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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new claim(s) 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. With regards to Hughes, it is noted that Hughes does disclose an inlet portion which taper and a non-tapered portion subsequent to the tapered portion adjacent to the outlet (see Fig. 4).
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 27-29 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 27-29 are directed to a method for reducing barrel rise, the method comprising cutting a port and cutting a first and second angle. The previously presented invention (as well as newly submitted claims 17-26), group I, and claims 27-29, group II, are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as by casting or 3-D printing.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 27-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 18 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 inlet having a stadium shape when viewed from the bore was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed. A stadium shape is defined as “a geometric figure consisting of a rectangle with top and bottom whose ends are capped off with semicircles”. The one figure that shows the inlet as viewed from the bore, Fig. 4, shows a circle having two opposite side that are capped with additional radiuses. Furthermore, the specification, at page 19, states that “the openings 100, 102, may be substantially circular, oval, or any other desired and respective shape” but nowhere is there a suggestion that the shape consists of “a rectangle with top and bottom whose ends are capped off with semicircles”; it appears that the shape of the openings are a matter of design choice.
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) 17-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leffel et al. (US 4,691,614) in view of Hughes (US 2,212,685). Leffel et al. discloses a firearm, comprising: a barrel (8), comprising: a breech end; a muzzle end (Fig. 2); an integral bore (@26) extending from the breech end to the muzzle end; a longitudinal axis extending through the bore (@26); an upper surface, the barrel defining at least one exhaust port (10A) within the upper surface, the exhaust port comprising: an inlet in communication with the bore, the inlet having a length in a direction which is parallel to the bore, the inlet having a width which is perpendicular to the bore; air outlet in communication with the upper surface of the barrel, the outlet having a length which is parallel to the bore, the outlet further having a width which is perpendicular to the bore, an inlet portion adjacent to the inlet, the inlet portion having a first inlet sidewall portion, the first inlet sidewall portion being proximal to the muzzle, the inlet portion further having a second inlet sidewall portion, the second inlet sidewall portion being proximate to the breech. Leffel et al. discloses the claimed invention but does not expressly disclose the length of the inlet being greater than the length of the outlet; the first inlet sidewall portion having an acute angle proximate to the breach, the inlet sidewall having air acute angle proximate to the muzzle; and an outlet portion adjacent to the outlet, the outlet portion being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bore, however Hughes does. Hughes teaches a firearm device for resisting muzzle displacement wherein the barrel comprises an exhaust port the length of the inlet being greater than the length of the outlet; the first inlet sidewall portion having an acute angle proximate to the breach, the inlet sidewall having air acute angle proximate to the muzzle; and an outlet portion adjacent to the outlet, the outlet portion being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bore. (Fig. 4) Because both references teach devices for controlling recoil of a firearm utilizing enhanced exhaust ports it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one exhaust port for the other to achieve the predictable result of increasing the velocity of gases discharged from the barrel and thereby increasing the efficiency of the device and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
18. The firearm accordingtoclaim17, wherein: the inlet has a stadium shape when viewed from the bore; and the outlet has a circular shape when viewed from the upper surface of the barrel. (Leffel et al. Fig. 2)
19. The firearm according to claim17, wherein the barrel defines a pair of sides, and the inlet portion has a trapezoidal shape when viewed from either side. (Hughes Fig. 4)
20.The firearm according to claim19, wherein the outlet portion has a rectangular shape when viewed from either side. (Hughes Fig. 4)
21. The firearm according to claim17, Leffel et al. and Hughes disclose the claimed invention but do not expressly disclose wherein the exhaust port has a center, and the inlet portion and outlet portion each define a height through the center and perpendicular to the central axis of the bore, the height of the inlet portion and the height of the outlet portion being equal. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the height of the inlet portion and the height of the outlet portion being equal, since applicant has not disclosed that making the heights equal solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the heights of any proportion. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
22. A barrel for a firearm, comprising: a breech end; a muzzle end; an integral bore extending from the breech end to the muzzle end; a longitudinal axis extending through the bore; an upper surface, the barrel defining at least one exhaust port within the upper surface, the exhaust port comprising: an inlet in communication with the bore, the inlet having a length in a direction which is parallel to the bore, the inlet having a width which is perpendicular to the bore; an outlet in communication with the upper surface of the barrel, the outlet having a length which is parallel to the bore, the outlet further having a width which is perpendicular to the bore, the length of the inlet being greater than the length of the outlet; an inlet portion adjacent to the inlet, the inlet portion having a first inlet sidewall portion, the first inlet sidewall portion being proximate to the muzzle, the first inlet sidewall portion having an acute angle proximate to the breach, the inlet portion further having a second inlet sidewall portion, the second inlet sidewall portion being proximate to the breech the second inlet sidewall portion having an acute angle proximate to the muzzle; and an outlet portion adjacent to the outlet, the outlet portion being perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bore. (See remarks above with regards to claim 17)
23. The barrel according to claim 22, wherein: the inlet has a stadium shape when viewed from the bore; and the outlet has a circular shape when viewed from the upper surface of the barrel. (See remarks above with regards to claim 18)
24. The barrel according to claim 22, wherein the barrel defines a pair of sides, and the inlet portion has a trapezoidal shape when viewed from either side. (See remarks above with regards to claim 19)
25. The barrel according to claim 24, wherein the outlet portion has a rectangular shape when viewed from either side. (See remarks above with regards to claim 20)
26. The barrel according to claim 22, wherein the exhaust port has a center, and the inlet portion and outlet portion each define a height through the center and perpendicular to the central axis of the bore, the height of the inlet portion and the height of the outlet portion being equal. (See remarks above with regards to claim 21)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE CLEMENT whose telephone number is (571)272-6884. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/MICHELLE CLEMENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641