DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 04, 2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1 & 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lodge et al., [US 2013/0002116] in view of Fisher [US 2017/0030114]. Lodge teaches of a weapon rack (fig. 6), comprising: a mounting backplane (38) including an upper plate (such as second plate (36) from the bottom as shown in fig. 7 for instance) including an upper array of mounting apertures (39), and a lower plate (such as the bottom plate (36) below the upper plate as shown in fig. 7 for instance) including a lower array of mounting apertures (39); a plurality gun stock boots (46’s) configured to be coupled to the lower array [0038]; and a plurality of weapon mounts (such as 51’s) as shown in fig. 6 for instance) configured to be coupled to the upper array; but Lodge does not show electromechanical weapon locks (can be associated with the mounts) and configured to be coupled to the upper array. As to the incorporation of an electromechanical weapon lock, Fisher is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of electromechanical weapon locks (note figs. 2-3) that can be coupled to a vertical riser for retaining weapons therein (fig. 1) in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lodge so as to replace the basic weapon mounts with electromechanical locks in view of Fisher’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an additional layer of security in safeguarding the weapons stored upon the rack. Regarding Claim 3, as modified, Lodge teaches the lower array as having multiple columns and rows of mounting aperture patterns each including side-by-side pairs of mounting apertures (note fig. 6), and the upper array has multiple columns and rows of mounting and access aperture patterns each including a central access aperture and at least two mounting apertures (again, note fig. 6). Regarding Claim 4, as modified, Lodge further teaches of a handgun restraint (54) coupled to the mounting backplane above one of the plurality of the electromechanical weapon locks (can be mounted along the upper plate above the weapon mounts when securing shorter in length rifles for instance – note lower left in fig. 6 showing the shorter in height securement placement) and configured to extend into a barrel of a weapon (has a capacity depending upon the type of non-positively claimed weapon). Regarding Claim 5, as modified, wherein at least one of the plurality of electromechanical weapon locks includes: a housing (70, 52, 62 forming the housing – [0031]), and a latch (75 or 77) pivotably coupled to the housing about a latch pivot axis (note fig. 6). Regarding Claim 6, as modified, wherein at least one of the plurality of electromechanical weapon locks also includes a spring (106) to bias the latch toward a locked position of the latch (note [0037] of Fisher). Regarding Claim 7, as modified, an electromechanical slide bolt (can be viewed as either (108) or (63) of Fisher for instance) carried by the housing and configured to cooperate with the latch to lock the latch in a locked position of the latch. Regarding Claim 8, as modified, the housing includes a scalloped front end (clearly shown in fig. 2 of Fisher) to partially establish a weapon pocket. Regarding Claim 9, as modified, the combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed rack as outlined above, including the use of a spring to maintain the latch in a closed position; but does not show the use of a magnet to perform the same function. As to this aspect, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of the prior art in order to substitute a magnet for a spring (performing the function of latch biasing) since administrative notice is taken of the fact that springs and magnets can be used in the biasing art, with a reasonable expectation of success, and the selection of either one of these equivalents to interact with a movable latch would be well within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding Claim 10, as modified, Lodge further teaches of the weapon rack being secured within an enclosure (37) including a base wall (viewed as the modular wall comprising combined (18, 11B & 11C) for instance), sidewalls (14, 15) extending forward away from the base wall, top and bottom walls (16, 9) extending forward away from the base wall, and doors (5a, 5B) hingedly coupled to the sidewalls. Regarding Claim 11, as modified, the mounting backplane is fastened to the base wall with tamper-evident security fasteners (viewed as the rear facing projections (36A-36D) which are not visible from a front viewing perspective).
Claims 2 & 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lodge et al., in view of Fisher and further in view of Wu [US 2013/0127316]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed rack as outlined above; but does not show the inclusion of a hinge pivotably coupling the upper and lower plates to one another. As to the incorporation of a connecting hinge, Wu is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of joining two base / rear panels (11) together via a hinge (115), where the panels form a backplane of a structure. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lodge so as to utilize a hinge for pivotally connecting together the base / rear panels in view of Wu’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by allowing the separate base panels to be pivotally connected together thereby promoting each of assembly and/or storage due to the interlinking of the panels whereby the panels are always attached and not easily separated (i.e., they are always joined and therefore one panel is not easily misplaced). As to Claims 12-20, the position is taken that the similarly claimed features have adequately been mapped within the above rejections and therefore a redundant mapping of the features is superfluous.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,819,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features set forth in the instant application are accounted for within the prior patented claimed scope.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,222. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features set forth in the instant application are accounted for within the prior patented claimed scope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various weapon securing racks / cabinets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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. 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.
JOH
July 2, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights