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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2025 is being considered by the examiner. However, 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. As such, some of the references in the IDS were not considered by the Examiner, and are indicated by being lined through.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 12/18/2025 has been entered:
Claims 18, 20-23, 25-29, and 31-37 are active.
Claims 1-17, 19, 24, and 30 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/18/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Tertin does not disclose the limitation of tensioning a length of the barrel from an abutment surface to a sleeve nut, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tertin states that “muzzle cap 18 is attached 96 to the barrel liner 12 by inserting the muzzle end portion 38 of the barrel liner 12 within the muzzle cap through bore 54, engaging the thread 42 on the outer surface of the barrel liner muzzle end portion 38 with the thread 60 on the inner surface of the muzzle cap through bore 54 and rotating the muzzle cap 18 relative to the barrel liner 12 until the muzzle end 30 of the barrel tube 14 abut the rear shoulder 52 of the muzzle cap 18” (col. 4 lines 60-67). This indicates that Tertin is not simply suggesting threading the muzzle cap 18 onto the barrel liner 12. Rather, engagement between the rear shoulder 52 of the muzzle cap 18 and the muzzle end 30 of the barrel tube 14 is required. Tertin then discloses that “muzzle cap 18 may be torqued at 130 to 140 inch pounds” (col. 5 line 1) and that “contact between the barrel tube 14 and the front shoulder 76 of the breech cap 16 and the rear shoulder 52 of the muzzle cap 18 prevent the barrel liner 12 from shrinking. The tension force generated by the shrinkage is absorbed by the barrel liner 12 itself, thus creating a very solid mechanically locked assembly. The gap 87 between the barrel liner 12 and the barrel tube 14 facilitates distribution of the tension force by preventing binding that could be caused by contact between the barrel liner 12 and the barrel tube 14” (col. 5 lines 6-15). These passages clearly indicate that the muzzle cap 18 is torqued against the barrel tube 14 such that the barrel liner 12 cannot shrink, which generates a tension force that is absorbed by the barrel liner 12 to create a very solid mechanically locked assembly. As such, Tertin clearly discloses that the sleeve nut tensions the barrel tube, as claimed.
Regardless, Johnson explicitly states that “shroud cap 60 may contact the barrel shroud 21 and force the shroud 21 against the shoulder 39 such that an axial compressive force is applied to the barrel shroud 21, resulting in an equal and opposite axial tensile force applied to the barrel 30. The shroud cap 60 may include a threaded opening formed through the center of the cap 60, thereby enabling the cap 60 to be screwed onto mating threads formed in the barrel 30 at or near the muzzle end 12. Alternatively, the shroud cap 60 may be attached to the barrel 30 by any suitable means that enables the shroud cap 60 to apply an axial compressive force to the barrel shroud 21 while generating an equal and opposite axial tensile force applied to the barrel 30” (col. 4 lines 51-63). As such, the combination of Tertin and Johnson clearly discloses the limitation.
The examiner also notes that Bradley (US 4211146), which was previously cited, states in the abstract that “[to] increase the strength, rigidity and accuracy of a rifle gun barrel, a multi-part composite rifle barrel is created by enclosing the inner rifled tube with an outer sleeve, the two fastened together in a way that introduces compression in the outer part and tension in the inner part. The tension in the inner part increases the barrel's rigidity and reduces its vibration, thus increasing the accuracy of the rifle.” As such, it readily apparent that it was well known in the art that tightening a sleeve nut compresses an outer tube between the sleeve nut and an entrance end of a barrel tube and tensions a length of the barrel tube between an abutment surface and the sleeve nut.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Reese Declaration shows that the claimed invention is superior to the prior art, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The declaration fails to prove superiority over the prior art at least because it does not even contemplate the possibility that the grouping of shots could be closer together in Reese’s experiment for any other number of factors other than the use of the claimed invention. For example, Reese’s own superior shooting ability, or use of additional equipment, such as a sighting device, or an improved sighting device compared to that used in the prior art, could easily have resulted in the improved accuracy. This also may not have been the case, but either way, it’s generally unclear because the declaration does not provide enough detail to eliminate all of the other variables that may have resulted in the increase in accuracy. Regardless, the Reese declaration compares the invention to Johnson (US 8312663), but the ‘663 patent is not even used in the present rejection, which is over Tertin in view of Johnson (US 8595971). No comparison was made to the prior art references used in the present, or the previous rejection. As such, the Reese declaration cannot not show that the claimed invention is superior to the prior art.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Painter Declaration is sufficient to refute obviousness over the prior art based on commercial success derived from the claimed invention, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As previously discussed, the declaration is insufficient to establish commercial success derived from the claimed invention. MPEP § 716.03(b)(IV) states that "Gross sales figures do not show commercial success absent evidence as to market share". However, the declaration makes no mention whatsoever of market share when indicating the sales data. As such, the declaration fails to establish commercial success derived from the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 32 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 32, “a said tube end” in line 3 should say “[[a ]]said tube end”.
Regarding claim 37, “of the barrel tube” should be inserted after “raised sleeve support” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 35 and 37 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 35, the limitation “a raised sleeve support” in line 3 is unclear as claimed because “an integral sleeve support section” was previously recited in claim 18, from which claim 35 depends, thus rendering unclear whether “a raised sleeve support” was intended to refer to the previously claimed “integral sleeve support section” or to a different component entirely. If applicant intended for the limitation to refer to the previously claimed “integral sleeve support section”, the limitation would need to instead say, for example, “a raised sleeve support of the integral sleeve support section” or “the integral sleeve support section”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “said raised sleeve support” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because a raised sleeve support was not previously claimed.
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.
Claims 18, 20-23, 25-26, 28-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tertin et al. (US 9796057), herein referenced ‘Tertin’, and further in view of Johnson (US 8595971), herein referenced ‘Johnson’.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Tertin discloses a firearm barrel (Fig. 1) comprising:
a barrel tube (12) including an outer barrel surface (Fig. 2), an inner barrel surface (34), an entrance end (36), an exit end (38), and a sleeve thread (42) formed on said exit end;
said entrance end comprising an abutment surface (16, 76) and an integral sleeve support section (20);
an outer tube (14) including an inner surface (85; Fig. 1);
an air gap (87) created between said outer tube inner surface and said outer barrel surface (Fig. 1; col. 4 lines 23-26), said air gap extending between said sleeve nut and said sleeve support section (Fig. 1; claim 1: “the heat sink front end being disposed a distance from the barrel muzzle cap rear surface forming a gap between the inner barrel liner and the outer barrel tube”); and
a sleeve nut (18) including a tube end (46), a sleeve inner thread (60) formed through said sleeve nut (Fig. 4), and an outer surface of said tube end in contact with said inner surface of said outer tube (Fig. 1; col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 21),
wherein said barrel tube is inserted through said outer tube (col. 4 lines 55-56),
wherein said sleeve nut is threaded on to said sleeve thread to retain said outer tube between said sleeve nut and said abutment surface and to tension a length of said barrel tube from said abutment surface to said sleeve nut (Fig. 1; col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 21);
wherein tightening of said sleeve nut is not limited by a discontinuation of said sleeve thread on said barrel tube when said sleeve nut is in contact with an end of said outer tube (col. 4 lines 60-67).
Tertin does not expressly teach wherein the outer tube is fabricated from carbon fiber.
Johnson teaches a firearm barrel (20) comprising a barrel tube (30) surrounded by an outer tube (21) and attached thereto by a sleeve nut (60; Figs. 1 and 4; col. 4 lines 48-63), wherein the outer tube may comprise a metal, alloy, polymer, composite, fiberglass, carbon fiber, or other suitable material (col. 4 lines 32-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the outer tube of Tertin to be fabricated from a non-metal material such as carbon fiber as taught by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success 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.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Tertin discloses wherein a threaded tap (40) is formed in said entrance end of said barrel tube (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 22 and 25, Tertin discloses a firearm barrel (Fig. 1) comprising:
a barrel tube (12) including an outer barrel surface (Fig. 2), an inner barrel surface (34), an entrance end (36), an exit end (38), a sleeve thread (42) formed on said exit end, and a raised sleeve support (16 or 20) formed on said entrance end;
an outer tube (14) including an inner surface (85; Fig. 1) sized to receive said raised sleeve support (Fig. 1);
an air gap (87) created between said outer tube inner surface and said outer barrel surface (Fig. 1; col. 4 lines 23-26); and
a sleeve nut (18) including a sleeve inner thread (60) and a rotation flange (44);
wherein said barrel tube is inserted through said outer tube (col. 4 lines 55-56);
wherein said sleeve nut is threaded on to said sleeve thread to retain said outer tube (col. 4 lines 60-67);
wherein tightening said sleeve nut on said sleeve thread compresses said outer tube and increases tension on said barrel tube (col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 21), thereby increasing accuracy of the firearm barrel (col. 3 lines 37-40).
Tertin does not expressly teach wherein the outer tube is fabricated from carbon fiber, or wherein a length of the sleeve thread extends past the sleeve nut in a direction away from said entrance end when said outer tube is compressed between said sleeve nut and said entrance end by said sleeve nut.
Johnson teaches a firearm barrel (20) comprising a barrel tube (30) surrounded by an outer tube (21) and attached thereto by a sleeve nut (60; Figs. 1 and 4; col. 4 lines 48-63), wherein the outer tube may comprise a metal, alloy, polymer, composite, fiberglass, carbon fiber, or other suitable material (col. 4 lines 32-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the outer tube of Tertin to be fabricated from a non-metal material such as carbon fiber as taught by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success 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.
Johnson further teaches wherein a length of sleeve thread of the barrel tube extends past the sleeve nut in a direction away from an entrance end of the barrel tube when said outer tube is compressed between the sleeve nut and the entrance end (Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 48-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a length of the sleeve thread of the barrel tube of Tertin to extend past the sleeve nut when the outer tube is compressed by the sleeve nut as taught by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable the attachment of a compensator device to the barrel tube, which provides the benefit of redirecting propellant gases exiting the muzzle end of the barrel with the effect of countering both recoil of the weapon and unwanted elevation of the barrel during operation (Johnson; col. 5 lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Tertin discloses wherein said outer barrel surface has a diameter which is less than a diameter (74) of said raised sleeve support (Fig. 1; col. 4 lines 4-15).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Tertin discloses wherein said sleeve nut includes a tube end (46) extending from said rotation flange (Fig. 4), wherein said tube end is sized to receive said inner surface of said non-metal tube (Fig. 1; col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 21).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Tertin discloses wherein a threaded tap (40) is formed in said entrance end of said barrel tube (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 29 and 31, Tertin discloses a firearm barrel (Fig. 1) comprising:
a barrel tube (12) including an outer barrel surface (Fig. 2), an inner barrel surface (34), an entrance end (36), an exit end (38), and a sleeve thread (42) formed on said exit end;
an outer tube (14) including an inner surface (85; Fig. 1);
an air gap (87) created between said outer tube inner surface and said outer barrel surface (Fig. 1; col. 4 lines 23-26); and
a sleeve nut (18) including a tube end (46);
wherein an outer surface of said tube end is in contact with said inner surface of said outer tube (Fig. 1; col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 21);
wherein said outer surface of said tube end is not threadably engaged with said inner surface of said outer tube (Figs. 1, 4, and 10; col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 21);
wherein said barrel tube is inserted through said outer tube (col. 4 lines 55-56);
wherein said sleeve nut is threaded on to said sleeve thread to retain said outer tube (col. 4 lines 60-67);
wherein tensioning said barrel tube with said sleeve nut is not limited by a discontinuation of said sleeve thread on said barrel tube (col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 21).
Tertin does not expressly teach wherein the outer tube is fabricated from carbon fiber, or wherein at least a portion of the sleeve thread on said exit end extends distally from said entrance end past the sleeve nut.
Johnson teaches a firearm barrel (20) comprising a barrel tube (30) surrounded by an outer tube (21) and attached thereto by a sleeve nut (60; Figs. 1 and 4; col. 4 lines 48-63), wherein the outer tube may comprise a metal, alloy, polymer, composite, fiberglass, carbon fiber, or other suitable material (col. 4 lines 32-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the outer tube of Tertin to be fabricated from a non-metal material such as carbon fiber as taught by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success 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.
Johnson further teaches wherein at least a portion of sleeve thread on an exit end of the barrel tube extends distally from an entrance end of the barrel tube past the sleeve nut (Fig. 4; col. 4 lines 48-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sleeve thread of the barrel tube of Tertin to extend distally from the entrance end of the barrel tube past the sleeve nut as taught by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable the attachment of a compensator device to the barrel tube, which provides the benefit of redirecting propellant gases exiting the muzzle end of the barrel with the effect of countering both recoil of the weapon and unwanted elevation of the barrel during operation (Johnson; col. 5 lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Tertin discloses wherein said sleeve nut includes a rotation flange (44) from which said tube end extends (Fig. 4), wherein said tube end is sized to receive said inner surface of said non-metal tube (Fig. 1; col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 21).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Tertin discloses wherein said inner surface of said non-metal tube is smooth (Figs. 1, 4, and 10; col. 4 line 60 – col. 5 line 21).
Regarding claim 34, the modified Tertin discloses wherein a threaded tap (40) is formed in said entrance end of said barrel tube (Fig. 2).
Claims 27, 35, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tertin et al. (US 9796057) in view of Johnson (US 8595971) as applied to claims 22, 18, 22, and 29 above, respectively, and further in view of Briggs (US 2007/0193102), herein referenced ‘Briggs’.
Regarding claims 27 and 35-37, the modified Tertin discloses wherein said barrel tube includes a raised sleeve support (16 and/or 20), but does not expressly teach wherein the raised sleeve support includes a rotation-resistant feature in the form of a knurling.
Briggs teaches a firearm barrel assembly (20) comprising a barrel tube (32) and an outer tube (34), wherein the outer tube comprises an inner surface with raised areas that are received in recessed areas on an exterior surface (40) of the barrel tube to bond the barrel tube and the outer tube together (par. 6), wherein the recessed areas on the exterior surface of the barrel tube may be in the form of a knurled surface (60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the raised sleeve support of the modified Tertin to have a rotation-resistant feature in the form of knurling as taught by Briggs with a reasonable expectation of success in order to bond the barrel tube and the outer tube together (Briggs; par. 6 lines 11-14).
Conclusion
Claims 18, 20-23, 25-29, and 31-37 are rejected. Claims 1-17, 19, 24, and 30 are cancelled.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN S GOMBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-4802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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 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 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.
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
/BENJAMIN S. GOMBERG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3641