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 Amendment
Pursuant to the applicant’s response filed 01 December 2025, the Request for Continued Examination has been accepted, and the amendments to the claims have been entered. By this amendment, claims 4-20 are cancelled, no claims have been added, and claims 1-3 & 21-33 are currently pending in the application. The previously noted section 102 rejections have been overcome by the amendments and are hereby withdrawn. After additional search and/or consideration, the following rejections are presented to address the new limitations.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 21-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 2,340,293 issued to Balleisen (Balleisen) in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0307954 by Fluhr et al (Fluhr).
Regarding claim 1, Balleisen discloses a method of tuning an adjustable gas block assembly of a firearm, comprising: firing a cartridge in the firearm with the gas block assembly having a first vent opening; determining whether the firearm properly extracted and ejected the cartridge and locked a bolt of the firearm in an open configuration when fired with the first vent opening; replacing the first vent opening of the gas block assembly with a second vent opening, wherein the first vent opening has a different hydraulic diameter than the second vent opening; firing a cartridge in the firearm with the gas block assembly having the second vent opening; and determining whether the firearm properly extracted and ejected the cartridge and locked the bolt of the firearm in the open configuration when fired with the second opening; and wherein the gas block assembly is free of another opening configured to vent high-pressure gas outside of the firearm during said firing (See Entire Disclosure, all aspects clearly illustrated and described).
Balleisen does not disclose using multiple vent plugs, but does disclose removing the vent plug and adjusting a regulating disk to change a size of the opening in the plug assembly and replacing the plug to adjust the gas input into the action of the firearm.
Fluhr, a related prior art reference, discloses a method of tuning an adjustable gas block assembly of a firearm, comprising: firing a cartridge in the firearm with the gas block assembly having a first vent plug positioned within a vent opening; determining whether the firearm properly extracted and ejected the cartridge and locked a bolt of the firearm in an open configuration when fired with the first vent plug within the vent opening; replacing the first vent plug of the gas block assembly, the first vent plug having an opening extending along a length thereof, with a second vent plug having an opening extending along a length thereof, wherein the opening of the first vent plug has a different hydraulic diameter than the opening of the second vent plug; firing a cartridge in the firearm with the gas block assembly having the second vent plug positioned within the vent opening; and determining whether the firearm properly extracted and ejected the cartridge and locked the bolt of the firearm in the open configuration when fired with the second vent plug within the vent opening; wherein replacing the first vent plug of the gas block assembly comprises selecting the second vent plug from a kit including a plurality of different vent plugs (See at least Paragraphs 0030-0032 and 0037-0039, “default setting”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Balleisen with the noted teachings of Fluhr. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to utilize multiple plugs rather than single vent plug and a regulating disk to alter the opening size of the vent to change the gas supply to the action of the firearm with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Fluhr further discloses wherein the opening of the second vent plug has a smaller hydraulic diameter than the opening of the first vent plug (See at least Paragraphs 0030-0032 and 0037-0039).
Regarding claim 3, Fluhr further discloses wherein the opening of the second vent plug has a larger hydraulic diameter than the opening of the first vent plug (See at least Paragraphs 0030-0032 and 0037-0039).
Regarding claim 21, Fluhr further discloses wherein replacing the first vent plug of the gas block assembly does not require removing a gas block of the gas block assembly from the firearm (See at least Paragraph 0032, element 33 can be removed without removing the gas block).
Regarding claim 22, Fluhr further discloses wherein the vent opening is positioned between a barrel opening in the gas block and a gas tube opening in the gas block (See at least Figure 2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 23, Fluhr further discloses wherein a first distance from the barrel opening to the vent opening is less than a second distance from the barrel opening to the gas tube opening (See at least Figure 2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 24, Fluhr further discloses wherein during said firing a cartridge in the firearm with the gas block assembly having a first vent plug positioned within a vent opening, high-pressure gas from the barrel opening passes through the opening in the first vent plug and out of the gas block assembly without first passing through the gas tube opening (See at least Figure 2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 25, Fluhr further discloses wherein the vent plug is accessible from the direction of a muzzle of the firearm (See at least Figure 2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 26, Fluhr further discloses wherein the vent plug is threadably received within the vent opening (See at least Paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 27, Fluhr further discloses wherein the gas block assembly, the first vent plug, and the second vent plug are provided as a kit (See at least Paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 28, Fluhr further discloses determining whether the firearm properly extracted and ejected the cartridge and chambered a new cartridge after firing the cartridge in the firearm with the gas block assembly having the second vent plug positioned within the vent opening (See at least Paragraphs 0030-0032 and 0037-0039, “default setting”).
Regarding claim 29, Fluhr further discloses wherein an end of the opening extending along a length of the first vent plug has a hexagonal cross-section (See at least Figures 3-4, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 30, Balleisen as modified by Fluhr discloses a method of operating a firearm, comprising: firing a cartridge in the firearm while a gas block assembly of the firearm having a gas block thereof has a first vent plug positioned within a vent opening thereof, the first vent plug opening having an opening extending along a length thereof, determining whether the firearm properly extracted and ejected the cartridge and locked a bolt of the firearm in an open configuration when fired with the first vent plug within the vent opening; replacing the first vent plug of the gas block assembly with a second vent plug having an opening extending along a length thereof, wherein the opening of the first vent plug has a different hydraulic diameter than the opening of the second vent plug; firing a cartridge in the firearm with the gas block assembly having the second vent plug positioned within the vent opening; and determining whether the firearm properly extracted and ejected the cartridge and locked the bolt of the firearm in the open configuration when fired with the second vent plug within the vent opening; wherein the vent opening is positioned between a barrel opening in the gas block and a gas tube opening in the gas block; and wherein during said firing a cartridge, high-pressure gas from the barrel opening passes through the opening in the first vent plug and out of the gas block assembly without first passing through the gas tube opening; wherein replacing the first vent plug of the gas block assembly comprises selecting the second vent plug from a kit including a plurality of different vent plugs: and wherein the gas block assembly is free of another opening configured to vent high- pressure gas outside of the firearm during said firing (See previous rejections, all limitations addressed above).
Regarding claim 31, Fluhr further discloses wherein a first distance from the barrel opening to the vent opening is less than a second distance from the barrel opening to the gas tube opening (See at least Figure 2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 32, Fluhr further discloses wherein the vent opening is located on an opposite side of a barrel of the firearm than a trigger assembly of the firearm (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 33, Fluhr further discloses wherein an end of the opening extending along a length of the first vent plug has a hexagonal cross-section (See at least Figures 3-4, clearly illustrated).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641