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 § 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.
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.
Claims 4-5,15 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 term “about ” in claims 4 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how far above or below the hardness range for the polyurethane can be. For examination purposes the hardness values will be that of the values directly provided.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a front end" in line two. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation of “a front end” will be defined by the examiner as the part of the assembly that does not interact with the user’s shoulder.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,6-15,22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bentley (US 10753703).
Regarding claim 1, Bentley teaches a recoil pad assembly (Fig. 2, 100; Col. 5, lines 47-50; “the grip 100 may be a … butt plate”) comprising: a locking cover configured for attachment to a rear end of a firearm (Fig. 2, 115); a resiliently deformable outer shell (Col. 9, lines 20-22; formed by molding, thereby inherently being resiliently deformable) coupled to the locking plate, defining an internal cavity (Fig. 2, 110); a resiliently deformable inner gel core (Fig. 4, 150) disposed in the internal cavity of the outer shell (Fig. 7), the inner gel core formed of a viscoelastic material (Col. 5, lines 21-24; elastomers are viscoelastic materials) having a lower hardness than the outer shell (Col. 6, lines 3-9); wherein the outer shell defines a rear wall which comprises one or more rear expansion apertures configured and operable to increase flexibility of the outer shell in a lateral direction to facilitate widening the outer shell (Fig. 3, 136,138) against a user's shoulder under recoil (Col. 5, lines 47-50; “the grip 100 may be a … butt plate”).
Regarding claim 2, Bentley teaches the inner gel core has a solid structure (Fig. 7 110,150; the inner core is inherently solid as it does not fall through the cage).
Regarding claim 6, Bentley teaches the expansion apertures form a larger area then the shell on the rear of the assembly (Fig. 3, openings 136,138 have a larger area than 140 on the rear of the assembly).
Regarding claim 7, Bentley teaches the rear expansion slot is a single vertical piece and extends for greater than a majority of the assembly (Fig. 17, 436 and 462).
Regarding claim 8, Bentley teaches the rear expansion slot is a single vertical piece and extends for greater than 70% of the assembly (Fig. 17, 436 and 462).
Regarding claim 9, Bentley teaches that the gel core is asymmetric along the axis formed along the arrow 20 in figure 9. The upper and lower half of the assembly are of different shapes.
Regarding claim 10, Bentley teaches that the rear wall of the assembly comprises a plurality of expansion apertures that extend for 70% or more of the rear wall (Fig. 3, openings 136 and 138 clearly take up more than 70% of the back of the assembly).
Regarding claim 11, Bentley teaches the rear expansion apertures are polygonal in shape (Figs. 3 and 7, 136 and 138 are polygonal).
Regarding claim 12, Bentley teaches the outer shell and structural ligaments are of a monolithic construction (Fig. 3, 110 is monolithic).
Regarding claim 13, Bentley teaches the structural ligaments are horizontal and parallel to each other (Fig. 3, 140).
Regarding claim 14, Bentley teaches the outer shell has a pair of opposite side walls (Fig. 2, 132), each side wall has at least one expansion apertures (135), operable to increase flexibility (Co. 16, lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 15, Bentley teaches the front end of the assembly has a front opening that extends for a majority of the height of the assembly (Fig. 17, 437).
Regarding claim 22, Bentley teaches the internal gel core is exposed through the expansion apertures (Fig. 7, 110 and 150).
Regarding claim 23, Bentley teaches the inner gel core extends past the outer shell and directly interacts with the user during operation (Fig. 7, 110 and 150).
Regarding claim 24, Bentley teaches the inner gel core includes a raised engagement protrusion configured to a slot in the outer shell and engages with the user during operation (Fig. 9: 136, 138, 150, 156 and 158).
Regarding claim 25, Bentley teaches the plurality of raised engagements of the inner gel core correspond to a rear expansion aperture and engage with the user during operation (Fig. 9: 136, 138, 150, 156 and 158).
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.
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley (US 10753703).
Regarding claim 3, Bentley teaches the use of an elastomer for the core material. Bentley does no teach that the elastomer is polyurethane. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to use polyurethane as the elastomer as polyurethane is readily available, cheap and can be used to form both rigid and flexible foams.
Regarding claim 4, Bentley teaches all limitations as stated above except where the inner gel core has a Shore 000 hardness ranging from 60-85. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a polyurethane composite with a Shore 000 hardness between 60-85 as to allow for a material that has increased cushioning and deformation capabilities.
Regarding claim 5, Bentley teaches all limitations as stated above except where the shell has a Shore A hardness ranging from 35-85. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a rubber having a Shore A hardness between 35-85 as to provide a stable structure for the gel core that will not deform at the same rate as the core allowing the core to return to the original shape of the device.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley (US 10753703) in view of Butler (US 20160273874).
Regarding claim 16, Bentley teaches all limitations as stated above except where the front end of the outer shell is coupled to the locking cover plate. Butler teaches a locking plate (Fig. 2, 131) connected to the front end of the outer shell (114). Butler teaches the base plate is separate from the shell as to allow for parts to be replaced without an entirely new system (Para. 33).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bentley to incorporate the teachings of Butler to provide the device the ability to have different parts replaced. Doing so would allow for individual parts to be replaced instead of the entire system, as recognized by Butler.
Regarding claim 17, Bentley and Butler teach all limitations as stated above. Bentley fails to teach wherein there is a backer plate sandwiched between the core and locking plate. Butler teaches a backer plate (Fig. 2, 129) between the core (132) and locking plate (131). The backer and locking plate hold the shell in place (Para. 23).
Regarding claim 18, Bentley and Butler teach all limitations as stated above. Bentley fails to teach wherein the shell comprises a retention rim that is held in place by the backer and locking plates. Butler teaches the outer shell (Fig. 2, 114) comprises a perimeter mounting flange (142) that is trapped between a retention rim (148) of the backer plate (129) and locking plate (131, Para. 26).
Regarding claim 19, Bentley and Butler teach all limitations as stated above. Bentley fails to teach wherein the backer plate is detachably coupled to the locking plate via a plurality of fastening members. Butler teaches the backer (Fig. 2, 129) and locking (131) plates are connected by a plurality of fastening members (151).
Regarding claim 20, Bentley and Butler teach all limitations as stated above. Bentley fails to teach wherein the plates and mounting flange mesh together to interlock when the fastening members are tightened. Butler teaches the plates (Fig. 2, 129,131) and mounting flange (142) interlock with each other when the fasteners (151) are tightened together (Para. 30).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley (US 10753703) in view of Butler (US 20160273874) and in further view of Mather (US 9464863).
Bentley and Butler teach all limitations as stated above except where the fastening members include a pair of serrated posts configured to couple the recoil pad to the firearm through the plates. Mather teaches the use of serrated posts (Fig. 3, 50,51) to connect the recoil pad (33) to the firearm through the plates (36, Cols. 7-8 lines 65-18). Mather teaches the use serrated posts allows the length of the stock to be adjusted (Abstract, Col. 1, lines 49-54).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bentley and Butler to incorporate the teachings of Mather to provide the device the ability to have an adjustable length. Doing so would allow for individual user preference for the position of the device, as recognized by Mather.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached reference list.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN W CAUDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-0481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET. Friday 8 a.m. - 12 p.m..
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.
/L.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3641
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights