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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 11-20 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-12 and 14-18 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kras (2021/0041200).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Kras teaches a firearm (Figures 1-11D, note suppressor device #100 is for attachment to a firearm – [0066]) comprising: a suppressor (Figures 1-11D, #100) coupled to a muzzle of the firearm by a coupling mechanism (104) at a proximate end of the suppressor (100), the suppressor (100) comprising: an outer cylinder (108) defining a longitudinal axis; an outer chamber (120) disposed adjacent the proximate end (end having coupling mechanism #104) of the suppressor (100) and between the outer cylinder (108) and an inner cylinder (defined by connected baffles bodies #114), where the an inner cylinder (114) comprises: at least one release port (Figure 1D, defined by opening #118 in baffle #110C) configured for fluid coupling between the inner cylinder (114) and the outer chamber (120); at least one purge port (Figure 1D, defined by opening #118 in baffle #110A) configured for fluid coupling between the inner cylinder (114) and the outer chamber (120); and at least one gas deflector (defined by pair of flow directors #122 arranged in a V-shape in baffle #110/A or 110B, in between the openings #118 in baffles #110A and #110C) disposed adjacent to the at least one purge port (Figure 1D, defined by opening #118 in baffle #110A), where the at least one gas deflector (122) extends from an exterior surface of the inner cylinder (114) towards an interior surface of the outer cylinder (108), and where, along the longitudinal axis, at least a portion of the at least one gas deflector (122) is disposed between the at least one release port (Figure 1D, defined by opening #118 in baffle #110C) and the at least one purge port (Figure 1D, defined by opening #118 in baffle #110A).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Kras teaches further comprising an end cap (210) disposed at a distal end of the suppressor (100).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Kras teaches where the at least one gas deflector (defined by pair of flow directors #122 arranged in a V-shape in baffle #110/A or 110B, in between the openings #118 in baffles #110A and #110C) is formed of planar surfaces disposed partially around a perimeter of the at least one purge port (Figure 1D, defined by opening #118 in baffle #110A), and where the at least one gas deflector (defined by pair of flow directors #122 arranged in a V-shape in baffle #110/A or 110B, in between the openings #118 in baffles #110A and #110C) has an opening (defined by apex of the V-shape of the pair of flow directors #122 having ends #12, which form an opening as best seen in Figures 4A-5D) facing the distal end (end having end cap #210) of the suppressor (100).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Kras teaches where the outer chamber (120) comprises a backpressure reduction chamber (defined portions of chamber #120 upstream from the downstream-most two baffles #110E and #100F in Figure 1D). It is noted that chamber #120 forms an expansion space for propellant gases, which inherently will reduce back pressure as compared to an identical suppressor that does not include the additional expansion space of chambers #120.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Kras teaches further comprising a reverse flow pathway chamber (defined by chamber #120 portion associated with downstream-most baffle #110F – note that in Figure 11D, gas in the downstream end of outer chamber #120 will deflect of the end cap in a reverse direction) disposed between the backpressure reduction chamber (defined portions of chamber #120 upstream from the downstream-most two baffles #110E and #100F in Figure 1D) and the end cap (210).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, Kras teaches where the reverse flow pathway chamber (defined by chamber #120 portion associated with downstream-most baffle #110F – note that in Figure 11D, gas in the downstream end of outer chamber #120 will deflect of the end cap in a reverse direction) is defined by an outer surface of the inner cylinder (114) and an inner surface of the outer cylinder (108), and a plurality of ridges (defined by flow directors #122 arranged around downstream-most baffle #110F) disposed between the outer cylinder (108) and the inner cylinder (114).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Kras teaches where the reverse flow pathway chamber (defined by chamber #120 portion associated with downstream-most baffle #110F – note that in Figure 11D, gas in the downstream end of outer chamber #120 will deflect of the end cap in a reverse direction) is configured to direct gasses in a first direction that is towards the end cap (210), and a second direction that is towards the coupling mechanism (104). It is noted that the gases will initially flow in a direction towards end cap #210, and will then be deflected by the rear facing surface of end cap #210, which redirects the flow toward coupling mechanism #104, as seen in Figure 11D.
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kras (2021/0041200).
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Kras teaches the firearm suppressor/firearm of claims 3 and 13, respectively.
Kras further teaches where the at least one gas deflector (defined by pair of flow directors #122 arranged in a V-shape in baffle #110/A or 110B, in between the openings #118 in baffles #110A and #110C) is partially curved (clearly seen in Figures 1D and 4A-5D) and disposed around a perimeter of the at least one purge port (Figure 1D, defined by opening #118 in baffle #110A), and where the at least one gas deflector (defined by pair of flow directors #122 arranged in a V-shape in baffle #110/A or 110B, in between the openings #118 in baffles #110A and #110C) has an opening (defined by apex of the V-shape of the pair of flow directors #122 having ends #12, which form an opening as best seen in Figures 4A-5D) facing the distal end (end having end cap #210) of the suppressor (100).
Kras fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one partially curved gas deflector incudes the at least one gas deflector being partially circular.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the at least one gas deflector is partially circular, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Kras.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kras (2021/0041200) in view of Barrett (2018/0299223).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Kras teaches a removable flow director (defined at least by baffles #110A-110D) disposed within the inner cylinder (114) ([0072] - note the baffle sections #110A-110F can be connected by threaded interfaces, which are inherently “removable”).
Kras fails to teach where the flow director comprises a plurality of vanes configured to direct the flow of gasses in one of either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction.
Barrett teaches a similar firearm suppressor/silencer, wherein each baffle of a baffle stack is formed as a removable flow director (Figures 7-8, defined by removable baffles #70) disposed within the inner cylinder (21, when combined with inner cylinder #26 of Grant.), where the flow director (70) comprises a plurality of vanes (72) configured to direct the flow of gasses in one of either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction, such that the asymmetrically shaped skewed cone section (72) is configured to maximize gas expansion and noise reduction performance ([0005]). It is noted that the asymmetrically skewed shaped of cone portion #72 of baffles #70 will cause the flow of gasses impinging cone #72 to flow in one of either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction within chamber #110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Kras, with the apparatus of Barrett so as to further maximize gas expansion and noise reduction performance.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Kras and Barrett teach where the removable flow director (Kras, #110A-110D, when combined with Barrett, #70) is configured to direct gas flow through the at least one release port (Kras, Figure 1D, defined by opening #118 in baffle #110C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Examiner considers Kras and the combination with Barrett to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
