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 . This action is in response to Application #18/438,542 and RCE filed on 10 September 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 September 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…plurality of cylinders each defining a passage, each at a common radius from the common cylinder axis…” Each cylinder, as understood to be the end pieces of fig.1 where the tubes are inserted, must have a plurality of passages as per the Specification. Each cylinder having a single passage is not enabled via the Specification.
Claim 1 recites “…each of the passages connecting a tube; at least one of the tubes a different internal diameter than at least one other of the passages;…”. Reviewing the specification, it appears the passages are cylindrical openings that accept individual barrel tubes. The CB tubes each contain their own chamber and rifled bore. It is not clear how each passage “connects” a tube, and then further have each tube having a different diameter than at least another passage, as underlined above. Since the barrel tube itself must also house the chamber for the individual cartridge, as a single shot firearm. The passages must house a CB tube each, and each tube will have a chamber and rifled bore, as per the Specification. Each tube appears to be removable and replaceable and must therefore have a common outer diameter, which would indicate the passages all have to have a common inner diameter in order to be a modular system.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…the cylinders each connected at their ends, and separate at intermediate portions…”
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0059223 to Ralston et al (Ralston) in view of NPL (2013) https://historical.ha.com/itm/handguns/unmarked-unique-single-action-percussion-pepperbox-revolver/a/6099-32074.s.
Regarding Claim 1, Ralston discloses a firearm comprising (see figures):
a frame (110);
the frame defining a forward aperture (aperture where cylinder 120 fits, or front of muzzle at 116);
a cylinder rotatably mounted to the frame to rotate on a common cylinder axis (see fig.1, cylinder 120, an axis around 124);
the cylinder defining a plurality of passages each at a common radius from the common cylinder axis (see figs. 4I and 4J);
each of the passages connecting a tube (see at least paragraph 25);
at least one of the tubes a different internal diameter than at least one other of the passages (at least paragraphs 25-27 and figures 4I and 4J).
Ralston fails to specifically disclose a plurality of elongated cylinders rotatably mounted to the frame to rotate on a common cylinder axis, with a passage in each cylinder each connected at their ends, and separate at intermediate portions. Ralston discloses a single cylinder with a plurality of passages or rifled bores (tubes) for firing ammunition. NPL teaches an old and well-known design of a Pepperbox revolver with front and rear cylinders (discs) and individually mounted barrels (passages). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to incorporate this design into the firearm of Ralston and create the barrels or passages separately instead of within one cylinder for the advantages of ease of manufacturing, ease of replacing or rearranging each barrel as needed. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin vs. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179).
Ralston fails to specifically disclose all the calibers as claimed, from 0.17 to .308.
However, Ralston discloses multiple calibers in a single cylinder (see figs. 4J, 4I) and discloses in at least paragraphs 13-14, 25 the firearm may be made to fire nearly any suitable ammunition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to select any of the known calibers for the firearm of Ralston as merely an engineering design choice to select from the known alternatives in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for pertinent art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D COOPER whose telephone number is (571)270-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 - 4:30 MST.
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.
/JOHN COOPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights