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 .
Response to Amendment
Pursuant to the applicant’s response filed 09 January 2026, the amendments to the claims have been entered into the application. By this amendment, claims 24 & 26-27 are cancelled, no claims have been added, and claims 1-23 & 25 are currently pending in the application. The rejections have been updated to respond to the new limitations and the arguments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification fails to provide support for a case headspace dimension length and/or the cooperation of the neck diameter, shoulder diameter, body taper, base diameter, and headspace dimension length configuring the case to maintain structural integrity under a maximum average pressure of about 62,000 psi.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0148687 by Blank (Blank) in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2011/0214583 by Dutch (Dutch).
Regarding claim 1, Blank, as best understood in light of the section 112 rejections above, discloses a firearm cartridge system (See at least Title and Abstract) comprising: a case having: a body portion tapering from a first end having a diameter between about 0.465 in to about 0.475 to a second end having a diameter between about 0.449 in to about 0.458 in; a shoulder portion connecting the body portion and neck portion and having a diameter between about 0.395 in to about 0.405 in; a base portion positioned on the second end of the body portion and having diameter between about 0.463 in to about 0.477 in; a headspace dimension length extending between the end of the case to the shoulder portion having the specified diameter, the headspace dimension length being of a length from about 1.9064 in to about 1.9204 inches; and an indentation joining the body portion and the base portion, the indentation having sidewall with angle between 300 to 420 (See at least Figure 1B and Paragraphs 0035-0038, Blank discloses the 308 family of cartridges having base dimensions consistent with a 308 cartridge, which according to the applicant’s admitted prior art has the aforementioned dimensions), wherein the cooperation of the neck diameter, shoulder diameter, body taper, base diameter, and headspace dimension length configures the case to maintain structural integrity under a maximum average pressure of about 62,000 pounds per square inch when loaded with a propellant having a grain weight between about 36 grains to about 60 grains (Understood) and a bullet having a diameter between about 0.221 in to about 0.227 in (See at least Paragraphs 0035-0038, “0.224”).
Blank discloses that the cartridge can have a projectile with a diameter of 0.224, but does not disclose the specific diameter range of the neck portion to support the projectile.
Dutch, a related prior art reference, discloses a neck portion diameter between about 0.249 in to about 0.256 in (See at least Paragraph 0123).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Blank with the noted teachings of Dutch. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to utilize appropriate dimensions to form a more complete cartridge casing to hold a 0.224 diameter projectile as indicated by Blank and Dutch.
Regarding claims 2-4, Blank as modified by Dutch does not disclose the range of lengths for the case, however, Blank indicates that the length of the cartridge is variable (See at least Paragraphs 0035-0038). Blank as modified by Dutch discloses the claimed invention except for the range of lengths of the case as found in claims 2-4. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have [claim 2] the length of the case being between about 2.2542 in to about 2.3228 in; [claim 3] the length of the case being between about 2.2656 in to about 2.3114 in; and [claim 4] the length of the case being between about 2.2771 in to about 2.2999 in, since applicant has not disclosed that the aforementioned list of lengths solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a variety of different lengths for the case.
Regarding claim 5, Blank as modified by Dutch does not disclose the specific length for the case, however, Blank indicates that the length of the cartridge is variable (See at least Paragraphs 0035-0038). Blank as modified by Dutch discloses the claimed invention except for the specific length of the case found in claim 5. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the case with a length of about 2.2885 in, since applicant has not disclosed that the aforementioned length solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a variety of different lengths for the case.
Regarding claims 6-7, Blank as modified by Dutch does not disclose the range of diameters for the neck portion, however, Blank and Dutch indicate that the neck diameter is variable to accept different caliber projectiles. Blank as modified by Dutch discloses the claimed invention except for the range of diameters for the neck as found in claims 6-7. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have [claim 6] the neck portion have a diameter between about 0.2505 in to about 0.2555 in and [claim 7] the neck portion have a diameter between about 0.2517 in to about 0.2543 in, since applicant has not disclosed that the aforementioned list of diameters solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a variety of neck diameters for the case.
Regarding claim 8, Blank as modified by Dutch does not disclose the specific diameter for the neck portion, however, Blank and Dutch indicate that the neck diameter is variable to accept different caliber projectiles. Blank as modified by Dutch discloses the claimed invention except for the specific diameter for the neck as found in claim 8. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have [claim 8] the neck portion have a diameter of about 0.253, since applicant has not disclosed that the aforementioned diameter solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a variety of neck diameters for the case.
Regarding claim 9, Blank further discloses wherein the first end has a diameter between about 0.4632 in to about 0.4774 in (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the diameter of the base end of the 308 cartridge body is 0.4703 which is in the specified range).
Regarding claim 10, Blank further discloses wherein the first end has a diameter between about 0.4679 in to 0.4727 in (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the diameter of the base end of the 308 cartridge body is 0.4703 which is in the specified range).
Regarding claim 11, Blank further discloses wherein the first end has a diameter of about 0.4703 in (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the diameter of the base end of the 308 cartridge body is 0.4703).
Regarding claim 12, Blank further discloses wherein the second end has a diameter between about 0.4472 in to about 0.4608 in (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the diameter of the second end of the 308 cartridge body is 0.4540).
Regarding claim 13, Blank further discloses wherein the second end has a diameter between about 0.4517 in to about 0.4563 in (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the diameter of the second end of the 308 cartridge body is 0.4540).
Regarding claim 14, Blank further discloses wherein the second end has a diameter of about 0.4540 in (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the diameter of the second end of the 308 cartridge body is 0.4540).
Regarding claim 15, Blank further discloses wherein the shoulder portion has a diameter between about 0.396 in to about 0.404 in (Inherent to transition between the neck diameter and body diameter, the shoulder would have to have the specified ranges of diameters in a portion thereof).
Regarding claim 16, Blank further discloses wherein the shoulder portion has a diameter between about 0.398 in to about 0.402 in (Inherent to transition between the neck diameter and body diameter, the shoulder would have to have the specified ranges of diameters in a portion thereof).
Regarding claim 17, Blank further discloses wherein the shoulder portion has a diameter of about 0.400 in (Inherent to transition between the neck diameter and body diameter, the shoulder would have the specified diameter in a portion thereof).
Regarding claim 18, Blank further discloses wherein the base portion has a diameter between about 0.4656 in to about 0.475 in (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the diameter of the base portion of the 308 cartridge body is 0.4703).
Regarding claim 19, Blank further discloses wherein the base portion has a diameter between about 0.4679 in to about 0.4727 in (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the diameter of the base portion of the 308 cartridge body is 0.4703).
Regarding claim 20, Blank further discloses wherein the base portion has a diameter about 0.4703 in (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the diameter of the base portion of the 308 cartridge body is 0.4703).
Regarding claim 21, Blank further discloses wherein the indentation can have an angling between about 330 to 370 measured from the longitudinal axis of the body portion (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the 308 cartridge has an indentation has an angling of 360 measured from the longitudinal axis of the body portion).
Regarding claim 22, Blank further discloses wherein the indentation can have an angle of about 360 measured from the longitudinal axis of the body portion (According to the applicant’s admitted prior art, see at least Figure 2 of the application, the 308 cartridge has an indentation has an angling of 360 measured from the longitudinal axis of the body portion).
Regarding claim 23, Blank as modified by Dutch discloses a firearm ammunition comprising: a case having: a neck portion having a diameter between about 0.249 in to about 0.256 in; a body portion tapering from a first end having a diameter between about 0.465 in to about 0.475 into a second end having a diameter between about 0.449 in to about 0.458 in; a shoulder portion connecting the body portion and neck portion and having a diameter between about 0.395 in to about 0.405 in; a base portion positioned on the second end of the body portion and having diameter between about 0.463 in to about 0.477 in; a headspace dimension length extending between the end of the case to the shoulder portion having the specified diameter, the headspace dimension length being of a length from about 1.930 in to about 1.940 inches; and an indentation joining the body portion and the base portion, the indentation having a sidewall with an angle between 30 degrees to 42 degrees; a bullet firmly fitted in the neck portion and having a diameter between about 0.221 in to about 0.227 in, wherein the firearm ammunition is configured to achieve a maximum average pressure of about 62,000 pounds per square inch during firing (Limitations previously addressed, see rejections above).
Blank further discloses a bullet firm fit in the neck portion and having a diameter between about .221 in to about .227 in (See at least Paragraphs 0035-0038, “0.224”).
Blank as modified by Dutch discloses the claimed invention except for the grain weight of the powder. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a powder positioned in the body portion and having a grain weight between about 35 grains to about 60 grains, since applicant has not disclosed that the grain weight solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a variety of different grain weights for the powder.
Regarding claim 25, Blank as modified by Dutch discloses the claimed invention except for the bullet weight. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the bullet have a weight between about 55 grain to about 110 grain, since applicant has not disclosed that the bullet weight solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a variety of different bullet weights.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the applicant’s arguments about operating pressures, the examiner offers the following: the reference may not directly disclose the operating pressures of the cartridges, but the examiner contends that it is old and well known to have cartridges perform between 50,000 psi to 70,000 psi during discharge. In addition, the cartridge presented by Blank and modified by Dutch would have the same dimensions and be manufactured from the same materials, which according to the teachings of the applicant’s own specification would perform at the given pressures, the examiner would contend that the cartridge proposed by the rejection would perform in a similar way absent a specific teaching to the contrary. In addition, the examiner has reviewed the specification presented by the applicant, and the only mention of maximum pressure in the specification is “The maximum average pressure for the cartridge can be 62,000 psi.” There is no specific teaching of how the features indicated by the applicant would cooperate to allow for such a maximum pressure.
The examiner contends that a combination of Blank and Dutch given the claimed subject matter would be appropriate, and the rejections are maintained.
It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function of property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
No other arguments are presented by the applicant.
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM 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 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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641