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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 3-4, 7, 11-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferri, Great Britain Patent Application No. 2206055, in view of Butler, U.S. Patent No. 2,735,206, and Petrick et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,272,828, and in further view of Wilson, U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0202750. As to Claim 1, Ferri teaches a toy projectile launcher comprising a launch barrel (20), a handle (5), and an internal projectile storage area (22), paragraphs 7 and 8. Ferri teaches an air piston assembly comprising a barrel (16, 18) and a plunger element (26, 28), paragraph 8. A sliding handle (16A) may be coupled to the barrel and movable between forward and backward positions thereby moving the barrel between forward and backward positions, with a spring biasing the plunger element toward a forward portion of the projectile launcher, paragraph 8. A latching assembly (36) may couple the plunger element to a trigger assembly (7, 42, 46), when the sliding handle is moved to the backward position and the barrel is moved to the corresponding backward position, the barrel (18) covers a projectile from the internal projectile storage with an uppermost projectile held by barrel portion (18) until the barrel passes beyond the projectile, paragraph 8. When the barrel is moved completely to the corresponding backward position, the uppermost projectile is pushed up into a priming position in alignment with the barrel and with the launching barrel, paragraph 8, noting that projectiles in the internal storage area are urged upward against barrel portion (18), which may be drawn back and a projectile is pushed up to alignment and priming position in alignment with the barrel and launching barrel. Ferri teaches that the sliding handle may be moved from the backward position to a forward position with the latching assembly coupling the plunger element to the trigger assembly, the barrel being moved to a corresponding forward position forming an internal chamber with the plunger element, the chamber being filled with air drawn from a nozzle of the barrel, paragraph 8 and see Figure 1. Ferri does not specify that air filling the internal air chamber passes through a front nozzle but Ferri teaches that air expelled from the chamber passes outward through a front nozzle, paragraph 8, suggesting that the nozzle is a front nozzle for filling air. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to provide Ferri, as modified, with a front nozzle, as suggested. The barrel may push the projectile from the priming position into a firing position, paragraph 8. The barrel may cover at least a portion of a top opening of the projectile storage area (barrel covers a top portion of the projectile storage area) when in the corresponding forward position forming an airtight seal between the launch barrel and the barrel, paragraph 8, and see Figure 1, noting that air is compressed when the piston is released. The trigger assembly, upon toggling, may release the coupling of the latching assembly between the plunger element and the trigger assembly, paragraph 8. Ferri teaches that the top opening of the internal projectile storage area may be proximate the barrel when the barrel is covering the top opening, see Figure 1, but Ferri does not disclose a pair of resilient flaps at the top opening. Butler teaches that an internal projectile storage area (22) may comprise a pair of resilient flaps (23, 24, 31, 32) inwardly biased and disposed on respective first and second sides at a top opening of the internal projectile storage area, Col. 2, ln. 32-33 and Col. 3, ln. 16-26. Butler teaches that an uppermost projectile may be urged forward from between the flaps, by a bolt, in the same manner as a barrel may urge an uppermost projectile from between flaps, leaving the pair of flaps in contact with respective first and second sides of the bolt, Col. 3, ln. 74 – Col. 4, ln. 27 and see Figure 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Ferri with a pair of inwardly biased resilient flaps on respective first and second sides of a top opening of an internal projectile storage area, to hold a projectile in an aligned priming position, as taught by Butler, to provide Ferri with opposed resilient members to retain an uppermost projectile in aligned priming position to be advanced by a barrel and to contact first and second sides on the barrel, to hold the barrel, when the barrel covers the opening, to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of transferring projectiles from a storage area to a launch barrel. Ferri, as modified, does not provide that the internal projectile storage area may be in the handle. Petrick teaches that an internal projectile storage area of a projectile launcher (firearm) may be in the handle, see Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to provide Ferri, as modified, with a handle comprising an internal projectile storage area, as taught by Petrick, to provide Ferri, as modified, with a known substitute location for the projectile storage area. Ferri, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for configuring the resilient flaps to apply a downward force on a projectile aligned in priming position. Wilson teaches an internal projectile storage area (20) configured to place a topmost projectile aligned in priming position, paragraph 0040 and see Figure 3B. A spring (28) urges a stack of projectiles upward, paragraph 0037. A pair of resilient flaps (30) may be configured to apply downward force on a projectile when in aligned priming position, paragraph 0040 and see Figure 3B, noting that the resilient flaps hold the projectile against upward force applied by the spring. It follows that the resilient flaps apply downward force. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the resilient flaps as claimed and as taught by Wilson, to provide Ferri, as modified, with resilient flaps configured to hold projectiles aligned in priming position to yield the predictable result of maintaining proper position of the projectile until launched. As to Claims 3 and 13, Butler teaches that a projectile from the internal projectile storage area may be held between a pair of resilient flaps when a bolt is moved to a corresponding backward position, Col. 5, ln. 20-26. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Ferri, as modified, with the pair of resilient flaps configured as taught by Butler, to hold a projectile when a barrel is moved backward, to provide Ferri, as modified, with a configuration of resilient flaps to yield the predictable result of controlled release of projectiles from a projectile storage area. As to Claims 4 and 14, Ferri teaches that the sliding handle when moved to the backward position creates an opening for loading projectiles into the internal projectile storage area, paragraph 8, noting that the attachment (18) is drawn back from the magazine (22). As to Claims 7 and 17, Ferri teaches that the projectile may be immediately adjacent a front nozzle of the barrel, paragraph 8 and see Figure 1. As to Claim 11, Ferri, as modified by Butler, Petrick, and Wilson, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationales being found applicable. Ferri teaches that the spring may be a compression spring, as noted in the treatment of Claim 2. As to Claim 12, Ferri teaches that the plunger element compresses the compression spring toward a back wall when the sliding handle is moved to a backward position, paragraph 8 and see Figure 1. As to Claim 16, Ferri is applied as in Claim 6, noting that Ferri teaches a compression spring such that it follows that the plunger element may be pushed forward. As to Claim 18, Butler teaches that at least a pair of resilient flaps may comprise a front and back pairs of resilient flaps (23, 24 front portions and rear portions) Col. 3, ln. 7-18 and 39-43, disposed at respective front and back portions of a top opening of an internal projectile storage area, see Figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to provide front and back pairs of resilient flaps, as taught by Butler, to provide Ferri, as modified, with separate front and back flaps to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of designing the resilient flaps to more precisely control the holding and release of projectiles.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferri, in view of Butler, Petrick, and Wilson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kleimeyer et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0128083. Ferri, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 2, Ferri teaches that the spring may be a compression spring, paragraph 8, noting compressed spring. Ferri, as modified, does not disclose that the spring may be an extension spring. Kleimeyer teaches that extension springs may be substituted for compression springs in a variety of devices, including devices for launching projectiles, paragraphs 0236 and 0329. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to provide Ferri, as modified with an extension spring, as taught by Kleimeyer, to provide Ferri, as modified, with a known substitute type of spring. As to Claim 6, Ferri teaches that the plunger element may be pushed forward by a compression spring to expel air from the internal air chamber through the front nozzle of the barrel when the coupling of the latched assembly between plunger element and trigger assembly is released, paragraph 8. The examiner finds that the same rationale applied in the treatment of Claim 2 is equally applicable to apply Kleimeyer in support of an obvious modification to substitute an extension spring in place of the compression spring. It follows that the plunger element would be pulled forward. The examiner finds that the same rationale applied in the treatment of Claim 5 is applicable to support a finding of obviousness regarding the configuration of a front nozzle.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferri, in view of Butler, Petrick, and Wilson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sindel, U.S. Patent No. 4,756,297. Ferri, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claims 8 and 19, Ferri, as modified, is silent as to an oval barrel cross-section. Sindel teaches a projectile launcher (air pistol) comprising a barrel (11) having an oval cross-section, Col. 4, ln. 36-41. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to provide Ferri, as modified, with a barrel having an oval cross-section shape, as taught by Sindel, to provide Ferri, as modified, with a narrowed barrel cross-section and sufficient volume, to yield the predictable result of a desirable overall shape of the projectile launcher. As to Claims 9 and 20, Sindel teaches that the cross-sectional shape of the barrel may have a height to width ratio wherein the height is greater (ratio greater than 1:1), see Figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Ferri, as modified, with the cross-sectional shape of the barrel having a height greater than the width, as taught by Sindel, to provide Ferri, as modified, with a narrower barrel width to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of designing the projectile launcher to resemble a firearm. Ferri, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that the ratio may be 7:5. Sindel teaches that oval shape of the barrel facilitates an overall design of the launcher to exhibit a desired external appearance, indicating that the ratio of height to width is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a height to width ratio of 7:5 since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferri, in view of Butler, Wilson, and Sindel. As to Claim 10, Ferri, as modified by Butler and Wilson, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Sindel is applied as in Claim 8, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 21, Ferri, as modified by Butler and Wilson is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Sindel is applied as in Claim 8, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Ferri teaches that the spring may be a compression spring as noted in the treatment of Claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that cited prior art does not teach a projectile being aligned with the launch barrel when in a priming position, The examiner maintains the position that Ferri teaches a toy projectile launcher including a magazine carrying a column of projectiles pushed upward by a spring. A sliding barrel occupies the portion of the launch barrel over the exit opening of the magazine, preventing the exit of the projectiles. When the cocking function moves the barrel backward, clearing the uppermost projectile, the spring of the magazine pushes the uppermost projectile into a priming position in alignment with the barrel and with the launching barrel, as set forth in the office action. The subsequent forward movement of the barrel, to complete the cocking function pushes the uppermost projectile into firing position. The examiner maintains the position that the forward movement of the barrel after the uppermost projectile has been pushed up into alignment with the barrel, moves the projectile from a primed position to a firing position, as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 23 June 2026
Prosecution Insights