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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 5/22/2026 is acknowledged and appreciated. With respect to the rejection of claim 16, Applicant argues that the “means-plus-function” limitation has not been examined in view of or interpreted properly as required in MPEP § 2181. In response, Examiner agrees that the claim limitation includes the proper means-plus-function language (“a means for reducing an amount of spark ejected from the suppressor”). However, the specification does not include the necessary definitive supporting description of the means. In par. 64 of the current specification, Applicant alludes to at least two possible scenarios to reduce sparks with one being material considerations and a second including and positioning an insert. Accordingly, the limitation in question does not adequately invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and has only been considered in its functional context.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llewellyn, JR, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0299312) and Shults et al. (U.S. Patent 7,856,914) as per claim 17 and in further view of Schoppman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0347931).
In regards to claim 19, Llewellyn does not disclose that the plurality of insert openings are staggered relative to a circumferential direction defined by the insert. However, Schoppman teaches a suppressor “insert” with staggered openings (see figure 7) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide staggered openings as taught by Schoppman in/on the insert of Llewellyn to allow for wide spread consistent venting.
In regards to claim 20, Llewellyn does not explicitly disclose that the insert comprises less than 20% titanium. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to fabricate the various parts of the Llewellyn device with a specific percentage of titanium as claimed to limit sparking and, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washburn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0263905) in view of Tkachov et al. (WIPO Patent Document WO 2017200511).
In regards to claim 16, Washburn, III (henceforth referred to as Washburn) discloses a suppressor for a firearm, the suppressor defining a linear projectile path (see figure 3 of Washburn), the suppressor comprising:
an inner body comprising: a proximal wall; and a plurality of baffles. As illustrated in figure 3, the suppressor includes multiple baffles (items 305a-d) within an inner body and a proximal wall away from the baffles. Note the inner wall directly after the muzzle attachment (item 315),
each baffle defining a baffle opening that is positioned on the linear projectile path (see items 340a-d), wherein an expansion chamber is defined between the proximal wall and a first baffle of the plurality of baffles that is nearest to the proximal wall. As illustrated in figure 3, the area denoted as item 310 is an expansion chamber along and around the projectile path;
and Washburn does not explicitly disclose a means for reducing an amount of spark ejected from the suppressor when the firearm is discharged. However, Tkachov et al (henceforth referred to as Tkachov) teaches a means to reduce sparks from a suppressor indicated as a stainless steel mesh (par. 14) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide an additoinal means to reduce sparking from the suppressor of Washburn as taught by Tkachov, to reduce the visible emission of sparks from the suppressor.
In regards to claim 22, Washburn as modified by Tkachov indicates that the inner body comprises at least 80% titanium and the means for reducing an amount of spark ejected from the suppressor comprises less than 20% titanium. Washburn teaches an inner part of the suppressor fabricated from titanium (at least 80%) and as modified, Tkachov describes adding a stainless-steel mesh to a suppressor to reduce sparks. Note that the titanium portions are 100% titanium (at least 80%) and the non-titanium portions are 0% titanium (less than 20%).
In regards to claim 23, Washburn as modified by Tkachov discloses that the means for reducing an amount of spark ejected from the suppressor is removably coupled to the inner body. The stainless-steel mesh is removable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 1, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 1, the configuration of the suppressor. With respect to claim 17, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 17, that the groove is between the cap portion and the main body and that the groove is configured to position the insert on a first baffle of the plurality of baffles.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 16, 22 and 23 are rejected. Claims 1-15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 24 are allowable.
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 extension fee 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 BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights