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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “swivel mechanism” in claims 1 and 3, and “detent mechanism” in claims 3 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 6, “the one or more barrel rod” should read --the at least one barrel rod--
Claims 19 and 20, “the desired position” at the end of each claim should read --a desired position--
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.
Claim 7 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.
In regards to claim 7, “the fixed detent member” and “the dynamic detent member” lack proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogge et al. (US Pat. No. 5,078,276).
In regards to claim 1, Rogge teaches a handgun hanger apparatus, comprising: a mounting plate (52, 58, 60); at least one barrel rod (80), the barrel rod extending to form a vertical post (84), the vertical post configured to pass through a portion of the mounting plate; a spring (90) coupled to the vertical post; and a swivel mechanism (e.g.; 58, 66) configured to allow a user to selectively swivel the at least one barrel rod (Col 2, Lines 24-27).
In regards to claim 3, Rogge teaches the swivel mechanism comprises a detent mechanism (66).
In regards to claim 4, Rogge teaches the detent mechanism comprises a fixed detent member (66) and a dynamic detent member (i.e.; the portion of 80 received in 68).
In regards to claim 5, Rogge teaches the detent mechanism (66) is positioned on a first portion (58) of the mounting plate and the spring (90) is positioned on an opposite side of the first portion within an aperture (behind 72) formed by the mounting plate.
In regards to claim 8, Rogge teaches a safe track clip bracket (120) configured to couple to the mounting plate.
In regards to claim 10, Rogge teaches a shelf hanging bracket (120).
In regards to claim 11, Rogge teaches a handgun hanger apparatus, comprising: a mounting plate (52, 58, 60); at least one barrel rod (80), the barrel rod extending to form a vertical post (84), the vertical post configured to pass through a portion of the mounting plate; and a detent mechanism (66) coupled to the vertical post (via 58), the detent mechanism configured to allow a user to selectively swivel the one or more barrel rod (Col 2, Lines 24-27).
In regards to claim 12, Rogge teaches the detent mechanism comprises a fixed detent member (66) and a dynamic detent member (i.e.; the portion of 80 received in 68).
In regards to claim 13, Rogge teaches the detent mechanism (66) is positioned on a first portion (58) of the mounting plate and a spring (90) is positioned on an opposite side of the first portion within an aperture (behind 72) formed by the mounting plate.
In regards to claim 16, Rogge teaches a safe track clip bracket (120) configured to couple to the mounting plate.
In regards to claim 18, Rogge teaches a shelf hanging bracket (120).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (US Pat. No. 5,188,328).
In regards to claim 19, Thompson teaches a method of using a handgun hanger apparatus, comprising: mounting the handgun hanger to a wall (10) directly; sliding a barrel (64) of a handgun over a barrel rod (51) so that the handgun is supported by the barrel on the barrel rod; and swiveling the handgun to the desired position (via sleeve 44; see positions A and B in Fig. 4; Col 3, Lines 21-23).
Claims 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dietsch (US Pat. No. 3,329,385).
In regards to claim 1, Dietsch teaches a handgun hanger apparatus, comprising: a mounting plate (12); at least one barrel rod (60), the barrel rod extending to form a vertical post (50), the vertical post configured to pass through a portion (26) of the mounting plate; a spring (130) coupled to the vertical post; and a swivel mechanism (24) configured to allow a user to selectively swivel the at least one barrel rod (Col 1, Lines 8-13).
In regards to claim 2, Dietsch teaches the swivel mechanism comprises a pivot block (24).
In regards to claim 3, Dietsch teaches the swivel mechanism comprises a detent mechanism (86).
In regards to claim 4, Dietsch teaches the detent mechanism comprises a fixed detent member (86) and a dynamic detent member (i.e.; the portion 70 received in 86).
In regards to claim 11, Dietsch teaches a handgun hanger apparatus, comprising: a mounting plate (12); at least one barrel rod (60), the barrel rod extending to form a vertical post (50), the vertical post configured to pass through a portion (26) of the mounting plate; and a detent mechanism (86) coupled to the vertical post, the detent mechanism configured to allow a user to selectively swivel the one or more barrel rod (Col 1, Lines 8-13).
In regards to claim 12, Dietsch teaches the detent mechanism comprises a fixed detent member (86) and a dynamic detent member (i.e.; the portion 70 received in 86).
In regards to claim 13, Dietsch teaches the detent mechanism is positioned on a first portion (24) of the mounting plate and a spring (130) is positioned on an opposite side of the first portion within an aperture (20) formed by the mounting plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogge et al. (US Pat. No. 5,078,276) in view of Hartness (US Pat. No. 9,683,804 B2).
In regards to claims 9 and 17, Rogge teaches the mounting plate couples to the safe track clip bracket via a hem (i.e.; bent portion 122) on the safe track clip bracket. Rogge does not teach a metal hem. Hartness teaches a mounting plate (2) coupled to a safe track clip bracket (6) via a metal hem (i.e.; bent portion 7) on the bracket.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Rogge’s hem to be metal. The motivation would be for the purpose of using a high strength material that is durable as taught by Hartness (Col 3, Lines 45-47).
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US Pat. No. 5,188,328) in view of Brooks et al. (US Pat. No. 3,635,352).
In regards to claim 20, Thompson does not teach sliding a plurality of handguns over a plurality of barrel rods, respectively, so that each handgun is supported via a respective barrel rod, and swiveling the plurality of handguns to the desired position.
Brooks teaches a plurality of swiveling rods (6) on a vertical rod (2) configured to have barrels (9) slid over the rods.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Thompson’s method to include a plurality of barrel rods, such that the method includes sliding a plurality of handguns over a plurality of barrel rods, respectively, so that each handgun is supported via a respective barrel rod, and swiveling the plurality of handguns to the desired position as similarly taught by Brooks’s invention. The motivation would be for the purpose of increasing the available storage of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 7 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 closest prior art of record is discussed above. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious a handgun hanger having the combination of structural and functional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights