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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 2 February 2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-2 are currently presented in the instant application. Presently, claims 1-2 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that the defining of the second claw portion having an end positioned on the first side with respect to the second mount center line and on the side of the gravity direction with respect to the first mount center line overcomes the obvious-type double patenting rejection of the Non-Final Office Action. Examiner disagrees. Similarly to the arguments presented in the Non-Final Office Action, the “sides” and arrangement of the claws would fall under a rearrangement of parts, or alternatively be obvious to try without undue experimentation, as many variations of claw arrangements with two or three claws/recesses are known. For instance, Hasuda et al. (cited in full below), teaches an accessory side mount (Fig. 6) where on the first side (right side) the recess (253) is on both sides of the gravity direction, and the first claw portion (213) has an end on the first side (right side) and on the opposite to gravity side (top), and the second claw portion (233) having an end on the first side (right side) and side of the gravity direction (bottom). Hasuda teaches that this type of orientation and arrangement is known in the art, and therefore the rearrangement of the claws compared to the patent would be an obvious variant.
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 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,117,715 B2 alone or in view of Hasuda et al. (Patent No.: US 9,075,287 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to claim 1, claim 2 of the Patent is substantially identical to the claim. The only differences are that in claim 1 of the present application, the recess is claimed as being “positioned on a first side with respect to the second mount center line”, while in claim 2 of the patent the recess is claimed as being “positioned on a side of the first restricting portion with respect to the second mount center line”, and the newly amended language below (see above response to arguments)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first side and the side with the first restricting portion could be the same side, otherwise it has been held that a mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious variant over the prior art of record and would be obvious to arrange the restricting portion on the first side as having an identical mirrored attachment mechanism.
Hasuda et al. teaches a similar arrangement for the ends of the claws as taught and described above in the response to arguments, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this arrangement of claws (one on the top and one on the bottom) could be utilized in the arrangement of the Patent, as there are a limited number of arrangements for the three claws and recesses to try, and there would be a known desire to have a claw on the top and bottom of the overall arrangement to support the interchangeable barrel in the gravity direction without tilting out.
With respect to claim 2, the languages of the center lines have been modified (from the line intersecting the restricting member and orthogonal) to horizontal and vertical center lines (which are the same lines of the patent as the restricting member is arranged on the horizontal axis), and similarly to the above claim 1, claim 2 of this application uses left side of the second mount center line and upper and lower sides of the first mount center line (which is just a rewording of gravity and opposite to gravity sides), as well as the newly amended subject matter, but furthermore all limitations regarding the first restricting portion have been removed.
It has been held that a mere removal of parts and their functionality is an obvious variant over the prior art of record, and removing the restricting member would have been obvious if locking was not required.
Hasuda et al. teaches a similar arrangement for the ends of the claws as taught and described above in the response to arguments, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this arrangement of claws (one on the top and one on the bottom) could be utilized in the arrangement of the Patent, as there are a limited number of arrangements for the three claws and recesses to try, and there would be a known desire to have a claw on the top and bottom of the overall arrangement to support the interchangeable barrel in the gravity direction without tilting out.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
4/4/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852