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 § 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, 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 Bertini, U.S. Patent No. 4,399,803. As to Claims 1 and 2, 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 free of a prime mover moving the target retainer rotation of the target connector. Bertini teaches a shooting target launcher having a target retainer (21), Col. 3, ln. 48-52. A motor operating to rotate a launch head (17) with a target (11) attached, may be reversed to release the target from the hold of the target retainer, by moving the target retainer with respect to the target, and launch the target without discrete control moving the target retainer, Col. 4, ln. 14-21. 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 configured to move free of discrete control, as taught by Bertini, to provide Lante-Montefeltro with a known substitute target retainer configuration. 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 30, Lante-Montefeltro teaches that the target retainer may be movable relative to the target connector between the retaining configuration and the release configuration, Col. 11, ln. 42-45.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Bertini does not teach a target retainer movable between retaining and releasing configurations, the examiner maintains the position that Bertini teaches a target retainer in the form of finger means (21) which cooperate with a ball detent (24A) such that a target is retained on a target connector, see Col. 4, ln. 5-9. In order to release the target, the motor is reversed, which causes the finger means to move away from a wing of the target, allowing the target to be released, see Col. 4, ln. 15-21. In the broadest reasonable interpretation the target retainer moves to a release configuration.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no reason to substitute a different mechanism to effect release of the target, the examiner maintains the position that while the mechanisms of Lante-Montefeltro and Bertini function differently, the mechanisms perform the same function providing a target retainer moving to a release configuration to release a target from a target connector. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the teaching of the references together and would have been motivated to select a known alternative releasing mechanism.
In response to applicant's argument that incorporation of the finger means of Bertini into the device of Lante-Montefeltro would render the resulting device in inoperable condition, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner maintains the position that the rejection is based on a combination of the teaching of the primary reference with that of a secondary reference and the rejection does not require that a modified device may be produced which would account for the particular target loading process of one or the other references. Lante-Montefeltro teaches a spring biased fingers which retain the target and the fingers must be retracted to free the target for launching. The fingers essentially lock the target to the target connector, see Col. 10, ln. 55-56. When the target is spinning at high speed, the fingers may be retracted to allow the target to launch. Alternatively, a substitute release mechanism as taught by Bertini, may be employed, to launch the target by reverse rotation of the motor, with the retracting fingers functioning to unlock the target in preparation for launching.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-20, and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 10 April 2026
Prosecution Insights