Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/608,557

AMMUNITION CASING HAVING A CANNELURE WITH STEP

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Mar 18, 2024
Examiner
HAYES, BRET C
Art Unit
3641
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Shell Shock Technologies, LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
1289 granted / 1606 resolved
+28.3% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1638
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
§102
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1606 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 29 JUL 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Re: priority, resubmitting another Application Data Sheet (ADS) is unnecessary as the ADS filed originally includes reference to prior application number 17/683,335. Rather, reference to the U.S. Patent that matured therefrom should be included in the first sentence of the disclosure, i.e., ¶ [0001], “17/683,335 … February 28, 2022, --which matured into U.S. Patent No. 11,933,592--…” or, akin to that already noted therein --(now U.S. Patent No. 11,933,592)--. Apologies for any confusion. Re: double patenting, it is never premature for an examiner to make proper rejection. Applicant concedes “the fact that Independent Claim 1 of the instant Application is clearly broader in scope than Independent Claim 1 of Patent No. 11,933,592,” which alone suffices as ground for a non-obviousness double patenting rejection. That is, instant claim 1 clearly omits recitations regarding third and fourth cannelure surface portions found in patent claim 1 and recites such in dependent claim 2, apparently. Thus, instant claims 1-2 are otherwise identical to patent claim 1. This amount to a mere rewording patent claim 1. Thus, the rejection is proper. Furthermore, Applicant was invited to submit evidence to the contrary but has chosen to submit none. Rather Applicant argues that the time for rejection is not ripe because Applicant may amend the claims. However, no amendments have been submitted either. The examiner is not permitted to say claims are allowable when such are not. Given the outstanding rejection and the nature of the response in not addressing the rejection, such rejection must stand. Priority The statement of priority is improper and should include a reference to U.S. Patent No. 11,933,592, into which the parent application, US 17/683,335, matured. See note, above Double Patenting See previous office action for the basis of and how to overcome this type of rejection. Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,933,592. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because all limitation in the instant claims can be found in the patented claims or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Evidence to the contrary is welcome. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern. The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300. If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874. /Bret Hayes/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641 16-Sep-25
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Jul 29, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595981
BRAKING MECHANISM FOR A GUN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584386
PERFORATING GUN WITH DETONATION MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584701
ROLLER AND BEARING DELAYED FIREARM OPERATING SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584708
GUN TARGETING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584706
FRONT REMOVEABLE TRIGGER SHOE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+15.6%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1606 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month