DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 DEC 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the disclosure and alleged showing in the drawing figures of tapered linear grooves 501, such are asserted to be shown in Figs. 5 and 7. Reference character 501 has a leader line indicating a darker portion of the barrel bore apparently halfway through or centered in the barrel. This alone does not suffice to show tapering. However, because there appear to be similar grooves at the top and bottom of the barrel bore, above and below the centered darker portion, which further appear to decrease in thickness from the breech area to the muzzle area in both figures, the presumption must be that at least three such grooves are shown therein and that such taper as claimed. Thus, the objection to the drawings and rejection of the claims including this feature has been withdrawn. Should this interpretation be in error, clarification is required.
In response to the argument US 4,590,698 to Finn in view of US 4,058,050 to Brouthers is improper because “the gas port of Brouthers is not functionally equivalent to the gas port of the present invention,” Remarks, page 3, first full paragraph. Applicant then proceeds to note how the gas ports differ in functionality. However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). MPEP § 2145(VI). Thus, the intended function of the gas port is irrelevant. Regardless, Brouthers fairly discloses the gas ports venting to atmosphere via orifices 24 as a means to ‘increase linear recoil and to reduce flip or jump of the weapon,’ col. 2, ll. 57, through col. 3, ll. 4, i.e., such are a compensator in today’s parlance.
In response to the assertions that there being no suggestion, motivation, or teaching to combine the references, that hindsight reasoning was applied unfairly, and there is no reasonable expectation of success, the examiner must respectfully disagree.
The rejection in question begins at page 8, paragraph 30, of the previous office action. As noted therein, Finn discloses a grooved gas-venting pattern comprising grooves, e.g., 34, Figs. 8-8a, except for such terminating prior to reaching a gas port. While the rejection continues by relying on Brouthers, it must be noted that Finn fairly discloses such gas-venting grooves such as 24, 24a, 24b, 24c, and 24d, all of which extend only partially along the length of the barrel bore and, were the hand gun, rifle, or cannon (e.g., col. 6, ll. 29-33) to include such a gas port as claimed, the gas-venting pattern of grooves would terminate prior to reaching such. Thus, reliance on Brouthers is merely to demonstrate that gas ports are well-known in the art.
Regardless, as was noted in the rejection, “Brouthers teaches a gas port 16, e.g., Fig. 3, in a firearm barrel 10 near the muzzle end thereof (shown/disclosed) for the purpose of reducing recoil and jump of a firearm, col. 1, lines 5-7” (emphasis added). Thus, some suggestion, motivation, and teaching were adequately demonstrated.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). MPEP § 2145(X)(A). As noted, Finn disclosed a bulk of the claimed invention except for a gas port, which was fairly taught by Brouthers.
Lastly, the rationale paragraph below the description of what Brouthers teaches states “as taught by Brouthers to reduce recoil and jump of a firearm with a reasonable expectation of success because Brouthers further discloses the device impeding discharge of hot gases and flames from the firearm, [col. 1], at lines 22-26” (emphasis added). Such would appear to be sufficient reasonable expectation of success.
See also MPEP § 2144 regarding supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Thus, the rejections in view of the prior art must stand. Any objection or rejection not maintained herein has been withdrawn or overcome.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The claims are identical except their numbering.
Claim 31 is objected to as failing to further limit claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-18, 20-21, 23-29, 31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn in view of Brouthers.
Re: claims 1, 20, and 31, Finn discloses the claimed invention including a firearm barrel 14, e.g., Figs. 1-8, comprising: a bore (shown); a rifling pattern 33 (e.g., Figs. 7-8a) along a length of said bore (shown); and a grooved gas-venting pattern 34 that exceeds an envelope of said rifling pattern (col. 5, ll. 64, through col. 6, ll. 2); wherein said rifling pattern imparts spin on a bullet to stabilize said bullet in flight (satisfactorily explained with respect to the embodiment of, e.g., Figs. 2-2a, at col. 3, ll. 30-50); and wherein said grooved gas-venting pattern allows expanding propellant gases to escape around said bullet (as explained at col. 2, ll. 59, through col. 3, ll. 13); except for wherein said grooves gas-venting pattern is configured along a length of said bore and terminates prior to reaching a gas port.
Arguably, groove 32 is not a “pattern.” However, as per claim 2, below, the claimed pattern need only comprise one groove. Regardless, this embodiment was selected merely because such better shows the claimed subject matter. That is, the description of the previous embodiment(s) fairly discloses multiple, and thus patterned, grooves 24, 24a, 24b, 24c, and 24d. See also plurality of grooves 34, fairly disclosed as additional to normal rifling grooves at col. 6, ll. 3-23.
Brouthers teaches a gas port 16, e.g., Fig. 3, in a firearm barrel 10 near the muzzle end thereof (shown/disclosed) for the purpose of reducing recoil and jump of a firearm, col. 1, ll. 5-7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Finn as taught by Brouthers to reduce recoil and jump of a firearm with a reasonable expectation of success because Brouthers further discloses the device impeding discharge of hot gases and flames from the firearm, id., ll. 22-26.
Further rationale(s):
All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (citing U.S. v. Adams, 383 US 36, 50-51 (1966)). And/or,
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S.Ct. 1742 (2007).
Re: claims 2 and 21, Finn further discloses wherein said grooved gas-venting pattern comprises one or more added linear grooves along said length of said bore, e.g., Fig. 7.
Re: claims 4 and 23, Finn further discloses wherein said grooved gas-venting pattern comprises one or more helical grooves along said length of said bore, e.g., Fig. 8.
Re: claims 5-10 and 24-29, it has been held that process limitations cannot impart patentability to a product claim where the product is not patentably distinguished over the prior art. In re Dike (CCPA) 157 USPQ 581.
Re: claim 11, Finn further discloses wherein said grooved gas-venting comprises grooves implemented along a partial length of said bore, e.g., Figs. 2-4.
Re: claim 14, Finn further discloses wherein said grooved gas-venting pattern comprises gas venting grooves axially centered about said rifling pattern, e.g., Figs. 4-4a.
Re: claims 15 and 16, Finn further discloses wherein said gas-venting grooves are axially centered to said rifling pattern grooves (shown).
Re: claims 17 and 33, Finn further discloses wherein said grooved gas-venting pattern comprises helical grooves of partial or full length along said barrel bore (both clearly shown).
Re: claims 18 and 34, Finn further discloses wherein said helical grooves of partial or full length further comprise uniform outer diameter (clearly shown).
Claims 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finn in view of Brouthers, further in view of US 1,329,444 to Thompson.
Finn in view of Brouthers discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for wherein said grooved gas-venting pattern comprises one or more tapered linear grooves along said length of said bore and/or wherein such comprises grooves implemented as tapered features along a partial length of said bore.
Thompson teaches tapering grooves 6, e.g., Fig. 3, being known in the art for the purpose of improved friction between a bullet and the rifled bore, page 2, lines 78-90.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the base reference, Finn, as taught by Thompson to improve friction with a reasonable expectation of success because Thompson further discloses assuring the necessary rotation of the bullet, id., at lines 90-91.
See further rationale(s), above, as may be applicable.
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 should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern.
The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874.
/Bret Hayes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
17-Feb-26