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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 July 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for i) a target retainer being configured to be moveable relative to the target connector to the release configuration be rotation of the target connector, and ii) the target launcher being free of a prime mover dedicated for moving the target retainer relative to the target connector between the retaining configuration and the release configuration, the disclosure does not reasonably provide enablement for iii) the target retainer being configured to be free of discrete control to move the target retainer relative to the target connector to the release configuration when the target connector is rotating to rotate the shooting target for launching. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The examiner finds that a launcher including a prime mover configured to be actuated when the rotating target connector reaches a pre-determined threshold speed and upon actuation to withdraw a target retainer to release a target is within the scope of Claim 1, option iii. A launcher so contemplated would require a sensor configured to monitor the speed of rotation and signal the prime mover/actuator to operate the target retainer. Applicant’s specification suggests that the disclosed exemplary launcher does not include a launcher configured as described and the specification provides no direction with regard to constructing such a device. Persons of ordinary skill in the art are understood to be well versed in the area of controls for target launchers but development of a launcher to meet the full scope of enablement would require extensive experimentation to reach all types of launchers within the claim scope.
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.
Claim 33 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. The limitation providing that the target retainer is configured to be moveable relative to the target connector toward the release configuration independent of the shooting target is incompatible with Claim 1, option ii, in that in the absence of a prime mover, it is understood that the target retainer moves relative to the target connector in response to pressure from the target hub moving upward by lift force generated by the rotating target. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lante-Montefeltro Della Rovere, U.S. Patent No. 4,205,651 (hereinafter Lante-Montefeltro), in view of Larsen, U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0369330. As to Claims 1, 2, and 4, Lante-Montefeltro teaches a shooting target launcher (launching apparatus) comprising a housing (frame) and a target connector (50) configured to receive a shooting target (target pigeon), Col. 5, ln. 37-40 and Col. 6, ln. 1-5. The target connector may be configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (51 A) to rotate the shooting target for launching, Col. 6, ln. 1-5. A target retainer (113, 63) may be configured to retain the shooting target with the target connector, Col. 10, ln. 52-56. The target retainer may be movable between a retaining configuration where the target retainer is arranged to retain the shooting target with the target connector and a release configuration where the target retainer is arranged to permit the shooting target to launch, Col. 11, ln. 42-50 and 60-64. Lante-Montefeltro does not teach that the target retainer may be movable relative to the target connector and Lante-Montefeltro does not teach that a target retainer, so movable, may be free of discrete control to move the target retainer. Larsen teaches a shooting target launcher including a target connector (10) including a target retainer (15) configured to move relative to the target connector between a retaining configuration and a release configuration, paragraphs 0051, 0054, and 0061. Larsen teaches that when a final rotational speed is obtained, an outer body portion undergoes upward displacement pivoting the target retainer, paragraph 0059, suggesting the absence of discrete control to move the target retainer relative to the target connector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lante-Montefeltro with a target retainer movable relative to the target connector without discrete control, as taught and suggested by Larsen, to provide Lante-Montefeltro with a known substitute operation of a target retainer.
As to Claim 7, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that the target retainer is supported by and configured to rotate with the target connector, Col. 10, ln. 4-7, 28-30, and 60-67. As to Claim 21, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that the target connector may include a nose portion (144) sized and shaped to be received in a central opening of the shooting target, the target retainer being supported by the nose portion, Col. 9, ln. 58-62 and Col. 10, ln. 42-45 and see Figure 8. As to Claim 22, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that the target retainer may be configured to be moved by the shooting target (pigeon 37) from the retaining configuration to the release configuration as the target connector receives the shooting target, Col. 10, ln. 43-56. As to Claim 23, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that the target retainer may be biased toward the retaining configuration, Col. 10, ln. 28-30. As to Claim 24, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that the target retainer may include a target holder (distal end of fingers 113) configured to engage the shooting target to retain the shooting target with the target connector when in the retaining configuration, Col. 10, ln. 52-56. As to Claim 25, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that the target holder may be movable radially relative to the axis of rotation (51 A) between the retaining and release configurations, Col. 11, ln. 42-45 and see Figures 10 and 11. As to Claim 26, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that the target connector may include a nose portion (144) sized and shaped to be received in a central opening of the shooting target, with the target holder projecting radially outward of the nose portion when in the retaining configuration, Col. 9, ln. 58-62 and Col. 10, ln. 42-45 and see Figure 8. As to Claim 27, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that the target retainer may include a spring (130) biasing the target holder toward the retaining configuration, Col. 10, ln. 28-30. As to Claims 28 and 29, Lante-Montefeltro teaches a prime mover (electric motor) supported by the housing and configured to rotate the target connector about the axis of rotation Col. 11, ln. 60-65, Claim 15, and see Figure 8. As to Claim 32, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that a target retainer (113) may engage a forward facing surface of the shooting target (pigeon) that faces in a direction the shooting target will travel, Col. 10, ln. 52-56, noting that the ring of the pigeon passes entirely over the target retainer when moving in a direction opposite to the direction of travel when launched. It follows that the target retainer engages a forward facing surface. The target retainer of Lante-Montefeltro, as modified, is arranged to be capable of engaging a leading edge of a shooting target, as claimed. As to Claim 33, Larsen teaches that the target retainer (15) may be configured to be movable relative to the target connector toward a release configuration independent of the shooting target, paragraph 0059. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lante-Montefeltro, as modified, with the target retainer movable independent of the shooting target, as taught by Larsen, to provide Lante-Montefeltro, as modified, with a target retainer independently controlled to yield the predictable result of improving control of launch timing. Claim 33 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claim 34, Lante-Montefeltro is applied as in Claim 32.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 10 July 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 16 September 2026
Prosecution Insights