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 . This action is in response to Application #19/029,938 filed on 17 January 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 appears to claim a shotgun with a cover bed. Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 which is an optic plate cover. A shotgun and plate cover system is not claimed, therefore claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL (https://gunsweek.com/en/shotguns/news/mossberg-940-pro-tactical-optics-ready-shotgun, 26MAR2022 in view of US Patent 10,871,350 issued to Thomas et al (Thomas).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, NPL discloses an optic-ready shotgun optic plate cover and method of making comprising:
forming at least one optic plate cover configured to affix to a shotgun receiver (NPL, see page 4);
defining at least one optic fastener opening defined in the at least one upper surface of the at least one optic plate cover (see NPL page 4);
defining at least one front, back face, at least one first and second side wall extending downward from the at least one upper surface of the at least one optic plate cover (see NPL page 4).
NPL fails to specifically disclose defining at least one rear site integrated into the at least one optic plate cover extending upward from the at least one upper surface of the at least one optic plate cover. NPL discloses a shotgun with a receiver cut for an optic (see pages 1-2) and a cover plate (see page 4). Thomas teaches a cutout for an optic (fig.7f) and a plate with an iron sight (fig.5) for the old and well-known advantage of allowing an iron sight to aid a user in aiming the firearm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to incorporate the iron sight as taught by Thomas into the plate of NPL for the stated advantage of providing a rear sight to utilize in aiming the firearm.
Regarding Claims 2, 11, see NPL page 4.
Regarding Claims 3, 12, see NPL page 4 for at least two fastener openings.
Regarding Claim 4, 13, see NPL page 4, the plate may be seen to have angled side wall surfaces relative to the top surface.
Regarding Claims 5-8, 14-17, NPL and Thomas disclose angled first and second side faces with respect to a flat upper surface (see NPL fig.4). Thomas appears to have an angled rear surface (fig.5, 508). However, it would have been an obvious engineering design choice to modify the plate of NPL and with any number of angled surfaces, angles, and outswells, to fit any design of any optic plate cover bed that is made into a receiver of a firearm as one having ordinary skill would appreciate incorporating the teaching into firearms having different shaped and sized receivers require modification to the slopes, angles, and faces of the receiver bed as well as matching surfaces to the cover plate, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 9, 18, see NPL page 3, the paragraph beginning with “The functionality of…and by a receiver cuts protected by a removable plate that accepts low-profile direct mounting of Shield RMSc-pattern micro dot sights.”
Regarding Claims 19-20, NPL discloses a method for retrofitting an existing shotgun to incorporate an optic-ready shotgun optic plate cover comprising:
forming at least (one) optic plate cover bed into a shotgun receiver (see NPL figures);
configuring at least one optic plate cover to affix to the at least (one) optic plate cover bed formed into the shotgun receiver (see top photo on page 2, and page 4);
configuring the at least one optic plate cover to include:
at least two optic fastener openings defined into the at least one upper surface of the at least one optic plate cover (NPL see page 4), defining them to accommodate optic mounting footprints (see NPL page 3, the paragraph beginning with “The functionality of…and by a receiver cuts protected by a removable plate that accepts low-profile direct mounting of Shield RMSc-pattern micro dot sights); and
at least one front, back face, at least one first and second side wall extending downward from the at least one upper surface of the at least one optic plate cover (see NPL page 4).
NPL fails to specifically disclose at least one rear site integrated into the at least one optic plate cover extending upward from the at least one upper surface of the at least one optic plate cover. NPL discloses a shotgun with a receiver cut for an optic (see pages 1-2) and a cover plate (see page 4). Thomas teaches a cutout for an optic (fig.7f) and a plate with an iron sight (fig.5) for the old and well-known advantage of allowing an iron sight to aid a user in aiming the firearm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to incorporate the iron sight as taught by Thomas into the plate of NPL for the stated advantage of providing a rear sight to utilize in aiming the firearm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for pertinent art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D COOPER whose telephone number is (571)270-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 - 4:30 MST.
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.
/JOHN COOPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641