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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings are not generally discernable for what is said to be shown, as they represent black-and-white reproductions of color images. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall (GB 566164 A).
In reference to claim 1, Hall discloses a belt feed mechanism for a firearm configured to receive a disintegrating ammunition belt comprising links and rounds of ammunition at a feed side of the belt feed mechanism and eject the links at an ejection side of the belt feed mechanism (figure 2, feed side 3, exit side 6), said belt feed mechanism comprising:
a feed paddle (11) configured to advance the disintegrating ammunition belt into the belt feed mechanism from the feed side of the belt feed mechanism as the feed paddle rotates about a longitudinal axis of the belt feed mechanism;
a paddle spring (12) configured to store energy, bias the feed paddle to rotate, and rotate the feed paddle when the feed paddle is able to rotate;
and a drive pawl wheel (any one of elements 15, 16, or 19) configured to provide energy to the paddle spring for storage by the paddle spring.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (2436370) in view of Brevets Aero-Mechaniques S.A. (GB 712890 A; “Brevets”).
In reference to claim 1, Alexander discloses a belt feed mechanism for a firearm configured to receive an ammunition belt comprising links and rounds of ammunition at a feed side of the belt feed mechanism (figure 2, feed side 36), said belt feed mechanism comprising:
a feed paddle (38 or 39) configured to advance the disintegrating ammunition belt into the belt feed mechanism from the feed side of the belt feed mechanism as the feed paddle rotates about a longitudinal axis of the belt feed mechanism;
a paddle spring (42) configured to store energy, bias the feed paddle to rotate, and rotate the feed paddle when the feed paddle is able to rotate;
and a drive pawl wheel (54) configured to provide energy to the paddle spring for storage by the paddle spring.
Thus, Alexander discloses the claimed invention, except fails to explicitly disclose an ejection side of the belt feed mechanism where links are ejected. Further, Alexander fails to explicitly disclose that the ammunition belt for which the firearm is configured is a disintegrating ammunition belt. However, Alexander does explicitly disclose that the belt feed mechanism receives an ammunition belt (column 3, lines 15-24).
Brevets teaches it is known to configure a feed mechanism, similar to that of Alexander, to receive a disintegrating ammunition belt and to provide the feed mechanism with an ejection side (figures 2-4, dust cover 59 an ejection port at the ejection side), in order to allow the links of the belt to exit said mechanism after rounds of ammunition are separated therefrom.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the feed mechanism of Alexander to receive a disintegrating ammunition belt and to provide said feed mechanism with an ejection side, in order to allow the links of the belt to exit said mechanism after rounds of ammunition are separated therefrom.
In reference to claim 3, Alexander in view of Brevets makes obvious the belt feed mechanism, wherein: the drive pawl wheel and the feed paddle are configured to rotate in the same direction about the longitudinal axis of the belt feed mechanism as the firearm is cycled (Alexander: figure 2);
the drive pawl wheel comprises a plurality of teeth extending outwardly from the longitudinal axis of the belt feed mechanism (Alexander: figure 2, the drive pawl wheel can be considered the combination of elements 48 and 54, with teeth about the periphery of element 48); and
the belt feed mechanism further comprises an anti-reversing latch (Alexander: element 49) configured to sequentially engage each tooth of the teeth the drive pawl wheel and limit rotation of the drive pawl wheel opposite the feed paddle as the firearm is cycled (Alexander: figure 2).
Claims 2, 4-6, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander in view of Brevets and further in view of Patel (2016/0305725).
In reference to claim 2, Alexander in view of Brevets makes obvious the belt feed mechanism, wherein the drive pawl wheel is configured to be rotated about the longitudinal axis of the belt feed mechanism by an operating group of the firearm when the firearm cycles (figures 2-4: operating group is at least elements 23+27+28+64+65+68; column 3, lines 47-67; column 4, lines 24-50);
the drive pawl wheel interlocks with the feed paddle such that the drive pawl wheel and feed paddle are limited to a predetermined limit of angular travel relative to one another (figure 2: the feed paddle can be considered to include elements 38+39+46+48, wherein the feed paddle interlocks with the drive pawl wheel 54 via serrations 52; the drive pawl wheels angular travel relative to the feed paddle is limited to the arc-distance defined by the smooth, ungeared portion of element 54 that extends from one end of gear segment 55 to an opposite end thereof); and
the paddle spring is pre-tensioned such that the paddle spring provides a predetermined minimum amount of bias pressure to the feed paddle relative to the drive pawl wheel (column 3, lines 37-46) and the drive pawl wheel is either:
held at 0 degrees of rotation relative to the feed paddle prior to being advanced to the predetermined limit of angular travel relative to the feed paddle by an operating group of the firearm when the operating group of the firearm moves from a rear position of the operating group to a forward position of the operating group (column 3, lines 46-67); or
held at the predetermined limit of angular travel relative to the feed paddle prior to being advanced to 0 degrees relative to the feed paddle by the operating group of the firearm when the operating group of the firearm moves from the rear position of operating group to the forward position of the operating group.
Thus, Alexander in view of Brevets makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the drive pawl wheel is configured to be rotated by a bolt carrier group of the firearm when the firearm cycles, as claimed (i.e., wherein the operating group is a bolt carrier group). However, it is noted that Alexander discloses that operating rod (28) passes into the receiver and serves to unlock the breechbolt, albeit without disclosing how (column 2, lines 41-55).
Patel teaches it is known to integrally connect an operating rod of a belt-fed firearm with a bolt carrier to form a bolt carrier group, in order to lock/unlock (cycle) the breechbolt (action) of the firearm (at least figure 2, operating rod 1-5, bolt carrier 26, breechbolt 205). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrally connect the operating rod (28) of Alexander with a bolt carrier assembly to form a bolt carrier group, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to lock/unlock (cycle) the breechbolt of the firearm in a known manner.
In reference to claim 4, Alexander in view of Brevets and further in view of Patel (the modified Alexander) makes obvious the claimed invention (Alexander: bump pawl 56+65; forward movement of operating rod 28 is considered to the left in figure 2).
In reference to claim 5, the modified Alexander makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above, except for a round stop integral with a dust cover, as claimed (see Alexander, figure 2: paddle spring 42 is a torsion spring; feed port 36). However, Brevets further teaches it is known to provide the ejection side of a belt-feed mechanism with a round stop integral with a dust cover, as claimed, in order to separate rounds of ammunition from the belt and protect against the ingress of dust and debris (figures 2-4: round stop 50+51, which is integral to dust cover 59 via elements 53 and 56). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the feed mechanism with a round stop integral with a dust cover, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to separate rounds of ammunition from the belt and protect against the ingress of dust and debris.
In reference to claim 6, the modified Alexander makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above (see citation of Alexander; also see Alexander, figure 2, each feed paddle 38 and 39 includes a plurality of teeth, as claimed; see Brevets, figures 2-4), which shows that teeth of a feed paddle 32a bring each cartridge to bear against the cartridge stop so as to remove each cartridge from its respective belt link before said link is ejected).
In reference to claim 11, the modified Alexander makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the references to claim 2 (also see above-reference to claim 1, Alexander in view of Brevets; also see Alexander, figure 1, barrel 10, receiver 11, breechbolt inside receiver per column 2, lines 30-33; bolt carrier inside receiver, taught by Patel, as set forth above). The modified Alexander, as set forth above, does not teach a fire control group. However, Patel further teaches it is known to provide a fire control group supported by a receiver, in order to provide a means for initiating and/or actuating the firing of said firearm (figures clearly show a trigger and handgrip supported by a receiver; a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the machine gun of Patel as including a fire control group).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the firearm of the modified Alexander with a fire control group, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means for initiating and/or actuating the firing of said firearm.
In reference to claim 12, the modified Alexander makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 2.
In reference to claim 13, the modified Alexander makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 3.
In reference to claim 14, the modified Alexander makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the references to claim 4.
In reference to claim 15, the modified Alexander makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 5.
In reference to claim 16, the modified Alexander makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached Notice of References Cited. The relevance of each reference is made clear by at least the abstract thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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 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 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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights