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
Claims 2,7,9, are objected because of the following informalities: the claims recite “the stabilized target stand,” but it should read “the target stand.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites extending the plurality of over an area of uneven ground. Examiner understands this to be read as “extending the plurality of legs over an area of uneven ground.” 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 7-15 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “a mount connector having a side hole for securing the target insert to a stabilized target stand.” However, it is unclear how an element secured to itself. The target insert would need to be secured to a specific element of the target stand, not the overall apparatus as these are elements which make up the target stand. Examiner suggests amending the claim to clearly define the structural limitations.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “a plurality of independently adjustable stabilization legs”, but these have already been disclosed in claim 1 – which 8 is dependent from. Are these different legs? It is unclear whether this is a different plurality of independently adjustable legs or the same structure as recited in claim 1. Examiner suggests amending the claim to clearly define the structural limitations.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “a tube…positioned adjacent the target insert”. However, according to claim 9 “a tube” is a component of the target insert. How is an object adjacent to itself? This is also unclear when the claim recites “a plate…relative to the target insert” and “a key…. adjacent the target insert.” Additionally, the claim recites A target insert for use with the stabilized target stand as recited in claim 1, however it is unclear whether this is a separate target insert or the same as the target insert already disclosed in claim 1. How is a target insert for use with a device that already includes a target insert claimed? Examiner suggests modifying the claim to clearly define the structural limitations.
Claims 10-13 are dependent from claim 9, thereby inheriting its deficiencies and being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the tube is positioned adjacent the target insert. However, according to claim 14 “a tube” is a component of the target insert. How is an object adjacent to itself? This is also unclear when the claim recites a plate for supporting the target relative to the target insert; a key for facilitating the placement of the target adjacent the target insert, as the “plate” and “key” are components of the target insert. Similarly, it is unclear when the claim recites a mount connector having a side hole for securing the target insert to a stabilized target stand; The target insert would need to be secured to a specific element of the target stand, not the overall apparatus as these are elements which make up the target stand. Additionally, the claim recites “the target” in line 3, but this lacks antecedent basis as a target has not been previously introduced in the claim. The claim recites “a target mount for a stabilized target stand” line 8, but the claim is directed towards a stabilized target system (line 1), not a stabilized target stand. It is unclear whether the “stabilized target stand” is a part of the “stabilized target system” or this is an additional/new structure. Similarly, in line 9 the claim recites “a target,” however it is unclear whether this is a separate target or the same as the target recited previously in the claim (line 3). Examiner suggests amending the claim to properly define the structural limitations.
Regarding claim 15, the tube is positioned adjacent the target insert. However, according to claim 15 “a tube” is a component of the target insert. How is an object adjacent to itself? This is also unclear when the claim recites a plate for supporting the target relative to the target insert; a key for facilitating the placement of the target adjacent the target insert, as the “plate” and “key” are components of the target insert. In line 12 the claim recites “for securing a target,” however it is unclear whether this is a separate target or the same as the target recited previously in the claim (line 6). Examiner suggests amending the claim to properly define the structural limitations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites a plurality of stabilization legs, each of which being independently adjustable with respect to the other. As such, claims 5-6 recite the plurality of stabilization legs are independently adjustable, which is already recited in claim 1, resulting in a failure to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
1. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Moore-Montgomery (US 20240110770 A1), hereinafter Moore.
Regarding claim 1, Moore discloses A target stand, comprising: a plurality of stabilization legs (220, 221,222), each of which being independently adjustable with respect to the other ([0119] The three legs 220, 221, 222 may be independently height adjustable and movable between a prone position, a kneeling position and a standing position, or a variety of standing positions) ; and a target insert (100) removably coupled to the plurality of stabilization legs (In this position, the legs 220, 221, 222 may be detachable from the target enclosure 100 [0120]).
Regarding claim 2, Moore discloses wherein the stabilized target stand includes a target (front target wall 122).
PNG
media_image1.png
624
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Moore discloses wherein the target includes a keyhole (As shown, one of the side plates 103, 104 (i.e., the right side plate 104) are both inset in the elongated tube 205 approximately (but not limited to) 1 inch [0114]); target 100 is made up of plates 122, 102, 101, 103, and 104, and includes a keyhole (opening) in between side plates 103,104 as annotated below in Fig 4.
Regarding claims 5-6, Moore discloses wherein a plurality of legs of the plurality of stabilization legs are independently adjustable ([0011] The at least three telescopic legs may be removably attached about the target enclosure and may include an inner leg and an outer leg such that the at least three legs are independently height adjustable and movable between at least a prone position, a kneeling position and one or more standing positions). This appreciates claim 6 as well, because if the plurality of legs are independently adjustable, then each leg is also independently adjustable.
Regarding claim 7, Moore discloses A target mount for use with the stabilized target stand of claim 1, comprising: a mounting plate (122) comprising a plurality of securing holes (holes through which washers, nuts and bolts pass through) for securing a target to the mounting plate (Particularly, top and bottom tabs 111, 112 may be attached to the top and bottom plate 101, 102 respectively; and washers, nuts and bolts may be used to attach the front target wall 122 to the top and bottom tabs 111, 112 [0111]); a target made up of top and bottom plate 101, 102 ; and a mount connector (105) having a side hole (elongated opening 206) for securing the target insert to a stabilized target stand ([0113] As shown in FIGS. 1-2, the collector tube 105 may be attached at the rear of the target enclosure 100 behind the front target wall 122)
Regarding claim 8, Moore discloses wherein the stabilized target stand comprises: a plurality of independently adjustable stabilization legs; wherein each independently adjustable stabilization leg can be adjusted to a same or a different length (height adjustable) relative to another of the independently adjustable stabilization legs ([0119] The three legs 220, 221, 222 may be independently height adjustable and movable between a prone position, a kneeling position and a standing position, or a variety of standing positions).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore-Montgomery (US 20240110770 A1), hereinafter Moore.
Regarding claim 4, while Moore teaches wherein the plurality of stabilization legs (220, 221,222), it fails to teach that they comprise four stabilization legs.
However, it would have been obvious to use four stabilization legs instead of the three as disclosed by Moore, as this is a mere duplication of parts; see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
2. Claims 9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Urban (US 10451389 B2).
Regarding claim 9, while Moore discloses the stabilized target stand as recited in claim 1, and a tube (205) for supporting sideways movement of the target (see Figs 7A-7B, where the target stand is in a left and right direction), it fails to teach A target insert comprising, wherein the tube is positioned adjacent the target insert; a plate for supporting the target relative to the target insert; a key for facilitating the placement of the target adjacent the target insert; and a top plate for securing the tube and the key.
Urban teaches this as follows: A target insert (110, 136, 124, and plate underneath 124) comprising, wherein the tube (110) is positioned adjacent the target insert; a plate (bottom portion of interface 124) for supporting the target relative to the target insert; a key (124) for facilitating the placement of the target adjacent the target insert; and a top plate (136) for securing the tube and the key (see annotated Fig.1B below):
PNG
media_image2.png
659
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Target insert)]
[AltContent: textbox (Top plate)]
[AltContent: textbox (Key)]
[AltContent: textbox (Plate)]
[AltContent: textbox (Tube)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the target stand of Moore with the target insert of Urban, for the purpose of providing a more reliable interference fit with a wider variety of target structures as taught by Moore (col 5, lines 26-51), making the system more versatile, and more attractive to the users.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Moore teaches wherein the tube is positioned through the plate (see Fig. 1A of Urban).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Moore teaches wherein the tube includes a top hole for facilitating the securing of the key to the target insert (see Fig 1A of Urban, where the tube 110 has an upper end 114 which has an opening to allow for the mounting assembly 112 to be coupled)
Regarding claim 13, the modified Moore teaches wherein the key includes a bore configured to accept the tube (mounting interface 124 may include a cavity 134, Urban, col 5, lines 52-53). “Configured to accept the tube” is a functional limitation; the key is structurally capable of accepting the tube, as it can receive targets (e.g., containers) having outer diameters of any desired size, col 6, lines 2-3). In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 14, Moore discloses a stabilized target system (200) comprising: a target insert having: a tube (205) for supporting sideways movement of the target (see Figs 7A-7B, where the target stand is in a left and right direction); a target mount for a stabilized target stand, the target mount having: a mounting plate (122) comprising a plurality of securing holes (holes through which washers, nuts and bolts pass through) for securing a target to the mounting plate (Particularly, top and bottom tabs 111, 112 may be attached to the top and bottom plate 101, 102 respectively; and washers, nuts and bolts may be used to attach the front target wall 122 to the top and bottom tabs 111, 112 [0111]); a target made up of top and bottom plate 101, 102; and a mount connector (105) having a side hole (elongated opening 206) for securing the target insert to a stabilized target stand ([0113] As shown in FIGS. 1-2, the collector tube 105 may be attached at the rear of the target enclosure 100 behind the front target wall 122); and a plurality of stabilization legs (220, 221,222) , each of which being independently adjustable with respect to the other ([0119] The three legs 220, 221, 222 may be independently height adjustable and movable between a prone position, a kneeling position and a standing position, or a variety of standing positions).
Moore fails to disclose wherein the tube is positioned adjacent the target insert; a plate for supporting the target relative to the target insert; a key for facilitating the placement of the target adjacent the target insert; and a top plate for securing the tube and the key.
Urban teaches this as follows: A target insert (110, 136, 124, and plate underneath 124), wherein the tube (110) is positioned adjacent the target insert; a plate (bottom portion of interface 124) for supporting the target relative to the target insert; a key (124) for facilitating the placement of the target adjacent the target insert; and a top plate (136) for securing the tube and the key (see annotated Fig.1B below):
PNG
media_image2.png
659
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Target insert)]
[AltContent: textbox (Top plate)]
[AltContent: textbox (Key)]
[AltContent: textbox (Plate)]
[AltContent: textbox (Tube)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the target stand of Moore with the target insert of Urban, for the purpose of providing a more reliable interference fit with a wider variety of target structures as taught by Moore (col 5, lines 26-51), making the system more versatile, and more attractive to the users.
Regarding claim 15, Moore discloses the target mount comprises: a mounting plate (122) comprising a plurality of securing holes (holes through which washers, nuts and bolts pass through) for securing a target to the mounting plate (Particularly, top and bottom tabs 111, 112 may be attached to the top and bottom plate 101, 102 respectively; and washers, nuts and bolts may be used to attach the front target wall 122 to the top and bottom tabs 111, 112 [0111]); a target made up of top and bottom plate 101, 102; extending the plurality of over an area of uneven ground (in view of 112(b) rejection above; [0124] For example, if the bullet catcher target apparatus 200 is placed at a location that has three different depth holes or high humps making the bullet catcher target apparatus 200 unlevel, each of the legs 220, 221, 222 may be adjusted until the bullet catcher target apparatus 200 is brought back to level); and adjusting at least one of the plurality of legs to a first length that is different from a second length of another of the plurality of legs ([0125] FIGS. 7A-7C showing a variety of standing positions, the ability to independently adjust the height of legs 220, 221, 222 may also enable the bullet catcher target apparatus 200 to be placed at different angles, giving unique shooting conditions), such that the stabilized target system, without further support, is capable of remaining in position (see Fig 7C) in response to an arrow or bullet projected at the target ([0126] Once the target enclosure 100 is placed, each leg may again, be individually adjusted, to get the target enclosure 100 level and meet most terrain requirements. The user may then shoot into the front target wall 122).
While Moore discloses a tube (205) for supporting sideways movement of the target (see Figs 7A-7B, where the target stand is in a left and right direction), Moore fails to disclose wherein the tube is positioned adjacent the target insert; a plate for supporting the target relative to the target insert; a key for facilitating the placement of the target adjacent the target insert; and a top plate for securing the tube and the key.
Urban teaches this as follows: A target insert (110, 136, 124, and plate underneath 124) comprising, wherein the tube (110) is positioned adjacent the target insert; a plate (bottom portion of interface 124) for supporting the target relative to the target insert; a key (124) for facilitating the placement of the target adjacent the target insert; and a top plate (136) for securing the tube and the key (see annotated Fig.1B below):
PNG
media_image2.png
659
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Target insert)]
[AltContent: textbox (Top plate)]
[AltContent: textbox (Key)]
[AltContent: textbox (Plate)]
[AltContent: textbox (Tube)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the target stand of Moore with the target insert of Urban, for the purpose of providing a more reliable interference fit with a wider variety of target structures as taught by Moore (col 5, lines 26-51), making the system more versatile, and more attractive to the users.
In the combination of Moore and Urban, the target insert of Urban with the target mount and plurality of adjustable legs teaches a method of assembling a stabilized target system, comprising: assembling a target insert to a target mount that is mounted to a plurality of independently adjustable legs.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Urban, further in view of Hull et al. (US 11885598 B2), hereinafter Hull.
Regarding claim 10, while the modified Moore teaches wherein the tube (110, Urban) it fails to teach that it includes a side hole for facilitating the securing of the target insert to the stabilized target stand.
Hull teaches this is as follows: a side hole (56) for facilitating the securing of the target insert to the stabilized target stand (The support pole 25 and the neck section 22 each has an opening (shown in FIG. 5 as 55, 56) configured for to be concentric with the other such that a pin, bolt, or other connector can be positioned through the opening 22 to secure the head to the neck, col 5, lines 1-5).
As both the modified Moore and Hull teach target stands with a tube, it would have been obvious to modify the tube of the modified Moore with the side hole from the tube of Hull to best facilitate the connection of the target insert to the target stand, as it is analogous to the function of the side hole in Hull in securing the head to the neck (Hull, col 5, lines 1-5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RIA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-0286. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 5pm.
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.
/R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights