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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 136 in Figure 3 and 165 in Figure 4
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the first sensor from claim 1
the drive system from claim 8
the magnets from claim 15
the mechanical arrangement from claim 16
the mechanical parts from claim 16
the electronical arrangement from claim 16
the electronical parts from claim 16
the magnets from claim 16
the magnets from claim 17
the circuit board from claim 18
the sensor from claim 20
the magnets from claim 20
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the phrase “a drive system” does not appear to have antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, line 7, recites “the sensor” which should be changed to --the first sensor-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 16, lines 2-3, recites “an electronical arrangement” which is grammatically awkward and should be changed to --an electrical arrangement--.
Claim 16, line 3, recites “electronical parts” which is grammatically awkward and should be changed to --electrical parts--.
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 4, 5, and 12 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.
Claim 4, line 2, recites “a full stack of paintball projectiles” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the paintball projectiles from claim 4 is related to the paintball projectile from claim 1, line 3. Also, what makes a stack of paintball projectiles a full stack of paintball projectiles? It is unclear how many paintballs must be present for there to be viewed as being a full stack.
The term “slightly” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as slightly may not be the same as what another person considers as slightly thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
The term “slightly” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person considers as slightly may not be the same as what another person considers as slightly thus the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13-20 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 4, 5, and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination of elements recited in claim 1, wherein a paintball loader is comprised of a shell, an inlet, an outlet, a paddle having one or more fins, a motor, a gear assembly, a drive spring assembly comprising a clutch assembly and a torsion spring, and a first sensor for monitoring a tension of the torsion spring.
The prior art does not teach or render obvious the claimed combination of elements recited in claim 20, wherein a method for producing a paintball loader is comprised of providing a shell comprising an inlet and an outlet for paintball projectiles, providing a main body comprising a paddle, a motor, a gear assembly, a clutch assembly, a torsion spring, and a sensor, and attaching the main body into the shell removably by using magnets.
Stevens et al. (US 2011/0067681 A1) discloses a paintball loader that is comprised of a shell having an inlet and an outlet, a main body comprised of a paddle, a motor, a drive assembly that can include one or more gears, at least one sensor that senses jams, and magnets that removably attach the main body inside the shell. Stevens et al. does not disclose a clutch assembly and a torsion spring in the main body.
Fiorill et al. (US 8,459,245 B1) discloses a paintball gun that is comprised of a shell, an inlet, an outlet, a main body located in the shell, a feed cone having a plurality of fins, electromagnetic drive members. Fiorill et al. does not disclose a clutch assembly because, as outline in Column 8 / Lines 17-22, the feed cone 45 provides the advantages of a clutch mechanism in the feed cone drive without a dedicated clutch device. The result is a drive apparatus 50 for an active paintball loader that provides improved performance with a simpler and less complex mechanism. Thus, Fiorill et al. teaches away from modifying its structure to have a clutch assembly.
Christopher (US 7,832,389 B2) discloses a paintball loader that is comprised of a shell, an inlet, an outlet, a paddle with a plurality of fins, a motor attached to a controller, a main body that contains the motor, a sensor that detects the presence of projectiles in the loader, a feed mechanism that is comprised of a torsion spring and a magnetic clutch system. Christopher does not disclose a gear assembly, a sensor that monitors a tension of the torsion spring, and magnets that removably attach the main body to the shell.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sheng (EP 1584886 A1) discloses a paintball gun with a spring-loaded ramp.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights