave profile configured to selectively receive a quick connect device therein (see concave portion in which quick connect ends 11 are secured).
Regarding claim 12, the pin comprises a shoulder B configured to be selectively abutted against by one of the first receiver and the second receiver (see portion C and W2 of each receiver).
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland in view of Colorado (US 8,141,210).
Regarding claim 2, Copeland discloses the first unit secured to the object via a stud 45 but does not disclose a hook and loop type fastener. Colorado discloses a similar object supporting system having a first unit 20 configured to be supported by a second unit 30 wherein the first unit can be secured to the object via adhesive or hook and loop type fasteners – see col. 3 lines 5-10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a hook and loop fastener to secure the first unit to the object. The motivation would be to allow the first unit to be easily changed and moved to different objects.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland in view of Pirhonen et al. (US 5,622,296).
Regarding claim 5, Copeland disclose ramp 61 but does not have a catch carried by the ramp. However, Pirhonen teaches a similar object support system wherein a first unit 14 is held within second unit 11 having a ramp member 26 with a catch 27 carried by the ramp. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a similar ramp and catch on the second unit of Copeland in order to prevent inadvertent removal of the first unit from the second unit.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland in view of Pirhonen et al. (US 5,622,296) and Tseng (US 2015/0157118).
Regarding claim 5, Copeland disclose ramp 61 deflecting toward an indented portion of the second unit but does not have a catch carried by the ramp that deflects toward a curvature of the second unit. However, Pirhonen teaches a similar object support system wherein a first unit 14 is held within second unit 11 having a ramp member 26 with a catch 27 carried by the ramp. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a similar ramp and catch on the second unit of Copeland in order to prevent inadvertent removal of the first unit from the second unit.
Additionally, Tseng discloses a similar object support system wherein first unit 4 is secured within second unit 1/3, the second unit 1 having a rear plate 1 that is curved away from the first unit – see Figure 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the rear plate of the second unit with a smooth curved surface in place of the disclosed indented shape. The motivation would be to make the plate more comfortable and conforming when secured to the user.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland in view of Rassias (US 6,755,331).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Copeland discloses openings 29 on each side of the channel but does not disclose four openings, two on each of the left and right side of the channel. Rassias discloses an object support system wherein support unit 2 is secured to the user and is provided with two openings 41 on each side of central mounting section 1/4 for strap 7 to be held therein. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide additional strap openings on the left and right sides of Copeland to allow additional options/methods for mounting the second unit to a person with a strap.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland in view of Rassias and Tseng.
Regarding claim 1, Copeland discloses a portable object support system (Figure 10) substantially as claimed, including: a first unit 26 configured to be carried by a portable object, the first unit comprising a first complementary component 52; and a second unit 25/27 configured to be carried by a strap 22, the second unit comprising a second complementary component 33/34/35 configured for selective engagement with the first complementary component; wherein the second complementary component comprises a channel 35 extending generally in a vertical direction and wherein the first complementary component is configured to selectively move within the channel in the vertical direction; wherein the second unit comprises at least two openings 29 extending substantially longitudinally in the vertical direction and configured to receive a strap 22, at least one of the at least two openings being located leftward relative to the channel when the second unit is viewed from a front side of the second unit and at least one of the at least two openings being located rightward relative to the channel when the second unit is viewed from the front side (see Figure 10 showing relative positioning of each element); and wherein the second complementary component comprises a ramp 61 that extends forward from the rear plate 27 (Figure 11), wherein the at least two openings 29 are formed in the rear plate 27, and wherein the at least two openings are located rearward relative to the ramp when the second unit is viewed from above (Figure 10 and 12).
Copeland does not disclose the second unit comprising a substantially rigid curved rear plate or at least four openings on the second unit. Tseng discloses a similar object support system wherein first unit 4 is secured within second unit 1/3, the second unit 1 having a rigid rear plate 1 that is curved away from the first unit – see Figure 1 and 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the rear plate of the second unit with a smooth curved surface in place of the disclosed indented shape. The motivation would be to make the plate more comfortable and conforming when secured to the user.
Additionally, Rassias discloses an object support system wherein support unit 2 is secured to the user and is provided with two openings 41 on each side of central mounting section 1/4 for strap 7 to be held therein. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide additional strap openings on the left and right sides of Copeland to allow additional options/methods for mounting the second unit to a person with a strap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY NELSON SKURDAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-4pm 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, 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.
/COREY N SKURDAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734