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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 8/22/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both sets of claims include a stiffener with core material, first and second resin, first material and fiber material. This argument is persuasive in view of the amendment to the claims; however, the examiner reserves the right to restrict the claims by original presentation if, over the course of prosecution, the claim sets diverge from the current alignment.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 and 3-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogue et al, hereafter Hogue, US Patent No. 6,301,817 in view of Thomas, US Patent No. 4,934,084.
Regarding claim 1, Hogue discloses a stock assembly (shown in figures 1-12), comprising: a shell (1a), the shell comprising: a front region; a grip region (15) disposed between the front region and a rear region (figures 3-5 for example); a frame cavity (figure 5) extending through the front region, grip region, and rear region, partially defined by the shell (figures 1-11); and one or more stiffener cavities (interior of 32 as in figure 9-11 for example) disposed within the front region of the shell; and one or more stiffeners (1) disposed within the one or more stiffener cavities, the one or more stiffeners comprising a core material (figures 9-11 inside 32 for example) bonded to an internal surface of the one or more stiffener cavities (5:13-24), the core material comprising: a resin (polypropylene) ; a density adjustment material (foam); and a fiber material (fiberglass)(3:51-4:15 discloses a fiberglass reinforced polypropylene in combination with a foaming agent); however, while one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a polypropylene can be an epoxy of two resins, Hogue does not specifically disclose two resins. Nonetheless, Thomas teaches analogous art in the form of a firearm which uses a fiber reinforced material and specifically teaches an epoxy resin and teaches a hardenable resin like Acraglas which has a two part epoxy of a resin and hardener as in 3:31-46.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the resin of Hogue to have a second resin component similar to that as taught by Thomas with a reasonable expectation of success since Thomas clearly teaches using a two part resin mixture is known in the art and using a resin combination like that of Thomas would yield a hardened polymer material encasing the reinforcing material and a filler material while providing a light-weight, rigid stock material which can also serve to inhibit transmission of recoil as taught by Thomas in 3:31-64.
Regarding claim 3, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the first resin and the second resin are epoxy resins (Thomas teaches first and second epoxy resins)
Regarding claim 4, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the fiber material comprises a plurality of fibers; however, Hogue does not disclose the specific length of the fibers. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the fibers have a length of less than ½ inch since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Selecting a length of fiber less than ½ inch would yield predictable results and be obvious for at least the reason of ensuring surface features of the stock can be formed properly.
Regarding claim 5, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the fiber material is carbon fiber (Hogue discloses fiberglass and Thomas teaches suitable reinforcing material including fiberglass and carbon fiber). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of substitution since Thomas teaches the two filling materials are known equivalents in the art. Choosing carbon fiber would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for any number of reasons including, but not limited to, ease of manufacture, cost of manufacture, increase reliability, desired rigidity, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the stiffeners comprise a variable density (broadly, yet reasonably, the stiffener of Hogue is variable density because the non-homogeneous mixture of fiber, polymer and foam. The density would necessarily vary across a profile of the stiffener. Thomas further teaches this broad interpretation is reasonable by showing the low density fillers in the figures.)
Regarding claim 7, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the front region comprises a forend layer (Hogue 32)
Regarding claim 8, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses a thumb shelf, the stiffeners at least partially disposed in an overlapping relationship with the thumb shelf (figure 1 of Hogue for example)
Regarding claim 9, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the shell comprises a shell resin configured to bond to the core material (Hogue 5:13-24)
Regarding claim 10, Hogue as modified by Thomas discloses a stock stiffener (1), comprising: a muzzle end and a grip end (15)(figure 5 for example); a plurality of tapers (figures 9-11 show stiffener 1 with several tapered areas); and a core material (figures 9-11 inside 32 for example) l comprising: a resin (polypropylene) ; a density adjustment material (foam); and a fiber material (fiberglass)(3:51-4:15 discloses a fiberglass reinforced polypropylene in combination with a foaming agent); however, while one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a polypropylene can be an epoxy of two resins, Hogue does not specifically disclose two resins. Nonetheless, Thomas teaches analogous art in the form of a firearm which uses a fiber reinforced material and specifically teaches an epoxy resin and teaches a hardenable resin like Acraglas which has a two part epoxy of a resin and hardener as in 3:31-46.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the resin of Hogue to have a second resin component similar to that as taught by Thomas with a reasonable expectation of success since Thomas clearly teaches using a two part resin mixture is known in the art and using a resin combination like that of Thomas would yield a hardened polymer material encasing the reinforcing material and a filler material while providing a light-weight, rigid stock material which can also serve to inhibit transmission of recoil as taught by Thomas in 3:31-64.
Regarding claim 11, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the invention but does not specifically disclose the percentages of each material of the core material. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed define the specific percentages of the materials of the core material, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Selecting percentages similar to that claimed would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious in order to achieve a desired rigidity and recoil inhibition, find a desired cost point, ease manufacturing processes, etc.
Regarding claim 12, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the first resin and the second resin are epoxy resins configured to form a bond with a stock (Hogue 32, 5:13-24)
Regarding claim 13 Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the stiffener has an expanding foam for affecting the density (Hogue and also taught by Thomas); however, the specific density and failure load are not disclosed. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have a density between 0.6-0.9 g/cc and failure load between 550 and 660 lbs., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Selecting a density and failure load within the claimed ranges would have been an obvious matter of obviousness depending on factors like caliber of the firearm, length of the barrel, cost of the firearm to the user, etc.
Regarding claim 14, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the fiber material comprises a plurality of fibers; however, Hogue does not disclose the specific length of the fibers. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the fibers have a length of less than ½ inch since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Selecting a length of fiber less than ½ inch would yield predictable results and be obvious for at least the reason of ensuring surface features of the stock can be formed properly.
Regarding claim 15, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the fiber material is carbon fiber (Hogue discloses fiberglass and Thomas teaches suitable reinforcing material including fiberglass and carbon fiber). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of substitution since Thomas teaches the two filling materials are known equivalents in the art. Choosing carbon fiber would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for any number of reasons including, but not limited to, ease of manufacture, cost of manufacture, increase reliability, desired rigidity, etc.
Regarding claim 16, Hogue as modified by Thomas further discloses the plurality of tapers are configured to enhance a molding process (shape of the insert 1 of Hogue is specifically designed to enhance a molding process 5:61-6:11)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
While the Examiner is available via telephone to resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. The Examiner may be reached by telephone at 571-272-6352.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641