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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 12/16/2025 is acknowledged and appreciated. The arguments regarding claims 1-15 are persuasive and are withdrawn. The claim amendment and new claim has been considered as follows.
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llewellyn, JR, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0299312) in view of Shults et al. (U.S. Patent 7,856,914).
In regards to claim 17, by Llewellyn, JR, et al (henceforth referred to as Llewellyn) discloses an insert for a suppressor for a firearm (see item 45 of figure 10 of Llewellyn), the insert comprising: a main body; and a plurality of insert openings that extend through the main body. Llewellyn teaches a suppressor insert that includes a main body as well as openings extending through (see figure 45);
a cap portion, wherein a diameter of the cap portion is greater than a diameter of the main body. As illustrated in figure 10, the insert includes an elongate main body along with a “cap” (portion shown as being held by user) having a diameter larger than that of the main body;
a groove that extends around the main body, wherein the groove is between the cap portion and the main body. As depicted, a narrower area consistent or equivalent to a groove, is positioned after the “cap” and before the main body portion;
Llewellyn does not explicitly teach that the groove defines a diameter that is less than a diameter of the main body. However, Shults et al (henceforth referred to as Shults) teaches a suppressor insert that includes a groove just after the caps at both ends that is narrower than the remainder of the main body of the insert (see figure 3) and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the grooved portions of the insert of the Llewellyn insert of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
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 Grob et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0260332).
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, Grob et al (henceforth referred to as Grob) teaches a means to reduce sparks from a suppressor (pars. 150 and 151) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a means to reduce sparking from the suppressor of Washburn as taught by Grob, to reduce the visible emission of sparks from the suppressor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 1, the configuration of the suppressor.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected. Claims 1-15 and 21 are allowable.
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