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 § 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 6, 16-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In Claims 6, 16, and 26, the linear actuator is understood to be a feature capable of moving a projectile from a storage clip to an active barrel group. It is further understood that projectiles in an active barrel group are positioned so as to be sequentially launched by fluid flows from a valve system which manages the fluid flow to deliver separate fluid flows to individual active barrels in sequence. Management of fluid flows depends upon valve stems being seated in a rearward position obtained by pressure applied as a projectile is inserted into an active barrel. Applicant’s specification does not describe the function of a loading actuator in sufficient detail to apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the operation of the loading actuator.
Claims 6, 16-24 and 26 are 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 examiner finds that persons of ordinary skill in the art are skilled at designing apparatus for priming projectiles from a magazine into a breech of a weapon by applying pressure to move the projectile forward from an exposed position in the magazine. The present invention provides plural barrels including a valve stem at a rear end which must be depressed by the projectile entering from the muzzle end of the barrel; therefore, the loading actuator must handle projectiles forward of the barrel muzzle and insert projectiles in plural barrels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to practice the claimed invention, without endeavoring to design an apparatus to accomplish the intended function.
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 6 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. It is unclear how a loading actuator may be capable of moving a plurality of projectiles from a storage clip to an active barrel group. It is understood that the valve system is operable to manage fluid flow to active barrels in temporal sequence and that the function requires that projectiles be loaded in a manner that depresses valve stems. The loading actuator does not operate in this manner. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 12 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. It is not clear how a spatial position of first and second catch stops may be determined with respect to two axes, given that the catch stops are understood to be spaced in a linear array along a priming actuator. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 13 and 23 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. It is not clear how a catch support may hold the trigger assembly in a partially triggered state. It is understood that catch supports include a generally level surface aligned with the direction of movement of the latch, such that only the catch stops would hold the trigger assembly. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claims 16-24 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. In Claim 16, lines 13 et seq., it is unclear how a loading actuator may be capable of moving a plurality of projectiles from a storage clip to an active barrel group. It is understood that the valve system is operable to manage fluid flow to active barrels in temporal sequence and that the function requires that projectiles be loaded in a manner that depresses valve stems. The loading actuator does not operate in this manner. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 26 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 loading actuator is understood to be a feature as described in Claim 16. It is unclear how a loading actuator may be capable of moving a plurality of projectiles from a storage clip to an active barrel group. It is understood that the valve system is operable to manage fluid flow to active barrels in temporal sequence and that the function requires that projectiles be loaded in a manner that depresses valve stems. The loading actuator does not operate in this manner. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
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) 1, 2, 7-9, 14, 15, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nugent, U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0239938, in view of Dakan et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0037135. As to Claim 1, Nugent teaches a toy projectile launcher (100) comprising a housing assembly (102), paragraph 0028. A fluid compressor (compressed air source) at least partially received by the housing assembly, paragraph 0028. A priming actuator (pump action slide 130 and piston moving in a cylinder driven by a spring), may be at least partially received by the housing assembly paragraph 0028 and see Figure 1, noting that piston primes the fluid compressor by moving air in the cylinder. Nugent teaches an active barrel group (104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118) at least partially received by the housing assembly and configured to receive a plurality of projectiles, paragraph 0028 and see Figures 1 and 3. A valve system (120) may be at least partially received by the fluid compressor and the active barrel group in fluid communication with the fluid compressor and active barrel group, paragraph 0029. A trigger assembly (122) may be at least partially received by the housing assembly, the trigger assembly being configured to increase each fluid flow, paragraph 0028, 0037, and 0038, noting that actuation of the trigger increases fluid flows to each barrel. Nugent teaches that the valve assembly may provide a cascading delivery of separate fluid flows to each barrel, paragraphs 0037 and 0038, noting that fluid flows through inlet (154) to launch dart from barrel (110) followed by catch assembly (spring biased valve element) closing outlet (199) to decrease a first fluid flow, which launched the dart from barrel (110) and to direct a next fluid flow to barrel (108), paragraph 0032 and see Figure 3. The catch assembly may be at least partially received by the housing assembly, see Figure 1, and each fluid flow may be sequentially decreased by the catch assembly, paragraph 0032, such that each projectile may be launched from the active barrel group in temporal sequence by compressed fluid, paragraph 0032, noting a cascade. Nugent is silent with regard to a temporal sequence of launches after the fluid compressor has been primed once. Dakan teaches a toy projectile launcher having two barrels, paragraph 0032, noting double barrel. When the launcher is cocked, a launch spring (48) is compressed, paragraph 0035. A trigger assembly (102, 104, 106, 108) paragraph 0036. Offset cam surfaces (106, 108) of the trigger assembly interact with rear latch rings (116, 118) restraining a launch tube (42), paragraph 0036. The trigger may be pulled to first release a first latch ring and subsequently, by further pull of the trigger, to then release a second latch to provide a temporal sequence of launches after priming once, paragraph 0037. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the catch assembly to provide a temporal sequence of launches after priming once, as taught by Dakan, to provide Nugent with launching in sequence without interval priming to yield the predictable result of improving rapid firing. As to Claim 2, Nugent teaches that the priming actuator may be manually operated, paragraph 0028. As to Claim 7, Nugent teaches that the fluid compressor may be primed by compressing the driving spring, by moving a handle connected to the piston, paragraphs 0028 and 0041, suggesting that at most two continuous movements of the priming actuator may prime the fluid compressor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Nugent, as modified, with priming by at most two continuous movements, as suggested. As to Claim 8, Dakan teaches that the launch spring may be released from a second latch ring immediately following the release of the launch spring from a first latch ring, paragraph 0037. It follows that a preloaded spring launches at least the first projectile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Nugent, as modified, with a preloaded launch spring, as taught by Dakan, to provide Nugent, as modified, with a launch spring configured to not expend an entire amount of energy during a first launch. As to Claim 9, Nugent teaches that the trigger assembly and the catch assembly may be configured to perform a plurality of launch cycles where each launch cycle comprises the trigger assembly increasing each fluid flow and subsequently, the catch assembly decreasing each fluid flow, paragraph 0038, noting that a next blast of compressed air is directed past a just evacuated barrel and into a next projectile holding barrel in a series of continuing cycles, increasing the fluid flow to the next projectile holding barrel and decreasing the fluid flow to the evacuated barrel. As to Claim 14, Dakan teaches a catch stop (116) comprising a catch wedge, see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Nugent, as modified, with a catch stop comprising a catch wedge, as taught by Dakan, to provide Nugent, as modified, with a known substitute configuration for camming a catch stop. As to Claim 15, Dakan teaches a variable latch comprising a trigger wedge, see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Nugent, as modified, with a variable latch comprising a trigger wedge, as taught by Dakan, to provide Nugent, as modified, with a known substitute configuration for camming a trigger latch.
PNG
media_image1.png
495
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 25, Nugent is applied as in Claim 1. The examiner finds that the claimed components as disclosed by Nugent, are inherently provided. Nugent does not disclose a variable latch and providing a catch stop on a catch assembly. Dakan teaches offset cam surfaces (106, 108) of the trigger assembly interact with rear latch rings (116, 118) restraining a launch tube (42), paragraph 0036. The trigger may be a variable trigger which may be pulled to first release a first latch ring, defining a first catch stop, and subsequently, by further pull of the trigger, to then release a second latch, defining a second latch stop, to provide a temporal sequence of launches, paragraph 0037. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the trigger as a variable trigger and to configure the catch assembly with catch stops, as taught by Dakan, to provide Nugent with launching in sequence without interval priming to yield the predictable result of improving rapid firing. As to Claim 27, Dakan is applied as in Claim 8, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, the examiner finds it to be inherent that the launch spring may be installed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nugent, in view of Dakan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,488, 148. Nugent, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 5, Nugent, as modified, is silent as to a storage clip. Johnson teaches a toy projectile launcher (10) comprising a storage clip (30A) coupled to a portion of a housing assembly (12), Col. 2, ln. 33-34 and Col. 3, ln. 2-6, noting clip 30A in standby position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Nugent, as modified, with a storage clip, as taught by Johnson, to provide Nugent, as modified, with additional spare projectiles to yield the predictable result of adding a convenient feature for carrying additional projectiles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, and 10, 11, and 13 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.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 23 January 2026