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 .
Newly submitted claim 5 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: It claims a method that was not included in the original claims. Specifically, claim 5 now includes limitations for being made of polymers and, in particular, claims the limitation of injection molding polymers to form a one-piece structure.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 5 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 3, and 4 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 1, “insert attachment point” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear if this phrase is claiming a point to attach the insert to the grip or if it is claiming a point on the insert to attach other elements.
In claim 1, line 2, “formed in one piece” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear if this limitation requires that the one insert attachment point per se be formed in one piece or if the insert attachment point is formed in one piece with the entire grip with insert.
In claim 1, “such as a belt” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear if the belt is being positively claimed.
In claim 1, line 8, “the insert attachment point” is vague and indefinite. It is without a clear antecedent basis since more than one insert attachment point is potentially claimed (i.e. in lines 1-2).
In claim 1, line 10, “the back” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 1, line 10, “the insert part” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 3, line 5, “configured to be matched with at least one grip slot”. The metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear. Must the slot match the engagement teeth of the attachment or is other portions of the attachment matched to the slot? Or is the slot merely large enough to allow passage of the attachment?
In claim 4, “being attached to a cable or a spring element” is alternative and indefinite. Is different structure required for the alternative attachments? It is also unclear how or when the alternative attachment to a cable or spring element is chosen.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ringgenberg et al (2014/0259539) or Ringgenberg et al (2015/0168098).
Due to the extensive nature of the 112 problems noted above, it is difficult to apply prior art to the claims. However, both Ringgenber et al references appear to disclose the claimed grip (and method of manufacturing a grip by generally making the elements forming the grip) including an attachment point on the rear of a pistol grip that has a connection between the grip and a user's "belt" (i.e. element 16 in each reference). See Figure 2 of '539 and Figure 2 of '098. Without further limitations, either elements 13 or 14 could be considered the one piece “insert attachment point”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. WOODROW ELDRED whose telephone number is (571)272-6901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 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 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.
/J. Woodrow Eldred/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
JWE