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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the firearm accessory device being directly integrated into the mount (claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 5-9 contain the trademark/trade name M-LOK. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a particular accessory-mounting system and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least two lugs" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that at least two lugs are not introduced until claim 2, while the claim depends on claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "of a firearm of a firearm" in lines 2-3. The repetition renders the claim ambiguous.
Claim 14 is ambiguous because that which is claimed is not shown. Thus, the metes and bounds of Applicant’s intent can only guessed at.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1,4-5, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0209175 to Sharron et al. (“Sharron”).
Re: claim 1, Sharron discloses the claimed invention including a mount 100, e.g., Figs. 1-6, comprising: one or more lugs 150 configured to fit inside an M-LOK slot 18 on a firearm rail interface 10, the one or more lugs configured to provide vertical constraint* (*see below), one or more jaws, inter alia, 1786, configured to constrain the mount horizontally* (*same), and a clamping mechanism, inter alia, 174, configured to apply force, e.g., ¶[0027].
*Regarding vertical and horizontal, because firearms are capable of firing in any three-dimensional orientation, e.g., perfectly upright or upside down, tilted side to side (akin to roll in aircraft), muzzle raised or lowered (akin to pitch therein), and combinations thereof, absent some particular directionality the terms are meaningless because once attached to a firearm rail, only perfectly upright or upside down would qualify, when such is clearly not the intent of Applicant.
Re: claim 4, Sharron further discloses wherein the clamping mechanism is a spring.
Re: claim 5, Sharron further discloses wherein the one or more lugs are configured to fit inside a single M-LOK slot on the firearm rail interface (as shown).
Re: claim 11, Sharron further discloses wherein the firearm rail interface is located on a handguard of a firearm, or a stock of a firearm, or a receiver of a firearm, or a heat shield of a firearm. Sharron discloses, “MLOK rail 10 is an elongated bracket that may be attached to a firearm to provide a standard mounting platform for accessories and attachments such as a scope, light, bayonet and the like,” ¶ [0020]. Because “accessories and attachments such as a scope, light, bayonet and the like” are well-known to be attached to any desired part of a firearm, particularly a handguard, stock, or receiver of a firearm, Sharron reasonably meets the claim.
Re: claim 12, Sharron fairly discloses coupled to a firearm accessory device. See above. Sharron need not particularly disclose nor show such when this is the intent of the mount.
Re: claim 13, see relevant elements described above.
Re: claim 14, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). Similarly to Hotte, because Applicant’s “specification does not expressly restrict the meaning of integral to one piece,” (internal quotation marks omitted), Sharron likely suffices whether a single- or multiple-piece construction. Further still, it has been held that “the term “integral” is not limited to a fabrication of the parts from a single piece * * *, but is inclusive of other means for maintaining the parts fixed together as a single unit,” In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347, 349, and that “Webster's New International Dictionary (Second Edition) defines integral as (2) Composed of constituent parts making a whole; composite; integrated,” id., (emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, it is likely that the term “integrated” would be similarly held to be sufficiently broad to embrace such constructions as well.
Re: claim 15, Sharron fairly discloses detachability, Abstract.
Re: claim 16, Sharron fairly discloses a firearm comprising the mount. See above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharron.
Re: claim 2, Sharron discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for wherein the one or more lugs is at least two lugs. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). Here, no new or unexpected result would be produced by simply duplicating the lug disclosed.
Re: claim 6, in view of the obviousness of duplication, above, and the disclosure by Sharron of the one lug fitting within any M-LOK slot, a second lug similarly fitting within a second slot would be achieved as per above.
Re: claim 7, whether such is disclosed or shown by Sharron, that M-LOK slots are well-known to be provided on opposite sides of the firearm, e.g., left- and right-hand sides, upper and lower sides, etc., and are otherwise identical to each other, the two lugs fitting in any slots is adequately achieved also.
Re: claim 8¸ see relevant discussion of directionality, above.
Re: claim 9, as noted above over/under slots are well-known, which would inherently include angle relative to vertical (when vertical conforms as noted above).
Re: claim 10, Sharron obviates the claimed invention except for particular degrees of relativity to vertical. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any known degree, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 1-2, 4-16, and, alternatively, claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0167699 to Griffin in view of US 20210/0180912 to Brauer et al.
In view of the written opinion submitted by Applicant, full faith and credit must be given thereto, absent evidence and/or persuasive arguments that the references fail to meet the claims as detailed therein. For brevity, the rejections will not be included herein.
Evidence contrary to any of the above is welcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern.
The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874.
/Bret Hayes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
29-Jun-26
Prosecution Insights