The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B, as depicted in Figure 3 in the reply filed on 12/6/2014 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: “I request, too, that A and B be traversed. It is my contention, it is the casing with the grooves, that is the main grounds for a patent approval. It would be up to the manufacture to choose the number and style of projectiles imbedded in the casing. The size, number and style of projectiles are determined by the requirements of the user". This is not found persuasive because searching for and examining claims drawn to each of Species A and Species B places and examination due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-6 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1-6 fail to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
****The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.****
In claim 1, the preamble recites, “A bullet shell casing for hunting guns with smooth bores”, whereas lines 9, 10, recite “Said compression cone and casing are fitted into a shell that is smooth and not crimped at the end of said shell” which is inconsistent. It is therefore unclear whether the applicant intends to claim a “bullet shell casing", or in the alternative, intends to claim a shotgun shell loaded with “bullet shell casing" inside? If it's the latter, the applicant will need to amend the preamble accordingly.
In lines 2, 3, the recitation, “said casing being made of paper having identical longitudinal halves”, does not make it clear that the halves are separate distinct components and that they are not identical halves of an integral single casing component.
In line 2, the claim recites, “a bullet” but in line 4, the claim recites, “bullet or bullets" which is inconsistent and should be corrected to be consistent.
In line 4, the claim recites, “said casing ends are coated with wax”. It is unclear from this language whether the open ends of the assembled casing are sealed closed with wax or does it only mean that the end surfaces of the casing ends are coated with wax?
In line 6, it is unclear what envelope is being referenced by the language, "said envelope”, because no envelope has been claimed previously in the claim.
In lines 5, 7, “arranged in a cross pattern at the nose of said envelope. Said grooves twist from the nose left to right of said casing to end directly below the start of the next groove”? is unclear. Does the applicant intend to claim that the four grooves are spaced equally about the circumference of the outer surface of the casing, each groove comprising a helical groove that runs from one end of the casing to the other end of the casing?
In line 7, “said nose portion” is confusing because the casing has not previously been claimed as having a nose portion?
In line 8, "the rear of the casing" is confusing because the casing has not previously been claimed as having a rear end.
In line 9, “a plastic compression cone is matched” is unclear. Does the applicant intend to claim that the compression cone is inserted into and abuts the conical indention in the rear end of the casing?
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2-6 only claim what has already been substantially claimed in independent claim 1 and do not further limit the invention claimed in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 of this title, 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangale (US 6,105,506).
This rejection is being made in the light of the 112 rejections listed above.
Gangale discloses a sabot case containing a slug for use in a shotgun (see Figs. 7, 7A and 7B and the related sections of the specification). Gangale’s sabot case comprises to identical segments 42 that form fit the bullet 40, the segments 42 comprising helical grooves 64 for imparting a spin on the sabot case to increase accuracy of the bullet. Gangale discloses that the sabot segments are made from an epoxy or other hard material but does not specifically disclose paper. However, Gangale discloses that another component, the shell wall 26, can be made from plastic or treated paper. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form Gangale’s sabot segments from treated paper, since it has been held to be within the 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached FORM- PTO 892.
An examination of this application reveals that applicant is unfamiliar with patent prosecution procedure. While an applicant may prosecute the application (except that a juristic entity must be represented by a patent practitioner, 37 CFR 1.31), lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicant is advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to prosecute the application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting an attorney or agent.
A listing of registered patent attorneys and agents is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent attorneys and agents located in their area by writing to the Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S. BERGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6872. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMES S BERGIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/JAMES S BERGIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641