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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 17, 2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification, see ¶¶ 3-16, is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references were cited in the IDS filed May 17, 2023, or cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “8” has been used to designate both a nut (Figs. 2A-B; see specification, pg. 15, line 4) and a long bolt (Fig. 5; see specification, pg. 15, line 20, and pg. 24, line 2). In Fig. 2C, it is unclear what part is being illustrated by reference number “8,” since the illustrated part appears to be different from the nut in Figs. 2A-B and different from the long bolt in Fig. 5 that locks a plurality of cassettes. Clarification is required. The examiner notes that any clarifying amendments to the drawings and/or specification should be accompanied by remarks pointing out where support for the amendments is found in the original disclosure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pg. 14, lines 27-28, “wheel (4)” should be amended to remove reference number “(4),” because this reference number is used in the figures to denote the bullet receiving chamber, not a wheel.
On pg. 14, line 28, it appears that “collecting vessel (not shown)” should read --collecting vessel (10)--, consistent with claim 4, line 3.
On pg. 15, line 6, it appears that “back top fixing plate (10)” should read --back top fixing plate (9)--, consistent with pg. 15, lines 4-5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is replete with indefinite language, as listed below:
“a bullet’s deceleration chamber” (pg. 25, lines 9-10) - It is unclear in what sense the claimed deceleration chamber belongs to the bullet (as suggested by the possessive form “bullet’s”). For the purpose of examination, “a bullet’s deceleration chamber” will be interpreted to mean simply --a bullet deceleration chamber--.
“in a horizontal axis and or in a vertical axis” (pg. 25, line 10) - It is unclear what component is in a horizontal axis and/or a vertical axis, and it is unclear in what sense that component would be considered to be in both a horizontal and a vertical axis (as would appear to fall within the scope of “and or”).
“the bullet fired compasses the bullet receiving chamber (1) while in contact with a plurality of boundary walls and enters a terminal part of said boundary wall over a throat (6) of a passageway and moves through said throat (6) to dissipate on hitting a modular backstop (7) of the said deceleration chamber (5)” (pg. 25, lines 11-15)
This limitation appears to describe a method step that occurs during use of the claimed device and does not clearly define the structure that is being claimed. It is unclear whether or to what extent the claimed invention is further limited by the structural elements described in the context of use of the device (“a plurality of boundary walls,” “a terminal part,” “a throat,” “a passageway,” and “a modular backstop”).
It is unclear what is meant by the term “compasses” in this context. The plain and ordinary meaning of the verb “compass” is “to make a circuit of; circle” or “to surround; encircle.”1 It is unclear in what sense the bullet makes a circuit of, or encircles, the bullet receiving chamber, which is shown in Fig. 1 to be a rectilinear structure (4).
The use of reference number “(1)” to denote the bullet receiving chamber introduces ambiguity because reference number “1” is used elsewhere to denote the device as a whole, while the bullet receiving chamber is elsewhere denoted by the reference number “4.”
In addition, it is unclear which of the plurality of boundary walls is “said boundary wall” (singular).
“circumferentially oriented” (pg. 25, line 18) - It is unclear relative to what part the first impact zone is “circumferentially oriented” (i.e., circumferential to what part?).
“the horizontal zone of bullet travel” (pg. 25, lines 18-19) - There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the horizontal zone” refers to a structural zone of the device or to a zone associated with a bullet during use of the device. The examiner notes that the orientation of the first impact zone should be clearly defined with respect to the structure of the claimed device.
“the said modular backstop (7) with at least two impact zones are made by stacking multiple individual armored plates (12) vertically and/or horizontally in to a plurality of cassettes (11)” (pg. 25, lines 20-22)
It is unclear in this context whether “at least two impact zones” refers to the first impact zone and the at least one successive impact zone.
It is unclear whether this limitation means that the backstop is made by stacking the armored plates or specifically requires that the impact zones are made by stacking the armored plates.
“vertically and/or horizontally” (pg. 25, lines 21-22) - It is unclear in what sense the armored plates could be stacked both vertically and horizontally into a plurality of cassettes. This appears to be inconsistent with the invention as described in the specification. See MPEP 2173.03.
“vertically and/or horizontally” (pg. 25, line 24) - It is unclear in what sense the cassettes could be held both vertically and horizontally. This too appears to be inconsistent with the invention as described in the specification. See MPEP 2173.03.
“long bolts” (pg. 25, line 26) - The term “long” is a relative term which is not clearly defined in the claim. It is unclear what length of bolt is required by the term “long,” and the claim does not otherwise define the extent of the bolt.
“the said cassettes (11) and/or the individual armored plates (12) within each of the said cassettes (11) are all replaceable” (pg. 25, lines 29-30) - It is unclear whether this limitation requires that all of the cassettes and all of the individual armored plates are capable of being replaced. The term “and/or” suggests that only one or the other of the cassettes or the plates may be replaceable, but the term “all” suggests that the cassettes and the plates must be replaceable. In other words, it is unclear whether “and/or” refers to features of the design (e.g., with all of the cassettes designed to be replaceable or all of the plates designed to be replaceable) or to an option that is presented to a user (e.g., with all of the cassettes and all of the plates designed to be replaceable, such that the user has the ability to replace the cassettes and/or the plates during use).
Claims 2-4 appear to recite method steps for using the device (“the said device (1) is used for de-energizing and collecting the bullet …”; “the said bullet that enters the said deceleration chamber … will move along the chamber without being shattered …”; “the spent bullet ultimately falls off the modular backstop …”). A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because it is unclear whether direct infringement would occur when the apparatus is created or when the method steps are carried out. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p).
In addition, in claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the spent bullet,” and it is unclear whether the additional structural components (“a passageway,” “a collecting vessel (10)”), which are mentioned only in the context of the method step, are required components of the claimed device.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “very high flexural bending strength compared to multilayered backstops” renders the claim indefinite, because “very high” is a relative term with undefined scope, and because “multilayered backstops” may have various bending strengths and thus do not constitute a sufficiently clear reference point from which to define the bending strength of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b), subsections I and II.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “wherein the said cassettes (11) vertically held with support of long bolts (8) increases the compressive force …” is unclear, since claim 1 recites cassettes that “are held vertically and/or horizontally” (pg. 25, line 24). It is unclear whether claim 6 further limits the device to vertically-held cassettes, or whether claim 6 is simply stating a result that would occur if the cassettes are vertically held.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the deformation point.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear what this limitation refers to.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear in what sense the armored plates are “configurable” and in what sense the size of the armored plates is “configurable.” This term is vague and is not clearly defined by the specification.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the device (1) can also be rotated to be used in horizontal position” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether this is referring to a design option (i.e., the device being designed to be horizontal) or to a rotatable function of the device (e.g., with a pivot of some kind).
Claim 10 is replete with indefinite language. The examiner notes that claim 10 is written as an independent claim and does not explicitly refer back to the device of claim 1. Claim 10 lacks antecedent basis in the claims for many recited limitations, including “the individual armored plates (12),” “the modular backstop (7),” “the said bullet containment trap device (1),” and “the lumped block.” In addition, the limitation “long bolts” (pg. 27, line 7) renders the claim indefinite because “long” is a relative term that is not clearly defined in the claim, such that it is unclear what length of bolt is required by the term “long.” Moreover, the limitation “vertically and/or horizontally” (pg. 27, line 9) renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear in what sense the armored plates could be stacked both vertically and horizontally. This would appear to be inconsistent with the invention as described in the specification. See MPEP 2173.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “at least one electronic target assembly configured to project at least one target placed at a rear end of an open-ended bullet receiving chamber” (pg. 25, lines 5-6) is not supported by sufficient written description in the disclosure. An electronic target is not shown in the figures. While the specification repeats the claim language verbatim (see ¶¶ 24 and 53), the specification does not disclose the manner in which the target assembly is configured to perform the function of “project[ing] at least one target.” There is insufficient written description to support this functional limitation. See MPEP § 2163.03, subsection V. This issue could be overcome by deleting the limitations with respect to the electronic target assembly.
