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
Claims 1-21 are pending. Prior drawing objections and claim objections have been withdrawn due to amendment. Prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) rejections of claims 6 and 18 remain.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7 July 2026, with respect to 12-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 12-13 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muceus et al. (US 11725898 B2) is withdrawn; the rejections of claims 14-19 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muceus et al. (US 11725898 B2) in view of Dueck et al. (US 20230021170 A1) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 7 July 2026, with respect to 1-11 been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks of Claim 1 (pgs. 12), “use of such complex evolution scheme is enabled by AI/ML modeling that is capable of adjusting multiple parameters simultaneously to achieve superior suppressor designs”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Muceus adjusts a plurality of parameters “to best address the myriad of complicated processes taking place” (Col. 6, Lines 60-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-16). Additionally, the amended claim limitations are taught by Muceus (Fig. 9A-B shows varying along longitudinal axis; Fig. 5 shows along radial axis).
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks of Claim 2 (pgs. 12), Muceus teaches dissipating energy generally and the amended claim limitations of mechanical, heat, sound (Col. 4, Lines 1-26), with light energy inherent to firing a firearm. Examiner notes that if the system of Muceus designs to dissipate energy, the system takes into account all forms of energy.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks of Claim 3 (pgs. 13), Claim 7 (pgs. 15), Claim 8 (pgs. 15), Claim 9 (pgs. 15): Applicant makes conclusory statements without evidence.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks of Claim 4 (pgs. 13), Muceus teaches the amended claim limitations. See rejection below for details.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks of Claim 5 (pgs. 13-14), Muceus teaches the amended claim limitations. See rejection below for details.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks of Claim 6 (pgs. 14), Muceus teaches the claim limitations: geometries and dimensions chosen based on pressure, heat and noise for particular firearm, simulations, computational fluid dynamics, and programmatic CAD (Col. 6, Lines 60-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-16).
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks of Claim 10 (pgs. 15-16), Muceus and Nagy-Zambo both are in fields of firearm suppressors, which includes combustion of propellant. Control of combustibles is an obvious step with reducing muzzle flash, as muzzle flash is typically “post ignition of unburnt propellant after the projectile has left the barrel” (Nagy-Zambo: Col. 13, Lines 2-10). Therefore, a reduction in the amount of unburn propellant, by any means such as by gas flow, reduces the amount of unburnt propellant leading to a reduction of muzzle flash.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a shape” is read as “the . Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 18 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 6 recites “outputs a best combined value of a heat value, a sound value, and a pressure value”. Examiner notes the amendment has the same issue as optimizes. It is unclear to what degree “a heat value, a sound value, and a pressure value” are outputs a best combine value, what percentage, and if all three values are required, for example. For examining purposes, “outputs a best combine value of a heat value, a sound value, and a pressure value” will be read as “changes at least one of the following: a heat value, a sound value, and a pressure value”.
Claim 18 recites “achieves a best combined profile of the thermofluidic flow velocity, the heat dissipation speed, and the pressure value”. Examiner notes the amendment has the same issue as optimal combination. It is unclear to what degree “thermofluidic flow velocity, the heat dissipation speed, and the pressure value” are an “optimal combination”, what percentage, and if all three values are required, for example. For examining purposes “achieves a best combined profile of the thermofluidic flow velocity, the heat dissipation speed, and the pressure value” is read as “changes at least one of: the thermofluidic flow velocity, the heat dissipation speed, and the pressure value”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muceus et al. (US 11725898 B2) in view of Nagy-Zambo et al. (US 11428491 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Muceus et al. (US 11725898 B2) discloses a suppressor device (Suppressor 100; Col. 3, Lines 10-30; Fig. 1, 4), comprising:
a core having a first end , a second end, a hollow bore extending from the first end to the second end and located along a longitudinal axis of the core (Core 400 with first end 440, second end similar to 145 of Fig. 1 and hollow bore 440 between; Col. 4, Lines 55-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-20; Fig. 4), and an energy manager (430),
wherein the first end includes attaching the suppressor to a firearm (Similar first end 140 attaches to firearm 150; Col. 3, Lines 25-30; Fig. 1),
wherein the bore includes a plurality of openings to the energy manager (Bore 410 with openings 412 to chamber/energy manager 430 with TPMS shape; Col. 5, Lines 1-20), and
wherein the energy manager comprises
a shape that evolves between the first end and the second end (Energy manager with TPMS shape varies along longitudinal direction between similar first end 940 and second end 945; Col. 9, Lines 15-35; Fig. 9A-B),
along the longitudinal axis and along a radial axis extending out from the longitudinal axis to the outer surface of the core (TPMS shapes of 570 and 580 are along the same radial axis with inner portion 570 different from outer portion 580 towards outer surface 520; Col. 6, Lines 15-40; Fig. 5. Wall thickness along longitudinal direction and radial axis can vary; Col. 19, Lines 15-35; Fig. 9A-B), and
a plurality of chambers extending from the bore to an outer surface (Channels/chambers 404 extend from bore 410 to 420); and a sleeve for containing the core (Sleeve 420 contains core 400), the sleeve having an entry at the first end and an exit at the second end (Casing/outer body/sleeve 420 contains 400 along its length; Col. 5, Lines 1-20).
