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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 September 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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (2018/0299223) in view of Holliday.
In reference to claim 1, Barrett discloses a firearm suppressor comprising:
a body having an upstream end and a downstream end (figure 7b, body 90);
threading residing proximate to the upstream end, the threading defining a length (figure 7B, internal threading 95); and
a baffle, the baffle residing downstream of the threading (figure 7B, baffle 50).
Thus, Barrett discloses the claimed invention except for an annular groove disposed intermediately along the length; a compressible annulus residing in the groove and extending radially from inside the groove to past the threading such that when the suppressor is installed on a firearm barrel having complementary threading, at least a portion of the compressible annulus resides closer to the bore axis than does any of the threading, and wherein the groove and the compressible annulus are sized and positioned to maintain colinear alignment between the suppressor bore and the firearm barrel when the suppressor is attached to the firearm barrel. It is noted that the inner threading (95) forms a threaded connection with outer threading (18b) on the muzzle end of a barrel (18).
Holliday teaches that it is known to provide the inner threading of a threaded connection with an annular groove disposed intermediately along the inner threading; a compressible annulus residing in the groove and extending radially inward from inside the groove to past the threading in a direction toward a bore axis of the structure having said inner threading, such that when the structure having said inner threading is installed on a structure having complementary outer threading, at least a portion of the compressible annulus resides closer to the bore axis than does any of the inner threading, in order to effectively lock the threaded connection so that shock or vibration will not cause unthreading, i.e., to prevent inadvertent loosening via robust engagement (column 1, lines 44-51; figures 5, 5A, 6, and 6A, groove 42, annulus 70; figure 6A clearly shows the annulus extending past the crest of the complementary outer threading of element P).
Further, Holliday is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the Inventor, as reflected in the specification—inadvertent unthreading or loosening of a threaded connection (spec, at least paras. 15 and 17). Specifically, the thread locking arrangement of Holliday (i.e., the groove and annulus) is concerned with, and clearly capable of achieving, the purpose of preventing inadvertent loosening of a threaded connection due to shock, jarring, or vibration.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inner threading of the threaded connection of Barrett with an annular groove disposed intermediately along the length of the inner threading, and a compressible annulus residing in the groove and extending radially from inside the groove to past the threading such that when the suppressor is installed on a firearm barrel having complementary threading, at least a portion of the compressible annulus resides closer to the bore axis than does any of the threading, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to effectively lock the threaded connection so that shock or vibration will not cause an unthreading movement, i.e., to prevent inadvertent loosening.
It follows that the groove and annulus (O-ring) of the proposed combination would clearly be configured such that the groove and the O-ring are sized and positioned to maintain colinear alignment between the suppressor bore and the firearm barrel when the suppressor is attached to the firearm barrel, since Barrett discloses end-to-end thread engagement between the suppressor and a muzzle end of the barrel, Holliday teaches the groove and O-ring provide a threaded connection with robust engagement, and Applicant’s specification discloses that colinear bore alignment is achieved via end-to-end thread engagement between the suppressor and muzzle and a robust engagement of the threaded connection (paragraphs 64 and 65).
In reference to claims 5 and 7, Barrett in view of Holliday makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above.
In reference to claim 9, Barrett in view of Holliday makes obvious the claimed invention (Holliday: figure 5A, elements 77 show the annulus 70 extending to a point past the inner threads).
In reference to claims 11 and 13, Barrett in view of Holliday makes obvious the claimed invention (Holliday: figure 5 makes clear the axial width of the annulus 70 is greater than the twice the pitch of the threads).
In reference to claim 14, Barrett in view of Holliday makes obvious the claimed invention (Holliday: column 4, lines 60-62).
In reference to claim 15, Barrett in view of Holliday makes obvious the claimed invention (Holliday: the annulus 70 is merely inserted into the groove, and, thus, is clearly removable).
In reference to claims 16 and 17, Barrett in view of Holliday makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1. It is noted that Barrett discloses that the suppressor (1) is connected to the firearm at the muzzle of the firearm with a majority of the threads of the barrel engaged by the suppressor (figure 7B).
In reference to claim 19, Barrett in view of Holliday makes obvious the claimed invention (Holliday: the annulus 70 is disclosed as a “washer 70” made of a compressible material, e.g., olefin polyethylene, and having an inner wall 74 defining a diameter; thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage said washer as annular, which makes it an “O-ring”).
In reference to claim 20, Barrett in view of Holliday makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claims 1, 5, 9, 15, and 19. It should be appreciated that the groove and O-ring of the modified Barrett are clearly configured such that the O-ring is compressed between the suppressor and a firearm barrel when the suppressor is attached, wherein the groove and O-ring are sized and positioned to maintain colinear bore alignment between the firearm bore and the suppressor bore, since Barrett teaches end-to-end thread engagement between the suppressor and muzzle and Holliday teaches the groove and O-ring provide a threaded connection with robust engagement. Applicant’s specification discloses that colinear bore alignment is achieved via end-to-end thread engagement between the suppressor and muzzle and a robust engagement of the threaded connection (paragraphs 64 and 65).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett in view of Holliday and further in view of Schuster et al. (2013/0266395; “Schuster”).
Barrett in view of Holliday makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the compressible annulus occupies only an arcuate portion of the circumference of the groove. However, Schuster teaches it is known to form an annulus, like that of Holliday, such that the annulus occupies only an arcuate portion of the circumference of the corresponding groove to facilitate easier installation of the annulus in the groove (figures, annulus 16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the annulus of Barrett in view of Holliday such that it occupies only an arcuate portion of the circumference of the corresponding groove to facilitate easier installation of the annulus in the groove.
Claim 1-5, 7, 11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett in view of Champion (184835) and further in view of Holliday.
In reference to claim 1, Barrett discloses a firearm suppressor comprising:
a body having an upstream end and a downstream end (figure 7b, body 90);
threading residing proximate to the upstream end, the threading defining a length (figure 7B, internal threading 95); and
a baffle, the baffle residing downstream of the threading (figure 7B, baffle 50).
Thus, Barrett discloses the claimed invention except for an annular groove disposed intermediately along the length; a compressible annulus residing in the groove and extending radially from inside the groove to past the threading such that when the suppressor is installed on a firearm barrel having complementary threading, at least a portion of the compressible annular extends radially past the crest of the complementary threading. It is noted that the inner threading (95) forms a threaded connection with outer threading (18b) on the muzzle end of a barrel (18).
Champion teaches that it is known to provide the inner threading of a threaded connection with an annular groove disposed intermediately along the inner threading; a compressible annulus residing in the groove and extending radially inward from inside the groove to past the threading in a direction toward a bore axis of the structure having said inner threading, in order to effectively lock the threaded connection so that shock or vibration will not cause unthreading, i.e., to prevent inadvertent loosening via robust engagement (groove F; paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2; the packing set forth in the claim constitutes a compressible annulus; figure 3 makes clear that the packing would extend radially outward past the threading of the complementary outer threading of another structure).
Further, Champion is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the Inventor, as reflected in the specification—inadvertent unthreading or loosening of a threaded connection (spec, at least paras. 15 and 17). Specifically, the thread locking arrangement of Champion (i.e., the groove and annulus) is concerned with, and clearly capable of achieving, the purpose of preventing inadvertent loosening of a threaded connection due to shock, jarring, or vibration.
Yet, it is unclear if when the structure having said inner threading is installed on a structure having complementary outer threading, at least a portion of the compressible annulus resides closer to the bore axis than does any of the inner threading. However, Holliday teaches it is known to form a compressible annulus as a removable O-ring that extends closer to a bore axis of an internally threaded structure than any of the inner threads of said structure, in order to provide enhanced thread locking (figure 5A, elements 77 show the annulus 70 extending to a point past the inner threads).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inner threading of the threaded connection of Barrett with an annular groove disposed intermediately along the length of the inner threading, and a compressible annulus residing in the groove and extending radially from inside the groove to past the threading such that when the suppressor is installed on a firearm barrel having complementary threading, at least a portion of the compressible annulus resides closer to the bore axis than does any of the threading, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to effectively lock the threaded connection so that shock or vibration will not cause an unthreading movement, i.e., to prevent inadvertent loosening.
It follows that the groove and annulus (O-ring) of the proposed combination would clearly be configured such that the groove and the O-ring are sized and positioned to maintain colinear alignment between the suppressor bore and the firearm barrel when the suppressor is attached to the firearm barrel, since Barrett discloses end-to-end thread engagement between the suppressor and a muzzle end of the barrel, Champion and Holliday teach the groove and O-ring provide a threaded connection with robust engagement, and Applicant’s specification discloses that colinear bore alignment is achieved via end-to-end thread engagement between the suppressor and muzzle and a robust engagement of the threaded connection (paragraphs 64 and 65).
In reference to claim 2, Barrett in view of Champion and further in view of Holliday (the modified Barrett) makes obvious the claimed invention, since Champion teaches that the groove is formed midway along the length of the threading.
In reference to claims 3 and 4, the modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, since the threading of Barrett includes enough threads to place at least three threads on each side of a groove formed midway along the threading.
In reference to claim 5, the modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above.
In reference to claim 7, the modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above.
In reference to claims 11 and 13, the modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above (see Champion, figure 3, the groove has an axial width as claimed).
In reference to claim 15, the modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, except it is unclear from Champion whether the annulus is removable from the groove. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to form a compressible annulus for a thread locking arrangement as a removable O-ring, in order to provide an annulus that can be replaced when needed (e.g., if the annulus degrades due to repeated use or old age). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the annulus of the modified Barrett as a removable O-ring, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an annulus that can be replaced when needed (e.g., if the annulus degrades due to repeated use or old age).
In reference to claims 16 and 17, the modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1. It is noted that Barrett discloses that the suppressor (1) is connected to the firearm at the muzzle of the firearm with a majority of the threads of the barrel engaged by the suppressor (figure 1, the drawing shows a matching number of internal threads 8 and external threads at the muzzle of the barrel 2).
In reference to claim 18, the modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 2.
In reference to claim 19, the modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the references to claims 1 and 15.
In reference to claim 20, the modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the references to claims 1, 15, and 16.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Barrett, further in view of Birchall (GB 566254 A).
The modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the compressible annulus is fabricated of more than one material, fewer than all of which are compressible. It is noted that outside of liquids such as water, oil, etc., the solid material, rubber, is often considered incompressible, i.e., it exhibits negligible volume change when deformed (although, no solid material is truly incompressible).
Champion does not limit the material of the annulus beyond being “suitable” (paragraph bridging columns 1-2). Further, Birchall teaches it is known to form an annulus, like that of Champion, from a plurality of materials, fewer than all which are compressible, to adhere the annulus within a corresponding groove (page 2, lines 18-37, rubber and brass). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the annulus of the modified Barrett, from a plurality of materials, fewer than all which are compressible, to adhere the annulus within the groove.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Barrett, further in view of Schuster et al. (2013/0266395; “Schuster”).
The modified Barrett makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the compressible annulus occupies only an arcuate portion of the circumference of the groove. However, Schuster teaches it is known to form an annulus, like that of Champion and Holliday, such that the annulus occupies only an arcuate portion of the circumference of the corresponding groove to facilitate easier installation of the annulus in the groove (figures, annulus 16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the annulus of the modified Barrett such that it occupies only an arcuate portion of the circumference of the corresponding groove, with a reasonable expectation of success, to facilitate easier installation of the annulus in the groove.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett in view of Champion and further in view of Marfione.
In reference to claim 1, Barrett discloses a firearm suppressor comprising:
a body having an upstream end and a downstream end (figure 7b, body 90);
threading residing proximate to the upstream end, the threading defining a length (figure 7B, internal threading 95); and
a baffle, the baffle residing downstream of the threading (figure 7B, baffle 50).
Thus, Barrett discloses the claimed invention except for an annular groove disposed intermediately along the length; a compressible annulus residing in the groove and extending radially from inside the groove to past the threading such that when the suppressor is installed on a firearm barrel having complementary threading, at least a portion of the compressible annular extends radially past the crest of the complementary threading. It is noted that the inner threading (95) forms a threaded connection with outer threading (18b) on the muzzle end of a barrel (18).
Champion teaches that it is known to provide the inner threading of a threaded connection with an annular groove disposed intermediately along the inner threading; a compressible annulus residing in the groove and extending radially inward from inside the groove to past the threading in a direction toward a bore axis of the structure having said inner threading, in order to effectively lock the threaded connection so that shock or vibration will not cause unthreading, i.e., to prevent inadvertent loosening via robust engagement (groove F; paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2; the packing set forth in the claim constitutes a compressible annulus; figure 3 makes clear that the packing would extend radially outward past the threading of the complementary outer threading of another structure).
Further, Champion is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the Inventor, as reflected in the specification—inadvertent unthreading or loosening of a threaded connection (spec, at least paras. 15 and 17). Specifically, the thread locking arrangement of Champion (i.e., the groove and annulus) is concerned with, and clearly capable of achieving, the purpose of preventing inadvertent loosening of a threaded connection due to shock, jarring, or vibration.
Yet, it is unclear if when the structure having said inner threading is installed on a structure having complementary outer threading, at least a portion of the compressible annulus resides closer to the bore axis than does any of the inner threading. However, Marfione teaches it is known to form a compressible annulus as a removable O-ring that extends closer to a bore axis of an internally threaded structure than any of the inner threads of said structure, in order to provide enhanced sealing (figure 1, the O-ring shown at the left-hand end of the threaded connection between elements 38 and 42).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inner threading of the threaded connection of Barrett with an annular groove disposed intermediately along the length of the inner threading, and a compressible annulus residing in the groove and extending radially from inside the groove to past the threading such that when the suppressor is installed on a firearm barrel having complementary threading, at least a portion of the compressible annulus resides closer to the bore axis than does any of the threading, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to effectively lock the threaded connection so that shock or vibration will not cause an unthreading movement, i.e., to prevent inadvertent loosening.
It follows that the groove and annulus (O-ring) of the proposed combination would clearly be configured such that the groove and the O-ring are sized and positioned to maintain colinear alignment between the suppressor bore and the firearm barrel when the suppressor is attached to the firearm barrel, since Barrett discloses end-to-end thread engagement between the suppressor and a muzzle end of the barrel, Champion and Marfione teach the groove and O-ring provide a threaded connection with robust engagement, and Applicant’s specification discloses that colinear bore alignment is achieved via end-to-end thread engagement between the suppressor and muzzle and a robust engagement of the threaded connection (paragraphs 64 and 65).
In reference to claim 10, Barrett in view of Champion and further in view of Marfione makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above, except for wherein the annulus has a circular cross-sectional shape. However, Marfione further teaches that it is known to form an annulus, like that of Champion, with a circular cross-sectional shape to provide a gas-tight seal between suppressor components and a firearm barrel (see figure 1, numerous O-rings are depicted). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the annulus of Barrett in view of Champion and further in view of Marfione with a circular cross-section, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a gas tight seal between the suppressor and barrel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
