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 submitted 5/8/2025 are acknowledged and acceptable.
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) 1-10, 13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicer et al. (U.S. Patent 12,385,715) in view of Tippmann et al. (U.S. Patent 5,722,383) and further in view of Isabelle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0027426).
In regards to claim 1, Spicer et al (henceforth referred to as Spicer) disclose a projectile feeder, comprising:
a housing comprising an enclosed shell, the shell having a fill opening for loading
projectiles, a connector adjacent the fill opening for removably securing a cap thereto to close the fill opening, the fill opening leading to an internal cavity of the shell, a receiver adjacent the fill opening on an exterior of the housing, and a discharge opening at a bottom of the shell for discharging projectiles located in the internal cavity. Spicer illustrates a projectile hopper and feeder device including a housing (item 62) with a projectile fill opening (opening in figure 6d);
Spicer teaches a cap, but not having a mating member for rotatably securing the cap to the connector with one of a one-half turn or one-quarter turn of the cap. However, Isabelle et al (henceforth referred to as Isabelle) teaches a rotatable cap that secures to a feeding mechanism (par. 146) using any of a half turn or quarter turn and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a threaded rotatable cap for the Spicer hopper as taught by Isabelle, to allow the cap to secure to the hopper,
Spicer teaches the cap having a rotatable securing member extending from a top of the cap, a connector to secure a cap to the opening (see figure) and a discharge opening at the bottom (see figure 1a);
Spicer teaches a cap, but not a cap tether having a first end and a second end, the first end connected to the receiver on the housing, and the second end connected to the rotatable securing member of the cap. However, Tippmann, Sr. et al (henceforth referred to as Tippmann) teaches a hopper cap secured to a hopper using a tether (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a tether connection between the cap and the hopper of Spicer as taught by Tippmann, to all the cap to hang from the hopper; and,
Spicer teaches a feeder plate in the internal cavity (item 22a) and the feeder plate being a substantially planar member with a crowned top and having securing arms to secure the feeder plate to interior walls of the housing. Note that the feeder of the Spicer device is shaped as claimed except being a substantially planar. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the feeder plate of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient including with a planar surface. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In regards to claim 2, Spicer discloses that a distance between a bottom of the interior of the housing and a bottom of the feeder plate is less than twice a diameter of the projectiles used with the feeder. The space between the bottom of the hopper and the bottom of the feeder plate is within the claimed parameter.
In regards to claim 3, Spicer discloses that a longitudinal axis through the discharge opening extends generally vertically. The central axis of the discharge opening is vertical as illustrated in figure 1a.
In regards to claim 4, Spicer discloses that a longitudinal axis through the fill opening is generally at an angle to the longitudinal axis of the discharge opening (see figure 1a).
In regards to claim 5, Spicer discloses that the shell is made of two parts that are connected together. The shell portion of the hopper device of Spicer is comprised of multiple parts connected together. Note the seams in the shell.
In regards to claim 6, Spicer discloses a discharge tube extending from the discharge opening. Note the tube extending down from the hopper at the discharge (see figure 1a).
In regards to claim 7, Spicer discloses that the feeder plate extends a distance from a front and rear of the inner wall of the shell to allow for movement of the projectiles in the housing. The feeder plate of the Spicer device extends some distance between the front and rear inner walls of the hopper shell (figure 1a).
In regards to claim 8, Spicer as modified discloses that the receiver comprises a pivotable securing member, and wherein the first end of the cap tether is connected to the pivotable securing member. As modified, the cap connection includes a pivoting connection attached to the tether.
In regards to claim 9, Spicer as modified discloses that the cap tether has a width and a thickness, and wherein the width is greater than the thickness. The tether as shown in Tippmann includes two different dimensions with a width larger than a corresponding thickness.
In regards to claim 10, Spicer as modified does not explicitly disclose that the width of the cap tether is at least 3 times greater than the thickness of the cap tether. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to fabricated the comparable dimensions of the tether to any of various specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 13, Spicer does not disclose the mating member of the cap is secured to the connector with one of a one-half turn or one-quarter turn of the cap. However, Isabelle teaches a rotatable cap that secures to a feeding mechanism (par. 146) using any of a half turn or quarter turn and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a threaded rotatable cap for the Spicer hopper as taught by Isabelle, to allow the cap to secure to the hopper.
In regards to claim 15, Spicer discloses a projectile feeder, comprising:
a housing comprising an enclosed shell, the shell having a fill opening for loading
projectiles, the fill opening leading to an internal cavity of the shell and
a receiver adjacent the fill opening on an exterior of the shell, and a discharge opening at a bottom of the shell for discharging projectiles located in the internal cavity. Spicer illustrates a projectile hopper and feeder device including a housing (item 62) with a projectile fill opening (opening in figure 6d);
Spicer teaches a cap for closing the fill opening, but not the cap having a rotatable securing member extending from a top of the cap. Note the cap in figure 1a and that it rotates into securing position. However, Isabelle teaches a rotatable cap that secures to a feeding mechanism (par. 146) using any of a half turn or quarter turn and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a threaded rotatable cap for the Spicer hopper as taught by Isabelle, to allow the cap to secure to the hopper; and,
Spicer does not teach a cap tether having a first end and a second end, the first end connected to the receiver on the housing, and the second end connected to the rotatable securing member of the cap. However, Tippmann teaches a hopper cap secured to a hopper using a tether (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a tether connection between the cap and the hopper of Spicer as taught by Tippmann, to all the cap to hang from the hopper.
In regards to claim 16, Spicer discloses a connector adjacent the fill opening
for removably securing a cap thereto to close the fill opening, The hopper includes a connecting component to secure the cap to close the fill opening.
In regards to claim 17, Spicer as modified discloses that the cap has a mating member for rotatably securing the cap to the connector. The cap has a component allowing rotation and securing the cap to the connector when the cap is rotated into closed position.
In regards to claim 18, Spicer as modified with Tibbmann discloses that the cap tether has a width and a thickness, and wherein the width is greater than the thickness. The tether as shown in Tippmann includes two different dimensions with a width larger than a corresponding thickness.
In regards to claim 19, Spicer does not explicitly disclose that the width of the cap tether is at least 3 times greater than the thickness of the cap tether. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to fabricated the comparable dimensions of the tether to any of various specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 20, Spicer does not disclose a discharge tube extending from the discharge opening, and a discharge cap to cover the discharge opening, wherein the discharge cap has a tether secured around the discharge tube. However, Spicer as modified by Tibbmann teaches a tethered fill opening cap and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an additional tethered discharge cap in/on the Spicer hopper, 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.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicer et al. (U.S. Patent 12,385,715) in view of Tippmann et al. (U.S. Patent 5,722,383).
In regards to claim 11, Spicer discloses a projectile feeder, comprising:
a housing comprising an enclosed shell, the shell having a fill opening for loading
projectiles, a connector adjacent the fill opening for removably securing a cap thereto to close the fill opening, the fill opening leading to an internal cavity of the shell, a receiver adjacent the fill opening on an exterior of the shell, and a discharge opening at a bottom of the shell for discharging projectiles located in the internal cavity. Spicer illustrates a projectile hopper and feeder device including a housing (item 62) with a projectile fill opening (opening in figure 6d) and a projectile discharge opening at the bottom;
Spicer teaches a cap having a mating member for rotatably securing the cap to the connector, the cap having a rotatable securing member extending from a top of the cap. The cap of Spicer rotates into a position to be secured to the hopper; and,
Spicer does not teach a cap tether having a first end and a second end. However, Tippmann teaches a hopper cap secured to a hopper using a tether (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a tether connection between the cap and the hopper of Spicer as taught by Tippmann, to all the cap to hang from the hopper;
the first end connected to the receiver on the housing, and the second end connected to the rotatable securing member of the cap. The two ends of the tether as modified, are received at the hopper housing and at the cap.
In regards to claim 12, Spicer discloses a feeder plate in the internal cavity (item 22a),
Spicer teaches a feeder plate, except being a substantially planar member. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the feeder plate of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient including with a planar surface. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Spicer teaches that the plate having securing arms to secure the feeder plate to interior walls of the housing. Note that the feeder plate of Spicer is secured at each end between the interior walls of the hopper (see figure 1a).
In regards to claim 14, Spicer as modified discloses that the receiver comprises a pivotable securing member, and wherein the first end of the cap tether is connected to the pivotable securing member. The cap of Spicer, as modified with tether, includes a rotatable securing member that attached the cap to the hopper.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-20 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
Prosecution Insights