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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the attachment body comprising first and second body portions moveably engaged with one another (claim 10) and the attachment body being foldable (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because “1” in line 1 should be followed by a comma (,).
Claim 11 is object to because “it” should be replaced with a positive recitation of the intended element to promote clarity, and “if” should be replaced with when because the term “if” suggests an uncertainty, meaning the stand cannot be folded.
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In view of the objection to the drawings above, the metes and bounds of the claims are ambiguous. The claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
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 1-2, 8-9, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2 289 214 A to Sandiford et al. (“Sandiford,” cited by Applicant).
Re: claims 1-2, Sandiford discloses the claimed invention including a multi-legged-stand attachment for supporting a firearm, the multi-legged-stand attachment comprising: at least one leg connector (two are inherent as via, e.g.: “at least one cross-member 14 connecting the legs,” Abstract; and, “a rest for supporting and steadying hand held items of equipment,” page 1, lines 1-2) for in-use engaging with a leg 10, 12 of a multi-legged stand (shown) below a canopy 18 thereof; an attachment body 14 engaged with the at least one leg connector; and a firearm support 20 positioned on the attachment body and which is configured to support a firearm to thereby convert the multi-legged stand into a below-canopy firearm stabilizer.
Re: claim 8, Sandiford fairly discloses wherein the attachment body is formed as a linear body (shown) or as a non-linear body.
Re: claim 9, Sandiford further discloses wherein the attachment body is angled or substantially angled relative to the firearm support. This is asserted because both angled and substantially angled are met by the orthogonal relationship between the elements. Alternatively, even an angle of zero degrees between the two elements meets the first limitation.
Re: claim 12, Sandiford further discloses wherein the firearm support comprises a brace for resting a firearm on, e.g., “locating means [18, 20] may comprise a U-shaped bracket,” Abstract, and “The rest may be used for supporting…rifles,” id.
Re: claim 13, Sandiford further discloses wherein the firearm support protrudes outwardly from the attachment body (likely but not inherent or disclosed) and/or is integrally formed as part of the attachment body (also likely but not inherent or disclosed) or is releasably engageable with the attachment body (disclosed as “locating means 20 are positioned on the crossmember 14,” page 2, fourth paragraph, ll. 9-10). That is, being positioned sufficiently suggests being releasably engageable with the attachment body.
Re: claim 14, Sandiford further discloses wherein the firearm support is moveably engaged with the attachment body. See above, i.e., being positioned on the crossmember clearly allows for reconfiguring the location of the support.
Re: claim 18, Sandiford fairly discloses the at least one leg connector being rotatable because whatever the mechanism, such would be capable of rotation which suffices.
Re: claim 19, Sandiford fairly discloses the at least one leg connector being releasably engageable from the attachment body because, akin to claim 18 above, whatever the mechanism, such would be capable of being removed, i.e., released, and such engages the attachment body, each of which suffices.
Re: method claim 20, in view of the structure disclosed by Sandiford, the method of reconfiguring the stand to support a firearm is inherent, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the support is used.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,410,835 to Vetter (cited by Applicant).
Re: claim 1, Vetter discloses the claimed invention including a multi-legged-stand attachment for supporting a firearm, the multi-legged-stand attachment comprising: at least one leg connector 40, e.g., Fig. 4, for in-use engaging with a leg 12 of a multi-legged stand, e.g., Fig. 2, below a canopy (where 12 and 20 meet) thereof; an attachment body 50 engaged with the at least one leg connector; and a firearm support 52 positioned on the attachment body and which is configured to support a firearm to thereby convert the multi-legged stand into a below-canopy firearm stabilizer, Abstract.
Re: claim 3, Vetter further discloses wherein only one leg connector is provided.
Re: claim 4, Vetter further discloses wherein the at least one leg connector has at least one clasp, inter alia, 44, 46.
Re: claim 6, Vetter further discloses wherein the at least one clasp has a strap 42 and a complementary strap connector 44, 46.
Re: claim 7, Vetter further discloses wherein the at least one leg connector comprises a hook (combination of 52 and 54).
