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 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 1-7 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The below are examples only and are not exhaustive.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the handgrip". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in that a “handgrip” has not been previously recited in the claims. The claims recite “a removable and replaceable handgrip assembly” but it is not clear, and does not seem possible, that the “handgrip assembly” can be the later recited “handgrip”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language (e.g. what exactly constitutes “i-direction”, “z-direction”, and “to clear shaded area-2”).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the backstrap top protrusion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in that a backstrap top protrusion has not been previously recited in the claims.
Claim 5 recites “an interlocking backstrap”, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites “an interlocking backstrap”; if this is the same interlocking backstrap as recited in claim 1 then it should be recited as “said”, or “the” interlocking backstrap, if it is a different, separate interlocking backstrap then a different identifier should be used (such as, second interlocking backstrap).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the handgrip", “the magazine cavity”, “the firearm”, “the magazine body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in that a handgrip, a magazine cavity, a firearm and a magazine body have not been previously recited in the claims.
Claim 7 recites “a removably mounted grip sleeve” and “a sleeve protrusion” then recites “the sleeve”, it is not clear whether the recitation of “the sleeve” is to the “grip sleeve” or the “sleeve protrusion”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-7 is/are rejected, as the examiner best understands them, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cupp (US 5,231,237). Cupp discloses a handgrip assembly comprising: a removably mounted grip sleeve (26, 27) that has the ability to envelope a handgrip; and an interlocking backstrap (28) having a sleeve cavity (Figs. 4 and 5) having the ability to engage a sleeve protrusion (131) to clamp the sleeve tightly onto a handgrip, whereon the said backstrap is secured via a locking pin (30).
3. A removable and replaceable handgrip assembly of claim 1 comprising a backstrap top protrusion (24) arranged to be inside a cavity inside the handgrip (Fig. 6).
4. A removable and replaceable handgrip assembly of claim 1 comprising an interlocking backstrap (28) with a backstrap top protrusion (23, 24, 125, 72) in a cavity on the handgrip (Fig. 6), about which the interlocking backstrap rotates.
5. A removable and replaceable handgrip assembly of claim 1 comprising an interlocking backstrap (28) arranged to be inside a cavity inside a handgrip in its initial position for installation (14) from which the interlocking backstrap's angular approach is facilitated via chamfered regions (Fig. 5).
6. A removable and replaceable handgrip assembly of claim 1 on a handgrip enveloped by a sleeve removably mounted with outward-facing front and side surfaces thereof accepts texture and form adaptations according to user preferences. (col. 1, lines 15-20)
7. In another embodiment of the invention is a handgrip assembly, comprising: a removably mounted grip sleeve (26, 27) that has the ability to envelope the front and sides of the handgrip without gaps or play; whereon a magwell being an oblong funnel-shaped geometric feature sitting flush to an entrance of a magazine cavity of a firearm (Figs. 5 and 9), extending and widening outwardly therefrom to assist a user in guiding a magazine body into a magazine cavity; and an interlocking backstrap (28) placed on the handgrip from the handgrip's side, said interlocking backstrap having a sleeve cavity (Fig. 4 and 5) adapted to engage a sleeve protrusion (131) on the sleeve; a magwell cavity (Fig. 1) adapted to engage a magwell protrusion (60) whose sloping geometry tightly clamps, the grip sleeve onto the handgrip, whereon the said backstrap is secured via a locking pin (30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE CLEMENT whose telephone number is (571)272-6884. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/MICHELLE CLEMENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641