Further regarding claim 1, the limitation “the said bullet receiving chamber (4) is backed with a bullet’s deceleration chamber (5) in a horizontal axis and or in a vertical axis” (pg. 25, line 10) is not supported by sufficient written description in the disclosure. The specification and drawings exclusively describe the bullet receiving chamber as being backed with a bullet deceleration chamber in a horizontal axis. See ¶¶ 27, 53, and 67. The original disclosure would not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession at the time of filing of an embodiment in which the bullet receiving chamber is backed with a bullet deceleration chamber in a vertical axis. This issue could be overcome by deleting “and or in a vertical axis.”
With further regard to claim 1, the limitations “stacking multiple individual armored plates (12) vertically and/or horizontally in to a plurality of cassettes (11)” (pg. 25, lines 21-22) and “the said cassettes (11) formed by stacking multiple individual armored plates (12) are held vertically and/or horizontally” (pg. 25, lines 23-24) are not supported by sufficient written description in the disclosure. Although the specification repeats these limitations verbatim (see ¶¶ 29-30), the disclosure as a whole does not describe an embodiment which combines vertically and horizontally stacked plates and cassettes. As consistently shown in all of the figures, the plates (12) and cassettes (11) are linearly stacked in one direction (see Figs. 2B-C), which may be vertical (as shown in Fig. 1) or horizontal (¶ 58). The original disclosure would not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession at the time of filing of embodiments that combine the vertical and horizontal orientations in the manner claimed. This issue could be overcome by replacing each instance of “and/or” with --or--.
Claims 2-9 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “stacking multiple individual armored plates (12) vertically and/or horizontally” (pg. 27, lines 8-9) is not supported by sufficient written description in the disclosure. Although the specification repeats this limitation verbatim (see ¶ 62), the disclosure as a whole does not describe an embodiment which combines vertically and horizontally stacked plates. As consistently shown in all of the figures, the plates (12) and cassettes (11) are linearly stacked in one direction (see Figs. 2B-C), which may be vertical (as shown in Fig. 1) or horizontal (¶ 58). The original disclosure would not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession at the time of filing of an embodiment that combines the vertical and horizontal orientations in the manner claimed. This issue could be overcome by replacing each instance of “and/or” with --or--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action. The examiner notes that claims 1-10 will require careful amendment to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) set forth above. The indication of allowability is contingent upon the claims being effectively amended to overcome these rejections while retaining the distinctive features of the invention consistent with the original disclosure.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Lambert (US Patent No. 7,775,526). Lambert discloses a bullet containment trap device with a modular backstop comprising a first impact zone circumferentially oriented with respect to a longitudinal axis of the backstop and at a first angle from a horizontal plane, and at least one successive impact zone, wherein the modular backstop is made of multiple replaceable armored plates arranged in a plurality of sections or “cassettes”. See, e.g., Lambert, Figs. 10-15. With respect to claim 1, Lambert does not teach that the modular backstop with the first and successive impact zones is made by stacking multiple individual armored plates vertically or horizontally into the cassettes, with the cassettes being held vertically or horizontally to form the backstop and being joined with long bolts such that impinging loads of a bullet hitting the backstop are distributed to multiple individual plates of the cassettes which are closely stacked, nor does the examiner find this to be an obvious modification of Lambert in view of the prior art, when these features are considered together with the limitations of claim 1 as a whole. (For clarity, the examiner notes that the electronic target recited in lines 3-4, which lacks written description support, is not necessary for patentability and can be deleted to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(a).)
With respect to claim 10, the examiner suggests amending claim 10 to refer to the device “of claim 1” in order to clarify many of the issues discussed above in the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 112(b). This would also ensure that claim 10 clearly defines the allowable subject matter as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 compass. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved November 14 2025 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/compass