DETAILED ACTION
In the Non-Final Rejection mailed 2/11/2026:
Claim 13 was cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 were rejected.
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 6/11/2026 has been entered:
Claims 13 and 15-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are active.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mauser (US 1129884), herein ‘Mauser’.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Mauser discloses a firearm magazine (a) comprising:
a magazine tube having an open bottom (Figs. 1 and 4);
a first lateral flange (b) extending laterally out from a first lateral side of said magazine tube proximate said bottom (Figs. 1 and 4-5);
a second lateral flange (b) extending laterally out from a second lateral side of said magazine tube proximate said bottom (Figs. 1 and 4-5);
a base pad (c) having a body (Figs. 1-3) with a front (Figs. 1-3; to the right), a first lateral side (Figs. 1-3), a second lateral side (Figs. 1-3), a back (Figs. 1-3; to the left), and a floor (Figs. 1-3);
said body having a first longitudinal slot engaged to said first lateral flange and a second longitudinal slot engaged to said second lateral flange (Figs. 1-2 and 5; lines 29-32), said first and second longitudinal slots being open to the rear so that said first and second lateral flanges can slide rearward out of said first and second longitudinal slots in order to disengage said magazine tube from said body (Fig. 1);
a cantilever spring (c1-c3) having a fixed end (Fig. 3; right side) and a free end (Fig. 3; left side), with said fixed end being connected to said body (Fig. 3; lines 32-36);
said cantilever spring being longitudinally oriented and aligned with said first longitudinal slot (Figs. 1-2), with said free end of said cantilever spring lying proximate said back of said body (Figs. 1-2; lines 36-41);
said cantilever spring including an upper extreme protruding above said floor and lying to the rear of a trailing portion of said first lateral flange (Fig. 2), thereby retaining said first lateral flange within said first longitudinal slot (Fig. 2; lines 36-41); and
said cantilever spring being elastically flexible so that said upper extreme can move downward sufficiently to allow said first lateral flange to slide rearward out of said first longitudinal slot without causing plastic deformation of said cantilever spring (lines 41-46).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Mauser discloses wherein said cantilever spring includes a vertical portion configured to bear against said trailing portion of said first lateral flange when said first lateral flange rests within said first longitudinal slot (Figs. 2-3; lines 36-41).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Mauser discloses wherein the cantilever spring includes an arcuate segment (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauser (US 1129884) as applied to claims 1-2 and 8-9 above, respectively, and further in view of Shreve (US 9448022), herein ‘Shreve’.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 10-11, Mauser does not expressly teach wherein said cantilever spring includes an angled portion lying to the rear of said vertical portion.
Shreve teaches a magazine (48) to which a floor plate (10) is installed, the floor plate comprising a cantilever spring (30) comprising a vertical portion (32) which limits forward movement of the floor plate (col. 4 lines 31-33) and an angled portion (68) lying to the rear of the vertical portion (Fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cantilever spring of Mauser to include an angled portion lying to the rear of the vertical portion as taught by Shreve with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate rearward movement of the floor plate during installation (Shreve; col. 4 lines 33-35).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauser (US 1129884) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, respectively, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 10921075), herein ‘Brown’.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Mauser discloses a vertical portion configured to bear against said trailing portion of said first lateral flange when said first lateral flange rests within said first longitudinal slot (Figs. 2-3; lines 36-41), but does not expressly teach a separate engagement portion attached to said free end of said cantilever spring, said separate engagement portion including the vertical portion.
Brown teaches a magazine (50) having lateral flanges (117) to which is slidably attached a base pad (68) with a cantilever spring (121) comprising a separate engagement portion attached to a free end thereof (Fig. 12; col. 12 lines 8-9), the separate engagement portion including an angled portion (121-1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cantilever spring of Mauser to include a separate engagement portion as taught by Brown with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin vs. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauser (US 1129884) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shreve (US 9448022) and Brown et al. (US 10921075).
Regarding claim 6, Mauser does not expressly teach a separate engagement portion attached to said free end of said cantilever spring, said separate engagement portion including an angled portion.
Shreve teaches a magazine (48) to which a floor plate (10) is installed, the floor plate comprising a cantilever spring (30) comprising a vertical portion (32) which limits forward movement of the floor plate (col. 4 lines 31-33) and an angled portion (68) lying to the rear of the vertical portion (Fig. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cantilever spring of Mauser to include an angled portion lying to the rear of the vertical portion as taught by Shreve with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate rearward movement of the floor plate during installation (Shreve; col. 4 lines 33-35).
Additionally, Brown teaches a magazine (50) having lateral flanges (117) to which is slidably attached a base pad (68) with a cantilever spring (121) comprising a separate engagement portion attached to a free end thereof (Fig. 12; col. 12 lines 8-9), the separate engagement portion including an angled portion (121-1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cantilever spring of Mauser to include a separate engagement portion as taught by Brown with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin vs. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Conclusion
Claims 13 and 15-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S GOMBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-4802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
/BENJAMIN S. GOMBERG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