Re: claim 8, Vetter further discloses wherein the attachment body is formed as a linear body (its uppermost portion is flat, which suffices) or as a non-linear body (either alone or in combination with cradle 52, such includes a curved portion, which suffices).
Re: claim 9, Vetter further discloses wherein the at least one leg connector is angled or substantially angled relative to the firearm support. There appears to be an orthogonal relationship between 50 and 52, which suffices.
Re: claim 12, Vetter further discloses wherein the firearm support comprises a brace 54 for resting a firearm on.
Re: claim 13, Vetter further discloses wherein the firearm support protrudes outwardly from the attachment body (shown) and/or is integrally formed as part of the attachment body (also shown) or is releasably engageable with the attachment body.
Re: claim 18, Vetter fairly discloses wherein the at least one leg connector is rotatable, e.g., about strut 12.
Re: method claim 20, In view of the structure disclosed by Vetter, the method of reconfiguring the stand to support a firearm is inherent, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the support is used.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vetter.
Re: claim 5, Vetter discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for wherein a plurality of clasps is provided. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandiford.
Re: claim 10, Sandiford discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for the attachment body comprising first and second body portions moveably engaged with one another to permit adjustment of a length of the attachment body. However, Sandiford does disclose that “The legs may be telescopically adjustable in length,” page 1, fifth paragraph, and that “When the rest is for a rifle, a cross-member may be at a height suitable for supporting the rifle when to be used from a sitting or kneeling position,” page 2, second paragraph. Because Sandiford contemplates adjustability in the lengths of the legs and a height suitable to support a rifle while a person sits or kneels, adjustability of the length of the attachment body would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art, since individuals differ in their sitting and kneeling heights. Alternatively, it has been held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (Claims were directed to a handle for a fishing rod wherein the handle has a longitudinally adjustable finger hook, and the hand grip of the handle connects with the body portion by means of a universal joint. The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art-recognized need for adjustment in a fishing rod, the substitution of a universal joint for the single pivot of the prior art would have been obvious.).
Re: claim 11, in view of the above, making the attachment body two pieces telescopically connected would suffice to meet or obviate being foldable, as best understood.
Claim 11 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandiford in view of US 1,382,409 to Butler.
Sandiford discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for wherein the attachment body is foldable.
Butler teaches a multi-legged stand, e.g., Figs. 2-4 and 6, including an attachment body 25 with leg connectors 33, the body being foldable about pin 32 in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of being “substantially parallel between the compressed legs,” page 1, ll. 94-95.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sandiford as taught by Butler in order to achieve a folded state wherein the body is substantially parallel between the legs with a reasonable expectation of success because Butler further discloses “Stop lugs 30 on the outer ends of links 25 prevent the links from swinging downward at their inner ends beyond the horizontal, said lugs engaging the central section of the channeled legs when the links have been swung to such an extent,” id., ll. 95-101. Further rationale: All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandiford in view of US 9,518,795 to Dix et al. (“Dix”).
Re: claim 15, Sandiford discloses the claimed invention as applied above including wherein the firearm support comprises a static portion (either the U-shaped frame or block of resilient material), except for the static portion further comprising a mounting body having a moveable portion engaged therewith.
Dix teaches a multi-legged stand 210, e.g., Figs. 2A-B, including an attachment body 260 having leg connectors, inter alia, 440, 455, e.g., Fig. 4A, and a firearm support 290 including a static portion 340, e.g., Fig. 3, the static portion further comprising a mounting body 350 having a moveable portion 345 engaged therewith in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of controlling the elevation of the firearm support, col. 3, ll. 59, through col. 4, ll. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sandiford as taught by Dix in order to control elevation of the firearm support with a reasonable expectation of success because Dix further discloses azimuth control via knob 320 with ring graduations 325, col. 3, ll. 56-58. The same further rationale provided above would apply equally well here.
Re: claim 16, Dix further discloses wherein the moveable portion comprises a firearm-rail connector 315, 395, attached thereon.
Re: claim 17, Dix further discloses wherein the moveable portion is rotatable about an axis relative to the static potion of the firearm support. See first passage cited in claim 15, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern.
The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874.
/Bret Hayes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
25-Feb-26