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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 11, 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mogle, US Patent Publication No. 2016/0363402.
Regarding claim 11, Mogle discloses a barrel for a firearm comprising: a steel barrel core (20 is disclosed as steel in [0021]); and a carbon tube (30) bonded with an epoxy to an exterior of the steel barrel core ([0032-0033]), the carbon tube having a first inner diameter (diameter of 32) comprising dry prepreg carbon fibers having a wrapped vertical angle from 0 to 25 degrees ([0031]), and the carbon tube having a second outer diameter (diameter of 36) comprising dry prepreg carbon fibers positioned over the first inner diameter fibers and having a wrapped vertical angle from 30 to 60 degrees ([0043]), the wrapped carbon fibers in the first inner diameter and the second outer diameter fully extend from one end of the carbon tube to an opposite end of the carbon tube (figures 1A-1B and [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, Mogle further discloses the first inner diameter comprises dry prepreg carbon fibers having a wrapped vertical angle from 0 to 10 degrees ([0031] discloses 0-10
°
.
Regarding claim 16, Mogle further discloses the second outer diameter comprising dry prepreg carbon fibers positioned over the first inner diameter fibers comprises a wrapped vertical angle from 30 to 45 degrees ([0043] discloses 30-60° or 40-50°).
Regarding claim 18, Mogle further discloses a firearm ([0018]) comprising the barrel of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartley, US Patent No. 2,847,786 in view of May, US Patent No. 4,685,236.
Regarding claims 11-14, 16 and 18, the law requires that for a thing to be patentable to an alleged inventor, it must not have been “described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country for more than two years prior to his application.” While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of the claims. Further, description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words. (Emphasis added.) See In re Bager, 8 USPQ 484 and In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 11, Hartley discloses a barrel (24) for a firearm (20 as figure 1 for example) comprising: a steel barrel core (30); and a carbon tube (32) bonded with an epoxy to an exterior of the steel barrel core (disclosed as bonded in 2:31-46 and epoxy in 4:59-5:6), the carbon tube having a first inner diameter comprising dry prepreg carbon fibers having a wrapped vertical angle from 0 to 25 degrees (figure 8 shows layer 48 which is disclosed as longitudinal strands of 44 in 5:16-31 and therefore the vertical angle appears to be 0°), and the carbon tube having a second outer diameter comprising dry prepreg carbon fibers positioned over the first inner diameter fibers and having a wrapped vertical angle from 30 to 60 degrees (figure 8 shows wrapping of carbon fibers 44 over layer 48 of fibers at an angle with respect to the barrel and the vertical angle appears to be between 30 and 60°), the wrapped carbon fibers in the first inner diameter and the second outer diameter fully extend from one end of the carbon tube to an opposite end of the carbon tube (figures 1 and 2 shows the jacket extending the entire length and 8:36-58 discloses the fiber being continuous); however, while the drawings can be relied upon for the relationships, the specific angles of the wrapped fibers is not specifically disclosed. Nonetheless, May teaches a composite barrel and specifically teaches the angles of the fibers to be 75° with respect to a transverse line P which equates to a vertical angle of 15° and 24.5-45° with respect to the transverse line P which equates to a vertical angle of 45-65.5°. Therefore, May teaches the layup angles of the carbon fibers claimed is known in the art.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the angle at which the fibers of Hartley are applied to the barrel to be similar to the angles taught by May with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the bursting strength, provide torsional resistance (stiffness), beam bending stiffness and allow the barrel to withstand heat generated by firing the gun as taught by May in 2:24-46.
Furthermore, Hartley adequately discloses the continuous nature of the fibers along the entire length of the barrel; however, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a continuous fiber along the entire length of the barrel liner in order to ensure the strongest reinforcement from the composite part. It is well known in the art of composites that seams or breaks in fiber placement create inherent weak points which bolsters the fact that Hartley adequately discloses continuous strands along the entire length.
Regarding claims 12-14, Hartley as modified by May discloses the claimed invention except for specifically disclosing the diameters of the barrel and carbon fiber layers to be .4 inches to 2 inches, .44 inches to 3 inches and .8 inches to 3.25 inches. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to construct the barrel and layers such that the diameters fall within the claimed ranges 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. It would have been a matter of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art to try various diameters because barrels in the firearm art are well known to vary greatly in diameter based on the caliber of the round to be fired and desired projectile flight characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success based on the caliber of the firearm and the rate of fire of the firearm, which would determine the amount of heat to be dissipated.
Regarding claims 16 Hartley as modified by May further discloses the second outer diameter comprising dry prepreg carbon fibers positioned over the first inner diameter fibers comprises a wrapped vertical angle from 30 to 45 degrees (May teaches the angle of 45° as stated above).
Regarding claims 18, Hartley as modified by May discloses a firearm (Hartley 20) comprising the barrel of claim 11.
Claim(s) 11-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner et al., hereafter Danner, US Patent No. 6,189,431
Regarding claims 11-14, 16 and 18, the law requires that for a thing to be patentable to an alleged inventor, it must not have been “described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country for more than two years prior to his application.” While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of the claims. Further, description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words. (Emphasis added.) See In re Bager, 8 USPQ 484 and In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 11, Danner discloses a barrel (figure 1 for example) for a firearm comprising: a steel barrel core (20); and a carbon tube (layers 21-27) bonded with an epoxy to an exterior of the steel barrel core (3:66-4:18 adequately discloses an epoxy bonding to the barrel liner), the carbon tube having a first inner diameter comprising dry prepreg carbon fibers having a wrapped vertical angle from 0 to 25 degrees, and the carbon tube having a second outer diameter comprising dry prepreg carbon fibers positioned over the first inner diameter fibers and having a wrapped vertical angle from 30 to 60 degrees (2:42-52 and 3:17-49 discloses the fibers can be oriented in a substantially parallel direction, substantially transverse direction and at a 45° angle depending on what characteristics are desired, the wrapped carbon fibers in the first inner diameter and the second outer diameter fully extend from one end of the carbon tube to an opposite end of the carbon tube (4:40-52 and claim 12 disclose the composite layers being uniform along the lengths and therefore adequately discloses fibers of the layer extending an entire length of the barrel); however, while Danner considers the inner layers to be applied in a substantially parallel (approximately 0° vertical angle) and at 45° angle, Danner does not specifically disclose the first and second layers to be in that orientation in that order. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to apply the layers of Danner in the order claimed with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide stiffness by the longitudinal/parallel fibers and torsional stiffness by application of a 45° layer used as an interior layer as specifically taught by Danner in 3:17-49)
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the layers of Danner to be one layer of longitudinal/parallel fibers (0° vertical angle) and a second layer of 45° fibers like that considered in order to provide additional longitudinal and torsional stiffness to the barrel like that taught by Danner.
Regarding claims 12-14, Danner discloses the claimed invention except for specifically disclosing the diameters of the barrel and carbon fiber layers to be .4 inches to 2 inches, .44 inches to 3 inches and .8 inches to 3.25 inches. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to construct the barrel and layers such that the diameters fall within the claimed ranges 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. It would have been a matter of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art to try various diameters because barrels in the firearm art are well known to vary greatly in diameter based on the caliber of the round to be fired and desired projectile flight characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success based on the caliber of the firearm and the rate of fire of the firearm, which would determine the amount of heat to be dissipated.
Regarding claim 15, Danner further discloses the first inner diameter comprises dry prepreg carbon fibers having a wrapped vertical angle from 0 to 10 degrees (Danner discloses fibers applied substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis which results in a vertical angle of 0° or nearly 0°)
Regarding claim 16, Danner further discloses the second outer diameter comprising dry prepreg carbon fibers positioned over the first inner diameter fibers comprises a wrapped vertical angle from 30 to 45 degrees (Danner discloses the angle of application of a layer to be 45° and as stated to be obvious above, the layer at 45° is the second layer)
Regarding claim 18, Danner further discloses a firearm (title states gun barrel) comprising the barrel of claim 11.
Claim(s) 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner in view of Boretto et al., hereafter Boretto, US Patent No. 11,385,013
Regarding claims 17 and 21, Danner discloses the claimed invention, as stated in the rejection of claim 11, and discloses an end cap (15) threaded on to the barrel core but does not specifically disclose the cap torqued to at least 40 ft. Ibs.
Nonetheless, Boretto teaches a barrel with an end cap and torquing the cap to 5-30 ft. lbs. but may be more or less in alternate embodiments and also discloses torquing to desired tension and compression loading (20:11-21:5), applying desired torsional loads (21:40-52) and the higher the torque the stiffer the barrel (19:24-52).
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the torque at which the cap is applied to be at least 40 ft. lbs. similar to that considered by Boretto with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve a desired straightness and stiffness of the barrel as taught by Boretto in 19:24-52 and 20:11-21:5.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mogle.
Regarding claims 12-14, Mogle discloses the claimed invention except for specifically disclosing the diameters of the barrel and carbon fiber layers to be .4 inches to 2 inches, .44 inches to 3 inches and .8 inches to 3.25 inches. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to construct the barrel and layers such that the diameters fall within the claimed ranges 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. It would have been a matter of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art to try various diameters because barrels in the firearm art are well known to vary greatly in diameter based on the caliber of the round to be fired and desired projectile flight characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success based on the caliber of the firearm and the rate of fire of the firearm, which would determine the amount of heat to be dissipated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Hartley does not specifically disclose the angles of the wrapping of the fibers, the examiner is not persuaded. As stated above, the figures of Hartley cannot be ignored and, while drawings may not be to scale, relationships shown in the drawings cannot be disregarded and anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words. The applicant appears to rely on the fact that drawings are not to scale in the opposing argument; however, this is not persuasive since it is merely an assertion that is not supported by evidence and the drawings of Hartley clearly show angles that, if not specifically in the claimed ranges, are very close and cannot be ignored or disregarded.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the combination of Hartley and May does not meet the claimed invention, the examiner disagrees. May is merely relied upon to show that the angles of the fibers is known in a composite wrapping of a barrel. The applicant argues May is a metal matrix rather than an epoxy; however, May is not being bodily incorporated into Hartley nor is the metal matrix relied upon in any manner. Hartley clearly discloses most, if not all, of the claimed limitations and May is merely relied upon to show the known angles of wrapping fibers around a barrel in the art.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Danner does not teach full end to end extension of the fibers and the sequencing of the layers, the examiner is not persuaded. Danner provides adequate disclosure that the fibers extend an entire length of the barrel. Absent evidence that the fibers do not extend the entire length, it is common practice in composite structures to use continuous fibers wherever possible. The applicant provides no evidence that the fibers of Danner do not extend the full length of the barrel. Regarding the argument against the layering of Danner, Danner is not specifically relied upon to teach the sequencing of the layers and an obviousness statement is provided to support reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would sequence the layers similar to a manner claimed.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Boretto does not adequately teach a torque of 40 ft. lbs. or more, the examiner is not persuaded. Boretto specifically states “in an example embodiment” when referring to a range of 5-30 ft. lbs. and immediately considers “may be more or less in an alternate embodiment.” Boretto additionally provides rationales or reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would apply a torque higher than the upper limit of the 30 ft. lbs. considered in the embodiment. 19:24-52 specifically teaches the higher the torque, the stiffer the barrel. 20:11-21:5 teaches torquing the cap to a desired torque to achieve desired tension and compression loading. 21:40-52 teaches applying desired torsional loads. Therefore when Boretto is considered as a whole, there is sufficient teaching that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a torque of 40 ft. lbs. or greater with a reasonable expectation of success and an expectation of yielding predictable results.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERRICK R MORGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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 5712726874. 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.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights