DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the distal end of the plurality of tabs is… configured to fully encapsulate the front end of the projectile” in claims 5 and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the usage of indefinite/relative terminology such as “less lethal” and should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Ammunition system comprising a projectile and a sabot having a clocking feature to engage a plurality of fins of projectile.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 2, 4, 9, 12, 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 2, line 1: the term “on the sabot” should be rewritten as --of the sabot-- for the purpose of clarity. Similarly for claim 12.
b. Claim 4, line 1: the term “on the sabot” should be rewritten as --of the sabot-- for the purpose of clarity. Similarly for claim 14.
c. Claim 9, line 2: the term “on a top surface” should be rewritten as -- a top surface of the sabot-- for the purpose of clarity. Similarly for claim 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 8 and 10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Similarly, claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 18 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 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.
9. The term “less lethal” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “less lethal” 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. It is unclear as to exactly how lethal the ammunition system is required to be such that the ammunition system is considered to be a less lethal ammunition system. Similarly, claims 2-20 are unclear for the same reasons. For each of the claims, examiner suggests removing the aforementioned term, and amending the preamble to recite “An ammunition system” in order to obviate such indefinitess.
10. The term “narrow” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “less lethal” 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. It is unclear as to exactly how narrow the base end is required to be such that the base end is considered to be a narrow base end. Similarly, claim 14 is unclear for the same reasons. For each of the claims, the examiner suggests removing the term from the claims in order obviate such indefinitess.
11. Claim 5, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “wherein the distal end of the plurality of tabs is wider and configured to fully encapsulate the front end of the projectile” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what the width of the distal end is being compared to. For examination purposes, the examiner interpreting the distal end to be wider than the base end based on the applicant’s disclosure. Similarly claim 15 is unclear for the same reasons.
12. Claim 11, line 2, recites the limitation “comprising a” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether limitations have been omitted from the claim following the aforementioned limitation, or the hull comprises the projectile and the sabot as recited in the claimed. If the latter is considered, is the claimed invention drawn to the ammunition or the hull? Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
14. Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kopsch et al. (US 4434718 A), hereinafter “Kopsch”.
15. Regarding Claim 1, Kopsch discloses a less lethal ammunition system (Abstract and FIG. 1) comprising:
a projectile comprising an elongated body with a front end and a back end (col. 5, ll. 61-62; projectile 12 including an elongated body, front end and back end as seen in FIGS. 1 and 3), wherein the front end is a rounded semi-spherical shape tapering toward the back end (FIG. 3), and wherein the back end comprises a plurality of flexible fins extending outwardly from the back end of the elongated body (col. 6, ll. 32-33 and col. 7, ll. 6-8; plurality of fins 28 extending outwardly from back of the body of projectile 12 as seen in FIG. 3, furthermore projectile is manufactured from materials including plastic, accordingly fins 28 are by definition flexible and bendable); and
a sabot comprising a base and a plurality of tabs flexibly attached to the base and extending outwardly from the base, wherein the plurality of tabs are configured to flexibly fold inward to define a space for the projectile and flexibly fold outward to release the projectile (col. 6, ll. 1-3 and col. 6, ll. 12-17 and col. 6, ll. 62-66; sabot 10 including radially extending segments 16 flexibly attached to base 24, segments 16 fold inward to accommodate projectile 12 and fold outwardly when projectile 12 is expelled from sabot 10 as seen in FIG. 1);
wherein the projectile fits within the sabot (col. 6, ll. 53-55 and FIGS. 1-2).
16. Regarding Claim 2, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tabs on the sabot further comprise a plurality of horizontal ridges spaced evenly on an outside surface of the sabot (col. 6, ll. 6-8; outside surface areas of radial segments 16 are a plurality of longitudinally extending grooves 20, which by definition form ridges between the grooves 20, and the ridges being parallel to the grooves 20 extending longitudinally along the segments 16, accordingly the ridges are horizontal with respect to the longitudinal length of the segments as seen in FIGS. 1-2).
17. Regarding Claim 3, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flexible fins are configured to operatively cause the projectile to spin in flight (col. 6, ln. 68 - col. 7, ln. 2).
18. Regarding Claim 4, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tabs on the sabot comprise a base end and a distal end opposite the base end (col. 6, ll. 3-4; a base end opposite of foremost end 18, the base end connected to base 24 of sabot 10 as seen in FIG. 2), wherein the base end is narrow to allow the plurality of flexible fins of the projectile to extend outward beyond an outer surface of the sabot (the base end opposite of end 18, in proximity to base 24 of the sabot is narrow and flexes outward beyond an outer surface of sabot as seen in FIGS. 1-2).
19. Regarding Claim 11, Kopsch discloses a less lethal ammunition system (Abstract and FIG. 1) comprising:
a hull comprising a (col. 5, ll. 63-65; cartridge 14 as seen in FIG. 1)
a projectile comprising an elongated body with a front end and a back end (col. 5, ll. 61-62; projectile 12 including an elongated body, front end and back end as seen in FIGS. 1 and 3), wherein the front end is a rounded semi-spherical shape tapering toward the back end (FIG. 3), and wherein the back end comprises a plurality of flexible fins extending outwardly from the back end of the elongated body (col. 6, ll. 32-33 and col. 7, ll. 6-8; plurality of fins 28 extending outwardly from back of the body of projectile 12 as seen in FIG. 3, furthermore projectile is manufactured from materials including plastic, accordingly fins 28 are by definition flexible and bendable); and
a sabot comprising a base and a plurality of tabs flexibly attached to the base and extending outwardly from the base, wherein the plurality of tabs are configured to flexibly fold inward to define a space for the projectile and flexibly fold outward to release the projectile (col. 6, ll. 1-3 and col. 6, ll. 12-17 and col. 6, ll. 62-66; sabot 10 including radially extending segments 16 flexibly attached to base 24, segments 16 fold inward to accommodate projectile 12 and fold outwardly when projectile 12 is expelled from sabot 10 as seen in FIG. 1);
wherein the projectile fits within the sabot (col. 6, ll. 53-55 and FIGS. 1-2).
Wherein the sabot fits within the hull (col. 6, ll. 53-55 and FIG. 1).
20. Regarding Claim 12, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of tabs on the sabot further comprise a plurality of horizontal ridges spaced evenly on an outside surface of the sabot (col. 6, ll. 6-8; outside surface areas of radial segments 16 are a plurality of longitudinally extending grooves 20, which by definition form ridges between the grooves 20, and the ridges being parallel to the grooves 20 extending longitudinally along the segments 16, accordingly the ridges are horizontal with respect to the longitudinal length of the segments as seen in FIGS. 1-2).
21. Regarding Claim 13, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of flexible fins are configured to operatively cause the projectile to spin in flight (col. 6, ln. 68 - col. 7, ln. 2).
22. Regarding Claim 14, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of tabs on the sabot comprise a base end and a distal end opposite the base end (col. 6, ll. 3-4; a base end opposite of foremost end 18, the base end connected to base 24 of sabot 10 as seen in FIG. 2), wherein the base end is narrow to allow the plurality of flexible fins of the projectile to extend outward beyond an outer surface of the sabot (the base end opposite of end 18, in proximity to base 24 of the sabot is narrow and flexes outward beyond an outer surface of sabot as seen in FIGS. 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
23. 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.
24. Claim(s) 5, 8 and 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopsch et al. (US 4434718 A).
25. Regarding Claim 5, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 4, wherein the distal end of the plurality of tabs is configured to fully encapsulate the front end of the projectile (col. 6, ll. 51-55; end 18 fully encapsulates the front end of the projectile 12, furthermore see applicant’s FIG. 5 in which the front end of the projectile protrudes passed the distal end of the tabs).
Kopsch is silent regarding the distal end of the tabs is wider. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Kopsch such that the plurality tabs is wider, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In doing so, the distal end of the plurality tabs is sized in a manner to accommodate projectiles having large diameters.
26. Regarding Claim 8, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 1, wherein the base of the sabot comprises a top surface and a bottom surface comprising a flat shape (col. 6, ll. 12-24 and col. 6, ll. 50-51; base 24 including a flat bottom surface and a flat top surface accommodating discs 22 which accommodates fins 28 as seen in FIGS. 1-3).
Kopsch is silent regarding bottom surface comprising a concave shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the bottom surface of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. In doing so, the sabot facilitates maximize energy transfer to the projectile as well as allowing for the sabot to have a reduced weight and increased speed.
27. Regarding Claim 15, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 14, wherein the distal end of the plurality of tabs is configured to fully encapsulate the front end of the projectile (col. 6, ll. 51-55; end 18 fully encapsulates the front end of the projectile 12, furthermore see applicant’s FIG. 5 in which the front end of the projectile protrudes passed the distal end of the tabs).
Kopsch is silent regarding the distal end of the tabs is wider. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Kopsch such that the plurality tabs is wider, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In doing so, the distal end of the plurality tabs is sized in a manner to accommodate projectiles having large diameters.
28. Regarding Claim 18, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 11, wherein the base of the sabot comprises a top surface and a bottom surface comprising a flat shape (col. 6, ll. 12-24 and col. 6, ll. 50-51; base 24 including a flat bottom surface and a flat top surface accommodating discs 22 which accommodates fins 28 as seen in FIGS. 1-3).
Kopsch is silent regarding bottom surface comprising a concave shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the bottom surface of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. In doing so, the sabot facilitates maximize energy transfer to the projectile as well as allowing for the sabot to have a reduced weight and increased speed.
29. Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopsch et al. (US 4434718 A), in view of Poulsen (US 9273943 B1).
30. Regarding Claim 6, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 1, wherein the front end and back end of the elongated body are comprised of a material (col. 7, ll. 6-8).
Kopsch is silent regarding wherein the front end of the elongated body is comprised of specifically a denser material than the back end of the elongated body.
Poulsen discloses a projectile (Poulsen Abstract and FIG. 2A) wherein the front end of the elongated body is comprised of a denser material than the back end of the elongated body (col. 5, ll. 49-61; projectile 10 including housing 20 having a mass distribution that is skewed toward the forward end, outer having 20 having thicker walls at the forward end as seen in FIGS. 2A-2B, accordingly the forward end of housing 20 must be comprises of a denser material than the back end of housing 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopsch as taught by Poulsen such that the front end of the elongated body is comprised of a denser material than the back end of the elongated body in order to enable stable flight of the projectile (Poulsen col. 5, ll. 49-61) as well as augmenting the terminal ballistics of the projectile.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
31. Regarding Claim 7, modified Kopsch discloses (see Poulsen) the less lethal ammunition system of claim 6, wherein the front end of the elongated body is heavier than the back end (col. 5, ll. 49-61).
32. Regarding Claim 16, Kopsch discloses the less lethal ammunition system of claim 11, wherein the front end and back end of the elongated body are comprised of a material (col. 7, ll. 6-8).
Kopsch is silent regarding wherein the front end of the elongated body is comprised of specifically a denser material than the back end of the elongated body.
Poulsen discloses a projectile (Poulsen Abstract and FIG. 2A) wherein the front end of the elongated body is comprised of a denser material than the back end of the elongated body (col. 5, ll. 49-61; projectile 10 including housing 20 having a mass distribution that is skewed toward the forward end, outer having 20 having thicker walls at the forward end as seen in FIGS. 2A-2B, accordingly the forward end of housing 20 must be comprises of a denser material than the back end of housing 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopsch as taught by Poulsen such that the front end of the elongated body is comprised of a denser material than the back end of the elongated body in order to enable stable flight of the projectile (Poulsen col. 5, ll. 49-61) as well as augmenting the terminal ballistics of the projectile.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
33. Regarding Claim 17, modified Kopsch discloses (see Poulsen) the less lethal ammunition system of claim 16, wherein the front end of the elongated body is heavier than the back end (col. 5, ll. 49-61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as overcoming drawing objections, claim objections and 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Buys (US 11009321 B2), Grossman et al. (US 7549376 B1), Bilgeri (US 5493974 A), Bilgeri (US 5392714 A), Schneider et al. (US 8931416 B2), Nesterenko (US 12055370 B2), Quertelet et al. (US 10767968 B2), Robins (WO 83/01300 A1) and Rooney (GB 123501 A) individually disclose ammunition systems comprising a projectile and a sabot comprising a base and a plurality of tabs flexibly attached to the base and extending outwardly from the base, wherein the plurality of tabs are configured to flexibly fold inward to define a space for the projectile and flexibly fold outward to release the projectile; wherein the projectile fits within the sabot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm 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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642