DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rugh (US 6,726,072).
Regarding claim 1, Rugh discloses a hook accessory 3 (Fig. 1-2 and 7-8) for deploying a pin-and-lever detonation device (Fig. 7; applicant should a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; The clip attached frame of the firearm would be capable of a pin-and-lever detonation device),
the hook having a forward end configured to be installed toward a barrel end of a firearm and a rearward end that is opposite the forward end (Fig. 1-2 and 7-8), the hook accessory comprising:
a base 9 configured to attach at which the hook accessory is attached to a side of the firearm (Fig. 1-2 and 7-8; “The clip portion, also preferably made of metal, includes a flat member 9 having a pair of holes 5 which are sized and spaced to become aligned with pairs of holes in the mounting plate. The flat member of the clip portion is affixed to the mounting plate by screws 6”),
an arm extending substantially laterally from the base (Fig. 1-2, 7-8portion extending towards the barrel from the curved part 10);
a recess defined between the base and the arm (Fig. 7-9), the recess having a first curved portion and a second curved portion opposite the first curved portion, the first curved portion curving toward the arm, and the second curved portion curving toward a body of the firearm (Fig. 1-2 and 7-9), the recess further having an opening at the forward end of the recess (Fig. 1-2 and 7-8), wherein the recess is structured to receive a pull-ring of the pin-and-lever detonation device through the opening of the recess and provide leverage for a user pulling the pull-ring (Fig. 1-2 and 7-8; applicant should a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; The clip attached frame of the firearm would be capable of a pin-and-lever detonation device); and
a lip at an end of the arm, the lip structured to curve away from the arm and guide a pull-ring of the pin-and-lever detonation device into the opening of the recess (Fig. 1 and 8; applicant should a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; The clip attached frame of the firearm would be capable of a pin-and-lever detonation device).
Regarding claim 2, Rugh further discloses wherein the recess is structured to provide leverage for the user pulling the pull-ring at a portion of the recess where the first curved portion meets the second curved portion (Fig. 7; applicant should a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; The clip attached frame of the firearm would be capable of a pin-and-lever detonation device).
Regarding claim 4, Rugh further discloses wherein the base is attached to the side of the firearm on the body of the firearm (Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 6, Rugh further discloses wherein the hook and the firearm are formed as separate pieces (Fig. 1-2 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 7, Rugh further discloses wherein the hook is attached to the firearm with a screw (Fig. 1-2 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 8, Rugh discloses a firearm 30, comprising :a hook 3 attached to a side of the firearm (clearly seen in Fig. 7-8), the hook having a forward end toward a barrel end of the firearm and a rearward end that is opposite the forward end (see Fig. 7-8), the hook including:
a base 9 at which the hook is attached to the side of the firearm (“The clip portion, also preferably made of metal, includes a flat member 9 having a pair of holes 5 which are sized and spaced to become aligned with pairs of holes in the mounting plate. The flat member of the clip portion is affixed to the mounting plate by screws 6”),
an arm extending substantially laterally from the rearward end of the base (Fig. 1-2, 7-8portion extending towards the barrel from the curved part 10), and
a recess defined between the base and the arm (Fig. 7-8), the recess having a first curved portion and a second curved portion, the first curved portion curving toward the arm, and the second curved portion curving toward a body of the firearm (as seen in Fig. 7-8), the recess further having an opening at the forward end of the recess (Fig. 1-2 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 9, Rugh further discloses wherein the recess is structured to provide leverage for a user to deploy a pin-and-lever detonation device (Fig. 7; applicant should note a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim). The clip port attached frame of the firearm would be capable of a pin-and-lever detonation device.
Regarding claim 10, Rugh further discloses wherein the recess is structured to provide leverage at a portion of the recess where the first curved portion meets the second curved portion (Fig. 7; applicant should a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim). The clip port attached frame of the firearm would be capable of a pin-and-lever detonation device.
Regarding claim 12, Rugh further discloses wherein the base is attached to the side of the firearm on the body of the firearm (Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 14, Rugh further discloses wherein the hook and the firearm are formed as separate pieces (Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claim 15, Rugh further discloses wherein the hook is attached to the firearm with a screw 6 (Fig. 1-2, 7-8).
Regarding claim 16, Rugh further discloses in which the arm further comprises a lip at an end of the arm, the lip structured to curve away from the arm (Fig. 1-2, 7-8).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swan et al (US 2012/0030986) [hereinafter Swan].
Regarding claim 17, Swan discloses hook accessory 910 (WeaponLink; Fig. 15-19 and 21-25; Par. 0084: “apparatus 910 is also a clip device”) for deploying a pin-and-lever detonation device (applicant should a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, the WeaponLink is capable of deploying a pin-and-lever detonation device; see Par. 0046-0052 defining multiple possible uses of the weapon link),
the hook having a forward end toward a barrel end of a firearm and a rearward end that is opposite the forward end (Fig. 18-20), the hook accessory comprising:
a base at which the hook accessory is structured to be attached to a hand guard of the firearm (Fig. 16 and 18-20);
an arm 915 extending substantially laterally from the base (Fig. 16);
a recess defined between the base and the arm (Fig. 16), the recess having an opening at the forward end of the recess (Fig. 16),
the recess structured to receive a pull-ring of the pin-and-lever detonation device through the opening of the recess and provide leverage for a user pulling the pull-ring (applicant should a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, the WeaponLink is capable of deploying a pin-and-lever detonation device); and
a lip at an end of the arm (915a), the lip structured to curve away from the arm and guide a pull-ring of the pin-and-lever detonation device into the opening of the recess (applicant should note that hook extension extends away and is capable of hooking a a pull-ring of the pin-and-lever detonation device and guide it into the recess; Fig. 15-20).
Regarding claim 18, Swan further discloses in which the recess has a first curved portion and a second curved portion opposite the first curved portion, the first curved portion curving toward the arm, and the second curved portion curving toward a body of the firearm (Fig. 15-16).
Regarding claim 19, Swan further discloses wherein the recess is structured to provide leverage at a portion of the recess where the first curved portion meets the second curved portion (Fig. 15-20; applicant should a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, the WeaponLink is capable of deploying a pin-and-lever detonation device).
Regarding claim 20, Swan further discloses wherein the base is structured to be attached to the hand guard using a threaded fastener 982, 984 (Par. 0088: a first fastening member 982 and a second fastening member 984, e.g., one or more screws, bolts, nuts, and/or any fastening member disclosed herein or known to those skilled in the art).
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.
Claims 3, 5, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rugh in view of Valenzuela (US 2,320,450).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Rugh further discloses wherein the base is attached to the side of the firearm (Fig. 7)
Rugh fails to disclose wherein it is attached on a hand guard or a grip of the firearm.
Valenzuela teaches that it is known in the art of pistol clips to attach clips to a grip of a firearm (Fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Rugh such that the base was attached to a grip of a firearm, in view of Valenzuela, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Rugh fails to disclose wherein the hook accessory and the firearm are formed as a single piece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the hook accessory and the firearm formed as a single piece since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1983).
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4269. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM MST M-F.
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.
/JOSHUA E FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights