DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 DEC 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner appreciates the edification regarding the sabot of claim 6. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
In response to the argument that US 1,450,558 to Maze dit Delaiare Maze (“Maze”) discloses “an intentional lack of sealing at the projectile’s base, allowing gases to escape from the initial position of the projectile (see Maze, page 1, lines 28-37 and page 2, lines 38-52),” the examiner cannot disagree. However, that Maze includes other structure not recited in the claims is irrelevant because the claims do not exclude other elements, i.e., claim 1 does not recite “consisting of,” which would prevent the use of Maze at least as far as Fig. 1 is concerned, and because Maze otherwise meets the structure of claim 1. Furthermore, immediately below Applicant’s second citation to Maze, such begins disclosing the embodiment of Fig. 2, “In a modified construction, I may suppress the nozzle opening to the outside through the walls of the cannon…and provide in their place annular stages of ranges of chambers a4,” page 2, lines 53-57. Thus, Fig. 2 of Maze is completely free of nozzle openings and gases escaping to the rear and would also suffice as anticipatory of the original claim 1. It is noted that the same reference characters that are applicable to both embodiments are used in the description of Fig. 2 and that the rejection cited Fig. 1, thusly, “e.g., Fig. 1,” thus putting Applicant on notice that this embodiment is not the only one that may apply and that the examiner may have erred in citing the correct drawing figure. Thus, even were it held that reliance on Fig. 1 was improper, Fig. 2 would apply equally well and was not excluded in the rejection.
In response to the argument that US 2,394,249 to McGahey, Jr. (“McGahey”) “also does not disclose either a nozzle that bring the propulsion gases to a supersonic speed,” again the examiner cannot disagree. However, there is no requirement for such in an obviousness-type rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In response to the argument that McGahey “mentions a fast-burning [composition] and a slow-burning composition … [such] … are part of the priming mixtures located at the projectile’s base, not the main propellant charge itself” (emphasis in original), the examiner must disagree at least with Applicant’s interpretation. The limitations of claim 5, now in claim 1 by amendment, are, “wherein the propellant charge comprises a priming composition, a fast-burning charge and a slow-burning charge.” The recitation fails to require a “main propellant charge,” but rather, a propellant charge including elements that McGahey fairly discloses. That such are not identical to Applicant’s drawings or written description is irrelevant because the recited structure is taught. From Fig. 27 of McGahey it is clear that powder 97 and charges 99, 100 occupy the same rear end of the projectile, which suffices as a propellant charge. Along this line, “a priming composition” need not be that which Applicant discloses but can be broadly yet reasonably construed as any composition involved in the priming operation, which the disclosed cellulose preparation 101 fairly meets, as it protects the fast- and slow-burning charges until such are intended to be used and is consumed by the burning thereof. See page 3, right column, ll. 6-16, describing the cellulose preparation 15, which is otherwise identical to that of 101. See MPEP § 2111 regarding broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
For these reasons, the rejections must stand as modified only to address claim amendments.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maze in view of McGahey.
Re: claim 1, Maze discloses the claimed invention including an ammunition and weapon system (“GUN,” Title), wherein a projectile b, e.g., Fig. 2, (see also page 1, line 77, e.g., “1:77”) is thrust by a propellant gas coming from a combustion of a propellant charge, 1:75+, inside a barrel (forward of tube a3 and attached thereto by threads, apparently) closed at a first end by a breech a0, a2 and open at a second end thereof (as shown/inherent), wherein at least a part of the propulsion gases generated by the combustion of the propellant charge passes through a nozzle (see previous action) bringing the propulsion gases to a supersonic speed* (*see below), placed in the barrel, between the breech and the projectile (shown), and including a converging portion (nearest callout a), a throat (portion at transition to a1) and a diverging portion a1 one after the other toward the open second end of the barrel (shown), except for wherein the propellant charge comprises a priming composition, a fast-burning charge and a slow-burning charge. See also the relevant disclosure with respect to the embodiment of Fig. 2, noted above.
McGahey teaches a projectile, e.g., Fig. 27, including a propellant charge, inter alia, 97, comprising a priming composition 101, a slow-burning charge 99 and a fast-burning charge 100 in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of more fully expending propellant powders, page 6, col. 1, ll. 32-65.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Maze as taught by McGahey in order to more fully expend the propellant charge with a reasonable expectation of success because McGahey further discloses this arrangement results in ‘the burning of the propellant charge continues throughout the length of the barrel until the projectile leaves the muzzle,’ page 1, col. 1, lines 48-55. Further rationale: 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.
Re: claim 2, Maze further discloses wherein the nozzle is formed inside a chamber a which is removable from the barrel (via noted threading) so as to make possible the loading of the propellant charge by the rear end, 1:75-77, and the loading of the projectile by the front end of the chamber, 1:77-79. Given the apparent threaded engagement between elements, that portion described is removable as claimed. Regardless, it has been held that the recitation that an element is “capable of” performing a function, here, e.g., “removable” being the equivalent of “capable of being removed,” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. Thus, even were such not apparently removable, per se, it can be removed by use of tools, which also suffices to meet the recitation.
Re: claim 3, Maze fairly discloses the claimed invention as applied above. That is, the chamber being removable and including the propellant charge and the projectile broadly yet reasonably meets the recitation of an ammunition grouping the two before firing.
Re: claim 4, Maze further discloses wherein the projectile is positioned relative to the barrel before the firing by matching between the shape of a base of the projectile (all as disclosed and/or shown) shows the projectile base matching a shoulder-like cutout in the tube a3, which suffices. From “or” onward in the claim can be ignored because the first clause has been met.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mare in view of McGahey, further in view of US 2,423,453 to Howe.
Re: claim 6, Maze in view of McGahey discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for wherein at least one portion of the barrel has a conical cross-section and in that the projectile is associated with at least one sabot degradable during displacement there in the conical cross-section portion of the barrel.
Howe teaches an ammunition and weapon system, e.g., Fig. 1, wherein a projectile 12 (see also, e.g., Fig. 3) is thrust by a propellant gas coming from combustion of a propellant charge 8 inside a barrel 2 closed at one end (inherent in firearms disclosed, e.g., behind/leftward of rearmost portion of cartridge case 10) and open at a muzzle (nearest callout 4), wherein at least one portion of the barrel has a conical cross-section 16 and in that the projectile is associated with at least one sabot 30 degradable during displacement there in the conical cross-section portion of the barrel, 3:31-36, 62-66, in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of “imparting a high velocity to the projectile,” 1:11-14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the base reference, Maze, as taught by Howe in order to impart a high velocity to the projectile with a reasonable expectation for success because Howe further discloses solving the problem of having both ‘a large area exposed to the propulsion gases during the projectiles travel through the barrel, yet minimizing the cross-sectional area of the projectile through air,’ 1:17-38. See also the further rationale provided above.
Re: claim 7, Howe fairly teaches wherein the sabot is made of a material (“soft plastic mass,” 3:38) deposited on the barrel (inherent in the burning thereof: see 1:51-54) as [the projectile] moves therethrough, in order to form a thermal protection layer of the [barrel] which is then discharged. With respect to the claim, any plastic material burning within the barrel must inherently include some portion thereof that is deposited on the barrel (whether individually or as a product of burning propellant combining therewith), which suffices for the first portion of the claim. With respect to the last clause, any such material deposited on the barrel inherently forms a thermal protection layer thereof—whether the amount of thermal protection is negligible is irrelevant. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), above.
Re: claim 9, Howe further teaches use of shellac, 3:44-48, and camphor, 3:53-58.
Re: claim 8, in light of the identical materials being disclosed by Howe, the metes and bounds of the discharge of the protection layer is fairly met. That is, Howe clearly discloses using identical materials for or with the sabot as Applicant discloses. Thus, such must inherently meet the requirements of claim 8.
Re: claim 10, Howe fairly teaches the conical cross-section (claim 6, above) and further such being followed by a portion of rifled cross-section 20, the projectile being guided by the sabot in the conical section of the barrel and by direct contact between the projectile and the barrel in the [rifled cross-section portion] of the barrel, 2:61-3:15. Whether direct contact is explicitly articulated, such is the norm between projectiles and the rifling disclosed.
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
19-Feb-26