Detailed Action
The following is a non-final rejection made in response to claims received on January 13th 2025. 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.
Claim 2 is 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 claim is considered indefinite for several reasons. First, while the Applicant may have intended for the claim to depend upon independent claim 1, the claim is currently constructed as an independent claim. As such, the claim fails to establish proper antecedent basis for a plurality of limitations, such as “each projectile holder” and “the next adjacent projectile holder”. There is no context establishing what the Applicant is referring to with these limitations.
Second, the claim solely states that the projectile holder is “adapted to move forward and rearward relative to the next adjacent projectile holder in the storage belt.” There is no structure that is claimed that results in that functionality. Looking to the specification, a “resilient member” (para. [0036]), an “advancement mechanism” (para. [0038]), and a “plunger element” / “air piston barrel” configuration (para. [0042]) are various means of achieving the function of moving the holder as claimed. The claim’s structure goes beyond the scope of these embodiments, and captures any and all structures capable of performing as claimed, including structural configurations that may have no been considered by the Applicant1. Defining the projectile holder in terms of what it is “adapted to” do does not necessarily incorporate, or exclude, any structure2. Based on the factual circumstances of this case, the limitation is considered to be indefinite.
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 10,775,142 (hereinafter referred to in this section as “HK ARMY” or “the reference”).
Regarding claim 1, HK Army teaches a storage belt (100) for use in a projectile launcher comprising (the storage belt can receive pods of paintballs for use in a paintball launcher; see col. 1, ll. 35-45): a plurality of substantially cylindrical projectile holders (20) each adapted to contain a projectile and having a projectile holder section (33) and a rear opening section (via straps 14a and 14b); and a rear end ring (via elastic securing mechanism 25; see Figs. 10 and 11) between the holder section (33) and the rear opening section (14a, b) adapted to retain the projectile within the projectile holder (col. 5, ll. 18-20), the rear opening section having a larger diameter than the projectile holder section (straps 14a and 14b close a loop around a wearer, making for a larger diameter loop when compared to the projectile holder section of the harness).
Regarding claim 2, HK Army teaches that each projectile holder is adapted to move forward and rearward relative to the next adjacent projectile holder in the storage belt (the projectile holders include Velcro straps for securing pods of paintballs in place, those straps are considered to be capable of moving forward and rearward relative to the other projectile holders; see col. 5, ll. 53-56).
Conclusion
While the Examiner is available via telephone to help resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing the USPTO’s Inventor Assistance Center for general administrative and/or procedural matters at 800-786-9199. Issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. In accordance with current USPTO policy, this form must be submitted on the record prior to internet communications being authorized. A written statement by the Applicant authorizing internet communications on the record is not sufficient. Once authorization is submitted, the Applicant may contact the Examiner at samir.abdosh@uspto.gov. In the event that a telephone conversation would be the easiest means of resolving issues related to the subject matter of a pending patent application, the Examiner may be reached by telephone at 303-297-4454. Interviews will not be granted after issuance of a final rejection unless it is to discuss an amendment that either places the application in condition for allowance or simplifies issues for appeal.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 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.
/Samir Abdosh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
1 “A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. Instead, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. For example, a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim).” MPEP 2173.02 (I)
2 “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04