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 10 March 2026, the request for continued examination has been entered and the amendments to the claims have been entered. By this amendment, no claims have been added or cancelled, and claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The section 112 rejections have been overcome by the amendments and are hereby withdrawn. The rejections have been updated in response to the new limitations.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 17 March 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 6, 12, 14, 17, and 19-20 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. The specification and figures do not specifically show or disclose the relative percentage comparison between the given components of the projectile. There is no teachings in the specification about the percent relationship between the identified components. The specification provides limited support for percent relationships between the given components in limited situations, but does not provide support for all potential cases and arrangements as appears to be claimed. These limitations should be removed from the claims to comply with the requirements of section 112, or be limited according to the specific details of the disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 15-16, and 20 are 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.
The term “about” in claim 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 15-16, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no separate definition in the specification to narrow the scope of the term “about’ to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine what is included or excluded by the use of the term and prevents a clear understanding of the metes and bounds of the claim.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0144395 by Yaich (Yaich).
The examiner notes that the dimensions expressed in the applicant’s specification fail to disclose a criticality of the measurements for the various elements of the embodiment, and that a wide variety of dimensions are listed with the details of the elected embodiment. In addition, the specification makes clear that other dimensions are possible in the disclosures following the direct disclosure of the elected embodiment.
Regarding claim 1, Yaich, as best understood in light of the section 112 rejections above, discloses a projectile with enhanced performance characteristics for use with a firearm (See Figures, clearly illustrated), comprising: a cylindrical body with a first end and a second end which define a first length therebetween; a nose portion comprising: a tip on a forward-most portion; a nose rear end opposite the tip; a second length extending from the forward-most portion to the nose rear end, the nose rear end integrally interconnected at a first junction to the first end of the cylindrical body; a first nose portion with a concave radius of curvature integrally interconnected to the tip, wherein the first nose portion is concave and tapers outwardly from the tip such that a first diameter of the first nose portion increases from the tip to a maximum diameter at a second junction; and a second nose portion with a convex radius of curvature integrally interconnected at the second junction to the first nose portion and integrally interconnected at the first junction to the first end of the cylindrical body, wherein the second nose portion is convex and tapers outwardly from the second junction such that a second diameter of the second nose portion increases from the second junction to the first junction; and a base with a base end at a rear-most portion of the projectile, the base integrally interconnected at a third junction to the second end of the cylindrical body, wherein the base tapers inwardly from the third junction such that a third diameter of the base decreases from the third junction to the base end; wherein: the projectile has a projectile length extending from the tip to the base end (See Figures, all aspects clearly illustrated).
Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for the percent difference between the projectile length and the length between the tip and the second junction, the diameter of the cylindrical body, the maximum diameter of the first nose portion, and the percent difference between the maximum diameter of the first nose portion and the fourth diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first nose portion have a length extending from the tip to the second junction that is less than 33 percent of the projectile length; the cylindrical body have a fourth diameter of at least about 0.20 inches; the maximum diameter of the first nose portion is at least about 0.10 inches, and have the maximum diameter of the first nose portion be at least about 50% of the fourth diameter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for the concave radius of curvature of the first nose portion is less than about 0.75 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the concave radius of curvature of the first nose portion is less than about 0.75 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for the convex radius of curvature of the second nose portion is between about 1.5 inch and about 5.0 inch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the convex radius of curvature of the second nose portion is between about 1.5 inch and about 5.0 inch, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Yaich further discloses wherein the projectile comprises a solid body formed of a copper or a copper alloy (See at least Paragraphs 0020 and 0023).
Regarding claim 5, Yaich further discloses wherein the tip is a rounded tip (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for a radius of curvature of the tip of at least 0.02 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the radius of curvature of the tip of at least 0.02 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for the fourth diameter of the cylindrical body being up to about 0.50 inches, and wherein the maximum diameter of the first nose portion is up to about 0.35 inches such that the maximum diameter of the first nose portion is up to about 70% of the fourth diameter of the cylindrical body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fourth diameter of the cylindrical body be up to about 0.50 inches, and wherein the maximum diameter of the first nose portion is up to about 0.35 inches such that the maximum diameter of the first nose portion is up to about 70% of the fourth diameter of the cylindrical body, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Yaich further discloses wherein the fourth diameter of the cylindrical body is substantially constant from the first end up to the second end of the cylindrical body (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 8, Yaich discloses the claimed invention except that the projectile length is from about 0.75 inches to about 2.0; and the length of the first nose portion is from about 0.05 inches to about 0.25 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the projectile length be from about 0.75 inches to about 2.0; and the length of the first nose portion be from about 0.05 inches to about 0.25 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Yaich further discloses wherein: the base end is substantially flat (See Figures, clearly illustrated); and the base end has a fifth diameter smaller than the fourth diameter of the cylindrical body (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 10, Yaich discloses a bullet adapted for insertion into a casing filled with an explosive propellant (See Figures, clearly illustrated and at least Paragraphs 0023-0024), comprising: a front end comprising a tip; a rear end comprising a base (See Figures, clearly illustrated), wherein the bullet is formed of a copper or a copper alloy that is solid (See at least Paragraphs 0020 and 0023); a cylindrical body integrally interconnected on a first end to the base, the cylindrical body having a second end opposite the first end, and a nose portion interconnected to the second end of the cylindrical body, the nose portion tapering outwardly from the tip to the cylindrical body, wherein the nose portion comprises: a first nose portion extending from the tip, wherein the first nose portion has a concave radius of curvature and tapers outwardly from the tip such that a first diameter of the first nose portion increases from the tip to a first point, and a second nose portion integrally interconnected to the first nose portion at the first point and integrally interconnected to the second end of the cylindrical body at a second point, wherein the second nose portion has a convex radius of curvature and tapers outwardly from the first point towards the cylindrical body such that a second diameter of the second nose portion increases from the first point to the second point (See Figures, all aspects clearly illustrated).
Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for the cylindrical body having a diameter that is between about 0.20 inches and about 0.50 inches or that the concave radius of curvature of the first nose portion is less than about 0.75 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cylindrical body have a diameter that is between about 0.20 inches and about 0.50 inches and have the concave radius of curvature of the first nose portion be less than about 0.75 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Yaich discloses the claimed invention except the convex radius of curvature of the second nose portion being between about 1 inch and about 5.0 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the convex radius of curvature of the second nose portion be between about 1 inch and about 5.0 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at the first point, the first diameter of the first nose portion is at least about 50% of the diameter of the cylindrical body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the first point, to have the first diameter of the first nose portion be at least about 50% of the diameter of the cylindrical body, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Yaich further discloses wherein the base tapers inwardly from the first end of the cylindrical body to the rear end and wherein the tip is a rounded tip (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for the radius of curvature of the rounded tip be at least 0.02 inches. It would have been obvious to have the radius of curvature of the rounded tip be at least 0.02 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Yaich further discloses wherein the bullet has a length extending from the tip to the rear end (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first nose portion has a first nose length extending from the tip to the first point that is less than 33 percent of the bullet length. It would have been obvious to have the first nose portion have a first nose length extending from the tip to the first point that is less than 33 percent of the bullet length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Yaich discloses a projectile with enhanced performance characteristics for use with a firearm, comprising: a longitudinal axis; and a one-piece body, comprising: a tip at a first end; a nose tapering outwardly from the tip; a cylindrical body integrally interconnected with the nose at a first junction and extending from the first junction to a second junction; and a base integrally interconnected with the cylindrical body at the second junction and extending from the second junction to a rear end of the one-piece body, wherein the nose has a diameter that increases from the tip to the first junction, and wherein the nose has a second portion proximate the cylindrical body with a convex radius of curvature (See Figures, all aspects clearly illustrated).
Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the nose has a first portion proximate the tip with a concave radius of curvature of less than about 0.75 inches. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the first portion proximate the tip with a concave radius of curvature of less than about 0.75 inches, since applicant has not disclosed that the concave radius of curvature of the first portion solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different concave radii of curvature for the first portion.
Regarding claim 16, Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the tip is a rounded tip with a radius of curvature between about 0.015 inches and about 0.03 inches, and wherein the convex radius of curvature of the second portion is between about 1.5 inches and about 5.0 inches. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the tip be a rounded tip with a radius of curvature between about 0.015 inches and about 0.03 inches, and the convex radius of curvature of the second portion be between about 1.5 inches and about 5.0 inches, since applicant has not disclosed that the radius of curvature of the tip and the convex radius of curvature of the second portion solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different radii of curvature of the tip and different convex radii of curvature of the second portion.
Regarding claim 17, Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first nose length is at least 2.5 percent of the projectile length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first nose length be at least 2.5 percent of the projectile length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, Yaich further discloses wherein the second portion with the convex radius of curvature comprises a minimum diameter equal to a maximum diameter of the first portion with the concave radius of curvature, wherein the cylindrical body has a diameter from the first junction to the second junction equal to a maximum diameter of the second portion, and wherein the diameter of the cylindrical body is substantially constant from the first junction to the second junction (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 19, Yaich further discloses wherein the projectile has a projectile length extending from the tip to the rear end, and wherein the first portion of the nose has a first nose length (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Yaich discloses the claimed invention except the first nose length being less than 33 percent of the projectile length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first nose length be less than 33 percent of the projectile length, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, Yaich discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first portion of the nose has a maximum diameter that is at least about 50% of a diameter of the cylindrical body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first portion of the nose have a maximum diameter that is at least about 50% of a diameter of the cylindrical body, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, the examiner offers the following: The newly claimed limitation detailing the relationship between the maximum diameter of the first nose portion to the fourth diameter in terms of a percentage has been addressed by the changes to the rejections provided above that were necessitated by the amendments.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “penetrating projectile”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner further notes that penetration of a bullet into a target would require details of the target to be claimed, which would not be supported by the claims in their current form.
In response to the applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10 and 15, the examiner offers the following: The limitation of “wherein the bullet is formed of a copper or a copper alloy that is solid” has been addressed in the changes to the rejections provided above. The examiner notes that the bullet described by Yaich is a solid article and is made from copper, which satisfies the claimed limitation.
The newly claimed limitation detailing the values for dimensions of certain elements of the bullet has been addressed by the changes to the rejections provided above that were necessitated by the amendments.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “penetrating projectile”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner further notes that penetration of a bullet into a target would require details of the target to be claimed, which would not be supported by the claims in their current form.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Yaich fails to disclose the details of claim 4, the examiner offers the following: The limitation of “wherein the bullet is formed of a copper or a copper alloy that is solid” has been addressed in the changes to the rejections provided above. The examiner notes that the bullet described by Yaich is a solid article and is made from copper, which satisfies the claimed limitation.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Yaich fails to disclose certain features of claims 6, 7, 12, 18, and 20, the examiner offers the following: The arguments are similar to those provided above with respect to certain dimensional constraints of the projectile assembly and that the applicant has not claimed a “penetrating projectile”.
No other arguments were presented by the applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Design Patent D343,439 issued to Kuczewski is particularly relevant to the applicant’s claimed invention for its showing of the details for respective claimed limitations of the shape of the nose, body, and tail of a single projectile assembly, without disclosure of certain dimensional constraints of the elements, however, as noted above, the dimensional constraints that have been claimed are not found to be critical or to have a particular purpose expressly articulated by the inventor(s) in the disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights