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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species 3 in the reply filed on 10/6/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
With respect to the applicant’s request that claims 8-14 also be examined as the features of species 2 are not mutually exclusive from features of species 3, the examiner agrees in part. Claims 8-11 are construed to be generic to species 2 and 3 and will be examined with species 3; however, claims 12-14 are considered specific to the embodiments shown in figures 7-8 and are withdrawn. If, during prosecution, the claims are amended to include specific structure that would have been originally considered to only be drawn to species 2 and not generic between species 2 and 3, the claims will be withdrawn by original presentation.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 states “wherein the a tubular body” which appears to be a typographical error that should read “wherein the tubular body.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muceus et al., hereafter Muceus, US Patent Publication No. 2021/0333061.
Regarding claim 8, Muceus discloses a firearm sound suppression device (500 is disclosed as a suppressor with specific baffle geometries disclosed as 600a-c) comprising: a tubular body portion (520) defining an entry aperture and an exit aperture (ends of 510/610); one or more baffles (600b for example) disposed inside the tubular body portion at locations along the length of the tubular body portion, the one or more baffles including: a central aperture (610); and one or more through-channels (figure 6b shows the structure of the baffle arrangement and shows several through channels between apertures) disposed between a first surface of the one or more baffles oriented at least partially towards the entry aperture and a second surface of the one or more baffles oriented at least partially towards the exit aperture (figures 6B and 7A and [0036-0037] disclose continuous gas pathways between different portions of the suppressor).
Regarding claim 9, Muceus further discloses the one or more through-channels include: a through-channel opening in the first surface; and a through-channel opening in the second surface that is aligned with the through- channel opening in the first surface ([0048] and figures 6B and 7A and [0036-0037] disclose continuous gas pathways between different portions of the suppressor).
Regarding claim 11, Muceus further discloses the one or more through-channels include: a plurality of uniformly distributed through-channels (figures 6B and 7A show a complex geometry; however, the through channels have a symmetry shown that meets the limitation of the through channels being uniformly distributed)
Regarding claim 15, Muceus discloses a firearm sound suppression device (500 is disclosed as a suppressor with specific baffle geometries disclosed as 600a-c) comprising: a tubular body portion (520) defining an entry aperture and an exit aperture (ends of 510/610); one or more baffles (600b) disposed inside the tubular body portion at locations along the length of the tubular body portion, the one or more baffles including: a central aperture, wherein the entry aperture, the one or more baffles, and the exit aperture are co-aligned to form a bore (610) through the firearm sound suppression device , and wherein the one or more baffles have a porous construction (Muceus discloses the baffle as having unit cells in [0036=0037] for example and the cellular nature of the baffle disclosed and shown in the figures is broadly, yet reasonably considered to be porous).
Regarding claim 17, Muceus further discloses the one or more baffles are constructed via at least one of 3D printing, additive manufacturing or subtractive manufacturing ([0026] for example discloses additive manufacturing and 3D printing)
Regarding claim 18, Muceus further discloses one or more baffles are at least partially constructed from at least one of a titanium-based material or a nickel-chromium alloy ([0057-0058])
Regarding claim 19, Muceus further discloses the one or more baffles are constructed at least one Inconel-type alloy ([0057]).
Regarding claim 20, Muceus further discloses the tubular body portion and the one or more baffles have a single-piece construction ([0056] discloses manufacturing the core/baffle and casing as a monolithic piece)
Claim(s) 8, 10-11, 15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Washburn et al., hereafter Washburn, US Patent Publication No. 2021/0071978.
Regarding claim 8, Washburn discloses a firearm sound suppression device (1700) comprising: a tubular body portion (1710) defining an entry aperture and an exit aperture (figure 17); one or more baffles (1720) disposed inside the tubular body portion at locations along the length of the tubular body portion, the one or more baffles including: a central aperture (figure 17); and one or more through-channels disposed between a first surface of the one or more baffles oriented at least partially towards the entry aperture and a second surface of the one or more baffles oriented at least partially towards the exit aperture (the core shown in figure 17 is disclosed as having a porous, non-random structure and shown as having gas pathways from an entry end to an exit end. Additionally, figure 17 shows varying sized lattice structures of 1720 and each section can be construed as a separate baffle with separate through channels to the subsequent section).
Regarding claim 10, Washburn further discloses the one or more through-channels include: a through-channel opening in the first surface; and a through-channel opening in the second surface that is offset from the through-channel opening in the first surface (as best understood by the examiner, the structure of Washburn is shown as a lattice structure and while the structure is disclosed as not random, the through holes of the structure would be offset as there is not set symmetry or orientation or alignment disclosed or shown).
Regarding claim 11, Washburn further discloses the one or more through-channels include: a plurality of uniformly distributed through-channels (while the through channels may be offset in alignment, the lattice structure is disclosed as not being random and therefore the uniformity of the structure provides uniform distribution of through-channels).
Regarding claim 15, Washburn discloses a firearm sound suppression device (900) comprising: a tubular body portion (910) defining an entry aperture and an exit aperture (figure 9); one or more baffles (920) disposed inside the tubular body portion at locations along the length of the tubular body portion, the one or more baffles including: a central aperture (figure 9), wherein the entry aperture, the one or more baffles, and the exit aperture are co-aligned to form a bore through the firearm sound suppression device (figure 9), and wherein the one or more baffles have a porous construction ([0081-0082])
Regarding claim 17, Washburn further discloses the one or more baffles are constructed via at least one of 3D printing, additive manufacturing or subtractive manufacturing ([0104] disclose 3D printing).
Regarding claim 18, Washburn further discloses the one or more baffles are at least partially constructed from at least one of a titanium-based material or a nickel-chromium alloy ([0009] discloses titanium and metal alloys are known for suppressor construction and [0086] states the suppressor can be made of metal or metal alloy and therefore titanium construction is reasonably disclosed)
Regarding claim 20, Washburn further discloses the tubular body portion and the one or more baffles have a single-piece construction ([0085] discloses 3D printing resulting in a monolithic unit)
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muceus in view of Liskey et al., hereafter Liskey, US Patent No. 9,546,838.
Regarding claim 16, Muceus discloses the one or more baffles having a porous construction include: one or more baffles having a porous construction defining a plurality of pores and varying the size and parameters of the pores (unit cells) in [0059] but does not disclose the specific size of the pores. Nonetheless, Liskey teaches a suppressor with a porous baffle core and specifically teaches the pore size as being in the range of 20-2000 µm which overlaps the claimed range.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the parameters of the pores of Muceus to have a similar size within the range defined by Liskey in order to reduce the weight while controlling the flow of gas depending on the discharge pressure from the cartridge as taught by Liskey in 4:52-67.
Additionally, it would have been obvious for reasons disclosed by Muceus based on expected pressure, heat and noise produce, the type of firearm, caliber and barrel length as disclosed in [0032] and [0036] for example.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washburn in view of Liskey.
Regarding claim 16, Washburn discloses the one or more baffles having a porous construction include: one or more baffles having a porous construction defining a plurality of pores and the size of the pores can be varied and depend on several factors as disclosed in [0087]. However, Washburn does not disclose the specific size of the pores. Nonetheless, Liskey teaches a suppressor with a porous baffle core and specifically teaches the pore size as being in the range of 20-2000 µm which overlaps the claimed range.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the parameters of the pores of Washburn to have a similar size within the range defined by Liskey in order to reduce the weight while controlling the flow of gas depending on the discharge pressure from the cartridge as taught by Liskey in 4:52-67.
Additionally, it would have been obvious for reasons disclosed by Washburn based on performance needs, suppressor material, caliber and parameters of the bullet and size of the suppressor among other factors as disclosed in [0087].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
More specifically, the following references, either taken alone or in combination, disclose the claimed invention and should be carefully considered in any amendment and arguments in order to expedite prosecution.
Liskey, US Patent No. 9,546,838
Johns et al., US Patent Publication No. 2022/0057160 figures 3D and 7
Langenbeck, US Patent Publication No. 2022/0099401
Person, US Patent No. 10,234,228
While the Examiner is available via telephone to resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. The Examiner may be reached by telephone at 571-272-6352.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641