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.
Claim 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the stepped shoulder" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 9, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knoebel et al. (US 2013/0232841), hereinafter (“Knoebel”).
Re claim 1 and 12-17, Knoebel (Fig 2) discloses an interchangeable stock panel insert system for attaching accessories to a firearm, the system comprising: a longitudinal axis; a longitudinally elongated stock formed of a synthetic material (p. [0023]), the stock comprising a forestock; the forestock comprising: a top; an axially elongated internal longitudinal cavity; a downwardly open elongated longitudinal aperture formed in a bottom of the forestock beneath the longitudinal cavity (Fig 5), the longitudinal aperture in communication with the longitudinal cavity; and a singular mounting interface (21) defined at the longitudinal aperture; a first stock panel insert (Fig 2, 10) configured for detachable coupling to the forestock to enclose the longitudinal aperture, the first stock panel insert having a first configuration; a second stock panel insert (Fig 2, 2) configured for detachably coupling to the forestock to enclose the longitudinal aperture, the second stock panel insert having a second configuration different than the first configuration; wherein the first stock panel insert and the second stock panel insert each have a common mounting (Fig 2) configuration compatible with the singular mounting interface of the forestock so as to be interchangeably mountable to the forestock.
Re claim 6, Knoebel discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the forestock further comprises a longitudinally extending top wall which defines an axially elongated longitudinal concavity above the longitudinal cavity of the forestock, the longitudinal concavity having a semi-circular cross-sectional shape configured to receive a firearm barrel at least partially therein and physically isolated from the longitudinal cavity below the top wall (see Fig 3).
Re claims 8 and 9, Knoebel discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and second stock panel inserts comprises an accessory rail configured for mounting a firearm accessory thereto (p. [0018] discussing receiving elements for a tripod accessory, for example).
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.
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoebel.
Re claim 10, Knoebel discloses the claimed invention with the exception of the accessory rail being as claimed, but all of these rail configurations are commonly known and used in the art to attach accessories to a firearm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the receiving element in Knoebel to be one of the types claimed. The motivation would be to select a commonly known accessory rail used to attach accessories to a firearm.
Re claim 11, Knoebel discloses the claimed invention except for the materials of the inserts. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the material, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claims 18-21, Knoebel discloses the claimed invention except for the limitations in these claims. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Knoebel to have these limitations, since applicant has not disclosed that these limitations solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with without these limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 22, and 23 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7010. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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.
/REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights