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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 12/8/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the technical features of a metallic body with a surface coating of defined thickness are shared. This is not found persuasive because the species are distinguished by the material of the coating. The two coatings are not useable together and are therefore distinct technical features.
The applicant’s response asserts only claim 2 is withdrawn; however, claims 9 and 15 are directed to the galvanic coating which pertains to the non-elected species as well. Therefore claims 1, 3-8, 10-14 and 16-19 are directed to the elected species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the thickness of the coating increasing from the guide band towards the tail must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrlinger, US Patent No. 7.543.535.
Regarding claim 1, Herrlinger discloses a bullet (1) for ammunition, comprising: a metallic (claim 1 discloses lead or lead alloy for example) bullet body (3); and a surface coating (2) with a thickness of more than 100 µm (4:13-26 discloses thicknesses more than the 100 µm) forming at least sectionally an outer skin of the bullet (figure 1).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the bullet of Herrlinger renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be an obvious manner of making the bullet.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Booth, US Patent No. 7,210,411.
Regarding claim 1, Booth discloses a bullet (1) for ammunition, comprising: a metallic bullet body (9 is disclosed as steel); and a surface coating (13) with a thickness of more than 100 µm (3:1-4 discloses the coating thickness greater than 100 µm) forming at least sectionally an outer skin of the bullet (figure 2).
Regarding claim 2, Booth further discloses the bullet body comprises a tapering bullet front (figure 2) and a narrow guide band (bands on either side of grooves 12 in figure 2 for example) adjoining the bullet front and adapted to engage in a land-and-groove profile of a firearm barrel (3:63-4:28, for example, discloses the projectile engaging the rifling lands which is necessarily at the bands because of the largest outside diameter), wherein a shoulder is formed at a transition from the guide band to the bullet front, the shoulder forming a reservoir for the surface coating (3:63-4:28 discloses the grooves 12, and thus shoulder between grooves and bands, receiving the surface coating and being thicker).
Regarding claim 13, Booth further discloses ammunition, comprising; an ammunition case (2) and a bullet (1) according to claim 1 arranged therein (figure 1)
Regarding claim 19, Booth further discloses the caliber is at most 20 mm (3:8-10 discloses less than 20 mm)
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the bullet of Booth renders the method steps obvious since such would have been an obvious manner of making the bullet. Additionally, Booth considers electroplating as a method of applying the coating which is known to require immersion.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jakobsson, US Patent No. 5,686,693.
Regarding claim 1, Jakobsson discloses a bullet (150 as in figure 7 for example) for ammunition, comprising: a metallic bullet body (disclosed as steel in 9:36-40); and a surface coating (coating 27 for example) with a thickness of more than 100 µm (3:63-4:15) forming at least sectionally an outer skin of the bullet (3:44-62).
Regarding claim 10, Jakobsson further discloses the bullet body comprises a tapering bullet front (153) and a narrow guide band (154) adjoining the bullet front and adapted to engage in a land-and-groove profile of a firearm barrel (3:44-62), wherein a shoulder is formed at a transition from the guide band to the bullet front, the shoulder forming a reservoir for the surface coating (figure 7 shows the shoulder between the groove and band and the groove forms a reservoir for the coating broadly, yet reasonably).
Regarding claim 13, Jakobsson further discloses an ammunition case (figure 2) and a bullet (figures 2 or 7) according to claim 1 arranged therein.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the bullet of Jakobsson renders the method steps obvious since such would have been an obvious manner of making the bullet. Additionally, Jakobsson considers electroplating as a method of applying the coating which is known to require immersion.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marx, WO2014028092.
Regarding claim 3, Marx discloses a bullet (10b for example) for ammunition comprising a metallic bullet body (12 and 32) including a tapered bullet front (figure 2D), a narrow guide band (74) adjoining the bullet front and adapted to engage in a land-and-groove profile of a firearm barrel (in as much as the applicant discloses the driving band engaging the rifling of a barrel, so does Marx. The applicant’s drawings show the driving band being covered by a coating and Marx shows a similar configuration and discloses engaging the rifling in lines 17-24 of page 7), an a frustoconical bullet tail adjoining the guide band (rear of figure 2D shows a frustoconical tail); and a surface coating (48) covering the bullet tail at least sectionally and having a thickness increasing at least sectionally from the guide band towards the tail (shown in figure 2D)
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, 10-11, 13-14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence, GB 2575226.
Regarding claim 1, Lawrence discloses a bullet (1) for ammunition, comprising: a metallic bullet body (21); and a surface coating (22) with a thickness; however, Lawrence considers selecting the thickness of the jacket to provide a desired outer diameter of the caliber to be fired but does not specifically disclose the thickness being more than 100 µm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the thickness greater than 100 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. As stated by Lawrence, it would be obvious to select a thickness based on a desired outer diameter of the projectile.
Regarding claim 10, Lawrence further discloses the bullet body comprises a tapering bullet front (figures 1 and 2) and a narrow guide band (25b and 25c) adjoining the bullet front and adapted to engage in a land-and-groove profile of a firearm barrel (in as much as the applicant discloses the driving band engaging the rifling of a barrel, so does Lawrence. The applicant’s drawings show the driving band being covered by a coating and Lawrence shows a similar configuration and discloses engaging the rifling in lines 1-9 of page 10), wherein a shoulder is formed at a transition from the guide band to the bullet front, the shoulder forming a reservoir for the surface coating (shoulders forward of the grooves are shown as 28c and are capable of acting as a reservoir for the surface coating and are configured to allow for the coating to enter the grooves).
Regarding claim 11, Lawrence further discloses the coating and a reservoir, but does not disclose the thickness being more than 125% of the average coating. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed 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). The amount of coating in the reservoir is dependent on the dimensions of the band, the rifling of the firearm, etc.
Regarding claim 13, Lawrence further discloses an ammunition case (figure 3) and a bullet arranged therein (figure 3).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the bullet of Lawrence renders the method steps obvious since such would have been an obvious manner of making the bullet.
Regarding claim 18, Lawrence discloses the claimed invention and Lawrence considers selecting the thickness of the jacket to provide a desired outer diameter of the caliber to be fired but does not specifically disclose the thickness being more than 100 µm and less than 500 µm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the thickness greater than 100-500 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. As stated by Lawrence, it would be obvious to select a thickness based on a desired outer diameter of the projectile.
Claim(s) 3-8, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence, GB2575226 in view of Giannoni, US Patent No. 6,182,574.
Regarding claim 3, Lawrence discloses the a bullet (1) for ammunition comprising a metallic bullet body (21) including a tapered bullet front (figures 1 and 2), a narrow guide band (25b and 25c) adjoining the bullet front and adapted to engage in a land-and-groove profile of a firearm barrel (in as much as the applicant discloses the driving band engaging the rifling of a barrel, so does Lawrence. The applicant’s drawings show the driving band being covered by a coating and Lawrence shows a similar configuration and discloses engaging the rifling in lines 1-9 of page 10), and a frustoconical bullet tail (4 in figures 1 and 2) adjoining the guide band; and a surface coating (22) covering the bullet tail at least sectionally; however, Lawrence doesn’t specifically disclose the coating thickness increasing at least sectionally from the guide band towards the tail. Nonetheless, Giannoni teaches a jacketed bullet and specifically teaches the thickness of a jacket increasing in thickness from a forward end to a base of the projectile in 2:9-15 and in figure 5.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Lawrence to have a jacket which increases in thickness toward the tail end similar to that as taught by Giannoni with a reasonable expectation of success since Giannoni teaches that such a configuration was well known in the art at the time and increasing the thickness of the jacket can provide any number of benefits such as minimizing the weight contribution of the jacket by placing more thickness in areas subjected to more pressures and rifling and reducing thickness in leading areas, enhancing ballistic performance, producing a more reliable bullet, etc.
Regarding claim 4, Lawrence as modified by Giannoni further discloses the guide band defines a maximum outer diameter of the bullet (Lawrence figure 1 shows the bands define the maximum outer diameter of the bullet body) and is cylindrical (shown in figures 1 and 2 of Lawrence)
Regarding claim 5, Lawrence as modified by Giannoni further discloses an angle of inclination of the frustoconical bullet tail in relation to a longitudinal axis of the bullet is 0.5 to 5 degrees. Lawrence does not specifically disclose the angle of the bullet tail, but figures 1 and 2 clearly show the angle of inclination and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to define the angle of the bullet tail inclination to be between 0.5 and 5°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Defining the bullet tail inclination angle would have been obvious to try and yield predictable results such as predictable flight characteristics of the fired bullet.
Regarding claim 6, Lawrence discloses a bullet (1) for ammunition comprising a metallic bullet body (21) and a surface coating (22) forming at least sectionally an outer skin of the bullet and having a thickness; however, Lawrence the coating of Lawrence is disclosed as a low friction material such as molybdenum disulphide and does not specifically disclose the coating is plastic or the thickness of the coating. Nonetheless, Giannoni discloses a bullet with a coating and specifically teaches the equivalence of molybdenum disulphide and plastic coatings as suitable coatings in 2:17-24.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Lawrence to utilize a plastic coating similar to that as taught by Giannoni with a reasonable expectation of success since Giannoni teaches molybdenum disulphide and plastic coatings as art recognized equivalents and substituting one for the other would have been obvious for any number of reasons including, but not limited to, desired performance of the projectile, cost to manufacture, ease of manufacture, storage considerations, etc.
Further regarding claim 6, Lawrence considers selecting the thickness of the jacket to provide a desired outer diameter of the caliber to be fired but does not specifically disclose the thickness being more than 50-500 µm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the thickness 50-500 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. As stated by Lawrence, it would be obvious to select a thickness based on a desired outer diameter of the projectile.
Regarding claim 7, Lawrence as modified by Giannoni discloses the claimed invention except for the specific type of plastic. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select one of the plastics claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, the method of applying the plastic to the bullet does not serve to distinguish the structure in any way. The method step would be an obvious manner of making the bullet.
Regarding claim 12, Lawrence as modified by Giannoni further discloses the bullet body has an elongated frustoconical bullet tail which merges into a bullet bottom by a tail cone whose inclination with respect to a longitudinal axis of the bullet is greater than the inclination of the bullet tail (broadly, yet reasonably shown in figure 1 of Lawrence)
Regarding claim 17, Lawrence discloses the invention of claim 1, and a metallic bullet body (21) including a tapered bullet front (figures 1 and 2), a narrow guide band (25b and 25c) adjoining the bullet front and adapted to engage in a land-and-groove profile of a firearm barrel (in as much as the applicant discloses the driving band engaging the rifling of a barrel, so does Lawrence. The applicant’s drawings show the driving band being covered by a coating and Lawrence shows a similar configuration and discloses engaging the rifling in lines 1-9 of page 10), and a frustoconical bullet tail (4 in figures 1 and 2) adjoining the guide band; and a surface coating (22) covering the bullet tail at least sectionally; however, Lawrence doesn’t specifically disclose the coating thickness increasing at least sectionally from the guide band towards the tail. Nonetheless, Giannoni teaches a jacketed bullet and specifically teaches the thickness of a jacket increasing in thickness from a forward end to a base of the projectile in 2:9-15 and in figure 5.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Lawrence to have a jacket which increases in thickness toward the tail end similar to that as taught by Giannoni with a reasonable expectation of success since Giannoni teaches that such a configuration was well known in the art at the time and increasing the thickness of the jacket can provide any number of benefits such as minimizing the weight contribution of the jacket by placing more thickness in areas subjected to more pressures and rifling and reducing thickness in leading areas, enhancing ballistic performance, producing a more reliable bullet, etc.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth
Regarding claim 11, Booth discloses the coating being thicker in the grooves but does not specifically disclose how much thicker. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to define the thickness of the coating in the grooves as being 125% or more of the average coating thickness, 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) 1, 4-8, 10-11, 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx.
Regarding claim 1, Marx discloses a bullet (10b) for ammunition, comprising: a metallic bullet body (12 and 32); and a surface coating (48) with a thickness; however, Marx considers the thickness to be equal to the step 18 but does not specifically disclose the thickness being more than 100 µm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the thickness greater than 100 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Selecting a thickness greater than the 100 µm would have been obvious for any number of reasons including, but not limited to, improved ballistic performance, more reliable interface with barrel rifling, etc.
Regarding claim 4, Marx further discloses the guide band defines a maximum outer diameter of the bullet (Marx, figure 2D shows the bands define the maximum outer diameter of the bullet body) and is cylindrical (shown in figure 2D)
Regarding claim 5, Marx further discloses an angle of inclination of the frustoconical bullet tail in relation to a longitudinal axis of the bullet is 0.5 to 5 degrees. Marx does not specifically disclose the angle of the bullet tail, but figure 2D clearly show the angle of inclination and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to define the angle of the bullet tail inclination to be between 0.5 and 5°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Defining the bullet tail inclination angle would have been obvious to try and yield predictable results such as predictable flight characteristics of the fired bullet.
Regarding claim 6, Marx discloses a (10B) bullet for ammunition comprising a metallic bullet body (12 and 32) and a surface coating (interface 48) of plastic (page 9 lines 10-18 disclose the interface may be thermoplastic. Page 9 lines 10-18 clearly disclose the interface materials, but erroneously label the interface 18. The specification is clear that 18 is a step and therefore a material is not relevant, and interface is 48) forming at least sectionally an outer skin of the bullet and having and Marx disclose the thickness is selected based on the size of step 18; however, Marx does not specifically disclose the thickness being more than 50-500 µm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the thickness 50-500 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Marx further discloses the plastic is a thermoplastic plastic (page 9 lines 10-18)
Regarding claim 8, the method of applying the plastic to the bullet does not serve to distinguish the structure in any way. The method step would be an obvious manner of making the bullet.
Regarding claim 10, Marx further discloses the bullet body comprises a tapering bullet front (figure 2D) and a narrow guide band (74) adjoining the bullet front and adapted to engage in a land-and-groove profile of a firearm barrel (in as much as the applicant discloses the driving band engaging the rifling of a barrel, so does Marx. The applicant’s drawings show the driving band being covered by a coating and Marx shows a similar configuration and discloses engaging the rifling in lines 17-24 of page 7), wherein a shoulder is formed at a transition from the guide band to the bullet front, the shoulder forming a reservoir for the surface coating (shoulder forward of 74 is broadly, yet reasonably a reservoir and receives the coating as in figure 2D).
Regarding claim 11, Marx further discloses the coating and a reservoir, but does not disclose the thickness being more than 125% of the average coating. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed 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). The amount of coating in the reservoir is dependent on the dimensions of the band, the rifling of the firearm, etc.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the bullet of Marx renders the method steps obvious since such would have been an obvious manner of making the bullet.
Regarding claim 17, Marx further discloses the bullet body comprises a tapering bullet front (figure 2D) and a narrow guide band (74) adjoining the bullet front and adapted to engage in a land-and-groove profile of a firearm barrel (in as much as the applicant discloses the driving band engaging the rifling of a barrel, so does Marx. The applicant’s drawings show the driving band being covered by a coating and Marx shows a similar configuration and discloses engaging the rifling in lines 17-24 of page 7), and a frustoconical bullet tail adjoining the guide band (rear of figure 2D shows a frustoconical tail); and a surface coating (48) covering the bullet tail at least sectionally and having a thickness increasing at least sectionally from the guide band towards the tail (shown in figure 2D)
Regarding claim 18, Marx discloses the claimed invention and considers selecting the thickness of the jacket based on the size of the step 18 but does not specifically disclose the thickness being more than 100 µm and less than 500 µm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the thickness greater than 100-500 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Reasons for deciding a thickness have been sufficiently covered in other rejections and corresponding rationales.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
Given the broad nature of the claims, many references provided have relevance to the claims in either an anticipatory manner or obviousness manner and should be carefully considered. If the applicant wishes to discuss any of the references provided, the Examiner invites an interview to discuss the case.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERRICK R MORGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 5712726874. 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.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641