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 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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
In view of the indefinite issues the claims will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DenBleyker, US Patent Publication No. 2015/0068097.
Regarding claim 1, DenBleyker discloses a shoulder stock for pistols (figure 3), consisting of an elongated body, whose rear end forms a first support surface for contact against a shoulder region of a shooter (rear surface of 20 in figure 3), and having a front end that forms a hand grip (25) for a hand of the shooter with a second support surface for receiving a reaction force of the pistol ([0019] and figure 3), the hand grip is replaceable (25, 25A, 25B as in [0025] and figures 5-8) and the handgrip shape is adapted to a grip shape of the respective pistol in use (figures 1-3)
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bubits, US Patent Publication No. 2017/0045330 in view of DenBleyker.
Regarding claim 1, Bubits discloses a shoulder stock for pistols (1), consisting of an elongated body, whose rear end forms a first support surface (6) for contact against a shoulder region of a shooter ([0022]), and having a front end that forms a hand grip (15) for a hand of the shooter with a second support surface for receiving a reaction force of the pistol ([0024]), the handgrip shape is adapted to a grip shape of the respective pistol in use ([0024]); however, Bubits does not specifically disclose the handgrip is replaceable. Nonetheless, DenBleyker teaches a shoulder stock for a pistol and the grip engaging forward portion being detachable and interchangeable (best shown in figures 5-8).
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Bubits to have a replaceable forward portion similar to that as taught by DenBleyker in order to allow the stock to accommodate different handgrip shapes like that taught by DenBleyker in [0020].
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bubits, US as modified by DenBleyker in view of Alsop, US Patent No. 28,433.
Regarding claim 2, Bubits as modified by DenBleyker discloses the claimed invention of a shoulder stock with an interchangeable forward portion and Bubits discloses the elongated body is branched into two arms (13 and 14) but does not specifically disclose the structure which facilitates an interchangeable forward portion would support the branched arms. Nonetheless, Alsop teaches a stock (figure1) which attaches to a pistol handgrip and specifically teaches how a stock split in two branches would be removeably attached to a pistol grip and specifically teaches the arms and the hand grip are connected by longitudinally oriented plug pins (b and d).
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Bubits to have a removeably attached forward portion similar to that as taught by DenBleyker with a structure similar to that as taught by Alsop with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate a secure connection of both branched arms of Bubits to the removeable forward portion like that taught by DenBleyker.
Regarding claim 3, Bubits as modified by DenGleyker and Alsop further discloses the hand grip consists of a base and side walls, which form a forwardly open recess, which recess is adapted to the respective pistol in use (shown in figures 3 and 4 of Bubits).
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DenBleyker in view of Boone, US Patent No. 8,438,771.
Regarding claim 5, DenBleyker further discloses the handgrip presents a forwardly open recess (forward recess of 25) into which an insert part can be fitted; however, for the sake of thoroughness, Boone teaches a forward facing recess of a shoulder stock and an insert 44 which receives the grip of the pistol.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify DenBleyker to have an insert similar to that as taught by Boone in order to cushion the interface between the stock and pistol grip and protect the pistol grip from damage.
Regarding claim 8, DenBleyker as modified by Boone discloses the stock having an insert but does not specifically disclose the insert is elastic material. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select an elastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. An elastic material would be an obvious choice by one of ordinary skill in the art in order to facilitate recoil reduction and protecting the handgrip of the pistol.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.While the Examiner is available via telephone to resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. The Examiner may be reached by telephone at 571-272-6352.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641