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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS document submitted 7/14/2025 is acknowledge and has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 7/14/2025 are acknowledged and acceptable.
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 11, 12 and 13 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.
In claims 11, 12, 17 and 18, Applicant requires that “strap-member is adapted to extend from a front edge portion of the storage device to the belt via and above a shoulder during use” (claims 11 and 17) or “a strap-member is adapted to extend from a support face edge portion to the belt via and above the shoulder during use” (claims 12 and 18). The disclosure does not make clear how this claim limitation is supported. There does not appear to be any embodiment utilizing a shoulder strap or facilitating a component or components above the user’s shoulder.
In claim 14, at lines 7 and 8, “on a dorsal part of the” is undefined.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 15 requires that “the upper connection comprises a frame” and further that “the frame is connected to the connecting part”. The disclosure does not include any details related to the claimed frame and prevents one of ordinary skill in the art from adequately making or using this component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loya et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0229162).
In regards to claim 1, Loya et al (henceforth referred to as Easter) disclose an aim support comprising a support part configured to be connected when in use to an attachment part. Note the elbow support platform (item 10);
- the support part comprises a support face adapted to support an elbow when the aim support is in use, and a support. The top portion of the elbow support constitutes a support face and the components supporting the platform constitute a support body (see the “base”, item 12 of figure 1);
- the support body comprises at a first end portion connecting part and at an opposite second end portion a fastening. Loya teaches that one end of the support body includes a connecting part at the support part and a fastening at a belt (see figures);
- the support face forms a fixed angle relative to the support body at the
connecting part. The support face (elbow support) of the Loya device is at a fixed angle relative to the support body (belt support assemblies);
- the attachment part comprises a belt, and the support body is configured to be connected when in use to the belt at the fastening. Loya teaches an attachment belt (item 14) with the support body connected at the belt as depicted in figure 1;
- the attachment part comprises an upper connection to connect when in use the connecting part to the attachment part. Loya teaches a connecting part (“locking arm”, item 18) that attached the support part, connecting part to the support body and the attachment part (belt);
Loya teaches that the attachment part comprises one upper connection, one side of the support part, but fails to teach one upper connection the opposite side of the support part. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second opposite upper section, to enhance the support, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8;
wherein:
- the upper connection comprises an elongated stabilizing organ between the connecting part and a portion of the belt. The locking arm of Loya constitutes an elongated stabilizing organ between an upper portion of the support body and ultimately to the belt through the support body.
In regards to claim 2, Loya fails to disclose that the upper connection comprises a fabric wherein the fabric is connected to the connecting part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize any of various materials including a fabric material for the upper connection of Loya, 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.
In regards to claim 3, Loya discloses that the upper connection comprises a frame wherein the frame is connected to the connecting part. The locking arm of Loya constitutes a frame.
In regards to claim 4, Loya discloses that the elongated stabilizing organ comprises a strap. The locking arm of Loya constitutes a strap.
In regards to claim 14, Loya disclose a method for use of the aim support according to claim
1, wherein the method comprises the steps of:
- providing an aim support according to claim 1;
- positioning the belt around a torso in an abdominal and hip region and fasten the belt;
- rotating the belt until the support part is positioned on a dorsal part of the torso;
- in need, rotating the belt until the support part is positioned on a ventral part of the torso and in a ventral supportive position for an elbow; and
- resting the elbow on the support face. Note that Loya illustrates a user in a shooting position using the elbow support in a manner that teaches the claimed steps.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loya et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0229162) in view of Steele et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0334189).
In regards to claim 5, Loya does not disclose that the elongated stabilizing organ comprises a means for adjusting the length. However, Steele et al (henceforth referred to as Steele) teaches an arm support with an adjustable stabilizing arm (see item 915) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a adjustable (in length/height) means as taught by Steele in/on the Loya device, to allow the support platform to move.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loya et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0229162) in view of Simmons et al. (U.S. Patent 5,111,983).
In regards to claim 6, Loya fails to explicitly disclose that an edge portion of the belt comprises the elongated stabilizing organ. Loya teaches that the locking arm engages with the support body rather than directly to the belt. However, Simmons et al (henceforth referred to as Simmons) teaches an arm supporting belt attached device where a stabilizing support arm is attached to or engages with the user’s belt (see item 18 of figure 1) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide the locking arm of Loya with direct belt engagement as taught by Simmons, to allow for more direct user attachment to the support.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loya et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0229162) in view of Cain et al. (U.S. Patent 6,789,344).
In regards to claim 7, Loya does not disclose that the support body comprises two legs, the legs are arranged in at least one of a parallel arrangement and an arrangement wherein the legs form a longer distance between them in the second end portion compared to the distance between them in the first end portion. However, Cain et al (henceforth referred to as Cain) teaches an arm support platform that incorporates two parallel support legs (see items 12 in figure 1) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide separate parallel support legs, in place of the single “base” support (item 12 of Loya) to limit the weight of the device.
Claim(s) 8-10, 11, 12, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loya et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0229162) in view of Easter et al. (U.S. Patent 6,336,576).
In regards to claim 8, Loya fails to disclose that the aim support comprises a storage device, wherein the support part is positioned inside the storage device or the storage device is attachable to the support part. However, Easter et al (henceforth referred to as Easter) teaches a firearm support device that incorporates a storage container (see figure 2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a storage container in/on the Loya support as taught by Easter, to increase the use and versatility of the device.
In regards to claim 9, Loya as modified by Easter discloses that the support part is adapted to provide a support for the storage device, wherein the support part forms at least one of a part of a storage device frame and the storage device frame. Note that the device of Easter includes item 192 and the supporting member forms a part of the container.
In regards to claim 10, Loya as modified with Easter discloses that the support part is positioned inside the storage device and the support face is accessible for the elbow on top of the storage device. Note that the storage container incorporates the supporting structure as claimed.
In regards to claim 16, Loya as modified with Easter discloses that the support part is positioned inside the storage device and the support face is accessible for the elbow on top of the storage device. Incorporation of a storage device of Easter with the invention of Loya provides a device that includes the resting platform in/on the storage device.
In regards to claims 11 and 17, Loya does not disclose that a strap-member is adapted to extend from a front edge portion of the storage device to the belt via and above a shoulder during use of the aim support. However, the support configuration of Easter incorporates belts and straps and a strap that transitions from the belts over the shoulder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a strap-member as taught by Easter in/on the modified Loya device to provide additional support.
In regards to claim 12 and 18, Loya fails to teach a strap-member is adapted to extend from a support face edge portion to the belt via and above the shoulder during use of the aim support. However, the support configuration of Easter incorporates belts and straps and a strap that transitions from the belts over the shoulder. Although Easter does not explicitly teach that the strap extends from the edge of the support, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a shoulder strap as taught by Easter and extend from various locations on the device including the support edge, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loya et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0229162) in view of Cheetham et al. (U.S. Patent 10,045,626).
In regards to claim 13, Loya does not discloses that the support face comprises an anti-slip material. However, Cheetham et al (henceforth referred to as Cheetham) teaches a support for a user’s elbows and includes a non-slip material (item 76 of figure 2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a non-slip material in/on the arm support of Loya as taught by Cheetham, to help keep a user’s elbow steading.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
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).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
