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 without traverse of invention I, including claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 17 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 December 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 14 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. A claim to the velocity of the projectile would require details of the firearm and the cartridge including the amount of powder, connection means, etc. The currently claimed details are insufficient to allow for such a velocity requirement to be properly claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0041175 by Fellows et al (Fellows).
Regarding claim 1, Fellows discloses a munition comprising a projectile and a sabot-ogive of at least two segments (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 2, Fellows further discloses wherein the sabot-ogive comprises a sabot and an ogive produced as a single piece made of an at least two joined segments encasing the projectile (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 3, Fellows further discloses wherein the segments are produced as a single part (See Figures, clearly illustrated, and Paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 4, Fellows further discloses wherein the segments are produced as individual parts to be joined (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 5, Fellows further discloses wherein the projectile is a part of a cartridge for an about 0.50 sub caliber firearm (See at least Paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 6, Fellows further discloses wherein the ogive of the sabot-ogive, radius range is about 0.3 caliber to about < 30 caliber (See Figures, clearly illustrated and at least Paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 7, Fellows further discloses wherein the sabot of the sabot-ogive, has about a minimum diameter equivalent to the lands and a maximum diameter equivalent to a diameter of the rifling in the barrel of a firearm (See at least Paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 8, Fellows further discloses wherein the ogive of the sabot-ogive, length is about a difference between the cartridge length from the front end of the cartridge to the base end of the cartridge and a case length from the mouth of the case to the base of the case (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 9, Fellows further discloses wherein the projectile comprises a single piece (216, See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 10, Fellows further discloses wherein the projectile has zero to at least 2 fins (222, See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 11, Fellows further discloses wherein the sabot-ogive has zero to at least 2 internal grooves (250, See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 13, Fellows further discloses wherein the projectile has an at least 1 external gas ring (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellows in view of U.S. Patent 4,297,687 issued to Garrett (Garrett).
Regarding claim 12, Fellows does not disclose wherein the sabot-ogive segments are joined to encase the projectile by a wire, a band or a snap-fit.
Garrett, a related prior art reference, discloses wherein the sabot-ogive segments are joined to encase the projectile by a wire, a band or a snap-fit (28 or 52).
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 Fellows with the noted teachings of Garrett. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to keep the assembled projectile and sabot together during loading as taught by Garrett.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellows.
Regarding claim 14, Fellows, as best understood in light of the section 112 rejection above, discloses the claimed invention except for the weight and velocity of the projectile. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the weight of the projectile less than 100 grams and the discharge velocity range be between 2500 feet per second and 7000 feet per second, since applicant has not disclosed that the weight or velocity ranges solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different weights and velocities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 Form for a listing of applicable prior art references.
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