Muceus et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first end includes a set of threads for removably attaching the suppressor to a firearm (Similar first end 140 attaches to firearm 150; Col. 3, Lines 25-30; Fig. 1). However, Nagy-Zambo et al. (US 11428491 B2) teaches wherein the first end includes a set of threads for removably attaching the suppressor to a firearm (Nagy-Zambo: First end 112 includes internal thread of 116 to attach to firearm; Col. 5, Lines 1-30; Fig. 1-3). Nagy-Zambo et al. and Muceus et al. are in similar fields comprising firearm suppressors. Modifying Muceus et al. with teachings of Nagy-Zambo et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first end includes a set of threads for removably attaching the suppressor to a firearm for the purpose of providing a simple and secure connection (Nagy-Zambo: Col. 5, Lines 20-30).
Regarding Claim 2, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 1. Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. fails to explicitly disclose the energy manager further comprising the shape that is modeled according to the following equation:
∑
E
=
[
M
E
+
H
E
+
S
E
+
L
E
]
,
wherein E is a total energy managed by the energy manager,
M
E
is a mechanical energy,
H
E
is a heat energy,
S
E
is a sound energy, and
L
E
is a light energy (Muceus states parameters of TPMS structures are designed for sound, heat, and mechanical energy, while being silent on light energy; Col. 4, Lines 5-10). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of being common types of energy dissipated by suppressor devices, wherein Muceus designing to dissipated energy, the system takes into account all forms of energy.
Regarding Claim 3, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 2, wherein the shape is one of a triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structure, or a lattice structure (Col. 3, Lines 30-40; Col. 8, Lines 60-67).
Regarding Claim 4, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 2, wherein the shape evolves according to the following: along a radius extending from a point located at an intersection of the longitudinal axis and a plane that intersects the core orthogonal to the longitudinal axis between the first end and the second end (Energy manager with TPMS shape varies along radial and/or longitudinal direction between similar first end 940 and second end 945 Col. 9, Lines 15-35; Fig. 9A-B. In Fig. 7A-C: All inner portions 670a-c and all outer portions 680a-c along the same plane and about their center’s evolve outward radially; Col. 6, Lines 40-62 ).
Regarding Claim 5, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 1, wherein the energy manager dissipates an amount (Gases enter energy manager 400 dissipate and become trapped; Col. 5, Lines 10-17. Since thermofluidic energy is as interaction between heat transfer and the flow of fluids within a space, the previous gases are included.).
Regarding Claim 6, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 1, wherein the energy manager contains a pressure level corresponding to a cartridge fired by the firearm (Follows as suppressors decrease pressure; Col. 1, Lines 15-30), and outputs a best combined value of (Chambers/channels release gases at lowest possible pressure at the exit end; Col. 5, Lines 30-45. Best value from geometries and dimensions chosen based on pressure, heat and noise for particular firearm, simulations, computational fluid dynamics, and programmatic CAD; Col. 6, Lines 60-67; Col. 7, Lines 1-16).
Regarding Claim 7, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of openings allows gas, sound, heat, and light to enter the energy manager (Follows as openings 412 directly connect to energy manager 430; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of chambers allows a flow of fluid, wherein the flow is three-dimensional and continuous, and wherein the flow travels from the first end to the second end (See chamber 404 with flow 460 transverse longitudinally/continuous and outward between first end 440 and second end ; Col. 5, Lines 1-17; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of chambers includes a cross section and a wall thickness, and wherein the cross section and wall thickness evolve from the first end to the second end (Similar chambers with TPMS wall thickness varies along longitudinal direction between similar first end 940 and second end 945; Col. 9, Lines 15-35; Fig. 9A-B. Varying wall thickness, also varies cross sections).
Regarding Claim 10, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 1, wherein a flow of gases is controlled (Col. 5, Lines 55-67). Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. fails to explicitly disclose so that a majority of combustible products within the flow burn before leaving the suppressor. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of reducing muzzle flash, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 11, Muceus et al. as modified by Nagy-Zambo et al. discloses the suppressor device of Claim 1, wherein heat is absorbed and dissipated to minimize an infrared signature (Follows as TPMS structures, as compared to conventional suppressors, further minimize infrared signature by transfer/absorb heat energy with energy dissipated over longer time interval from the slowing of gases the suppressor; Col. 5, Lines 15-45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 and 19-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach or suggest alone or in combination the invention in the newly claimed combination. The prior art fails to disclose a computer-implemented method of designing a firearm suppressor comprising: choosing a shape for a core; modeling a metric of the core using an artificial intelligence or machine learning software application, wherein the metric is pressure at an exit of the suppressor and one or more of a thermofluidic flow velocity for gases at the exit or a heat dissipation rate; selecting geometry of the core using the metric; and generating a design for manufacturing on an additive manufacturing device.
Claims 13-17 and 19-21 are dependent upon claim 12 and are therefore included in the allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
