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
Claim 29 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 21 April 2026.
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.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "said one or more spacers" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 15-19, 21-24, 30-34, and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by World Intellectual Property Document WO 2013/140182 A1 by Graham (Graham).
Regarding claim 1, Graham discloses a pellet projectile for a firearm (See at least Figures 9-11) comprising: a nose comprising a first half and a second half held together by a fore and an aft fracture point that forms a hollow interior (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated); one or more sub-projectiles positioned within said hollow interior (Contained within elements 168); and a rear assembly (120).
Regarding claim 2, Graham further discloses a retaining ring (112) securing said nose to said rear assembly (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 3, Graham further discloses wherein said nose further comprises a groove to engage said retaining ring (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 4, Graham further discloses wherein said rear assembly further comprises a groove to engage said retaining ring (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 5, Graham further discloses wherein said nose further comprises a Spitzer shape (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 7, Graham further discloses wherein said nose is constructed of a metal, a metal alloy, a polymer, or a combination of metal, metal alloy, and polymer (See at least Page 5 Lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 8, Graham further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles further comprises spherical pellets (See at least Page 4 Lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 9, Graham further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles are arranged in an axially inline stack configuration within said nose (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 10, Graham further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles are axially aligned and of a clearance/slip fit within said nose and said rear assembly to minimize contact pressure between said one or more sub-projectiles and said nose and said rear assembly to reduce angular acceleration transmission from firing said pellet projectile through a rifled barrel (See Figures, clearly illustrated and understood).
Regarding claim 15, Graham discloses a pellet projectile for a firearm comprising: a nose comprising a first half and a second half held together by a fore and an aft fracture point that forms a hollow interior; one or more sub-projectiles positioned within said hollow interior; one or more spacers; and a rear assembly (See at least Figures 9-11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 16, Graham further discloses a retaining ring securing said nose to said rear assembly (112).
Regarding claim 17, Graham further discloses wherein said nose further comprises a groove to engage said retaining ring (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 18, Graham further discloses wherein said rear assembly further comprises a groove to engage said retaining ring (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 19, Graham further discloses wherein said nose further comprises a Spitzer shape (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 21, Graham further discloses wherein said nose is constructed of a metal, a metal alloy, a polymer, or a combination of metal, metal alloy, and polymer (See at least Page 5 Lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 22, Graham further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles further comprises spherical pellets (See at least Page 4 Lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 23, Graham further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles are arranged in an axially inline stack configuration within said nose (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 24, Graham further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles are axially aligned and of a clearance/slip fit within said nose and said rear assembly to minimize contact pressure between said one or more sub-projectiles and said nose and said rear assembly to reduce angular acceleration transmission from firing said pellet projectile through a rifled barrel (See Figures, clearly illustrated and understood).
Regarding claim 30, Graham discloses a pellet projectile for a firearm comprising: a nose comprising a first half and a second half held together by a fracture point that forms a hollow interior; one or more sub-projectiles positioned within said hollow interior; and a rear assembly (See at least Figures 9-11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 31, Graham further discloses a retaining ring securing said nose to said rear assembly (112).
Regarding claim 32, Graham further discloses wherein said nose further comprises a groove to engage said retaining ring (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 33, Graham further discloses wherein said rear assembly further comprises a groove to engage said retaining ring (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 34, Graham further discloses wherein said nose further comprises a Spitzer shape (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 36, Graham further discloses wherein said nose is constructed of a metal, a metal alloy, a polymer, or a combination of metal, metal alloy, and polymer (See at least Page 5 Lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 37, Graham further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles further comprises spherical pellets (See at least Page 4 Lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 38, Graham further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles are arranged in an axially inline stack configuration within said nose (See at least Figure 11, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 39, Graham further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles are axially aligned and of a clearance/slip fit within said nose and said rear assembly to minimize contact pressure between said one or more sub-projectiles and said nose and said rear assembly to reduce angular acceleration transmission from firing said pellet projectile through a rifled barrel (See Figures, clearly illustrated and understood).
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11-15, 21, 25-28, 30, and 40-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,207,050 issued to Sorensen (Sorensen).
Regarding claim 1, Sorensen discloses a pellet projectile for a firearm comprising: a nose comprising a first half and a second half held together by a fore and an aft fracture point that forms a hollow interior; one or more sub-projectiles positioned within said hollow interior; and a rear assembly (See at least Figures 1-2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 7, Sorensen further discloses wherein said nose is constructed of a metal, a metal alloy, a polymer, or a combination of metal, metal alloy, and polymer (See at least Col. 3 Lines 54-67).
Regarding claim 11, Sorensen further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles are constructed of lead, steel, copper, tungsten, or a lead, steel, copper, or tungsten alloy (See at least Col. 6 Line 64-Col. 7 Line 20).
Regarding claim 12, Sorensen further discloses wherein said rear assembly further comprises a sub-projectile retainer (54).
Regarding claim 13, Sorensen further discloses wherein said sub-projectile retainer further comprises a hemispherical depression equal to or slightly oversized relative to an outer diameter of said sub-projectile (See at least Figure 2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 14, Sorensen further discloses wherein said rear assembly is constructed from copper, copper alloy, or brass (See at least Col. 3 Lines 54-67).
Regarding claim 15, Sorensen discloses a pellet projectile for a firearm comprising: a nose comprising a first half and a second half held together by a fore and an aft fracture point that forms a hollow interior; one or more sub-projectiles positioned within said hollow interior; one or more spacers; and a rear assembly (See at least Figures 1-2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 21, Sorensen further discloses wherein said nose is constructed of a metal, a metal alloy, a polymer, or a combination of metal, metal alloy, and polymer (See at least Col. 3 Lines 54-67).
Regarding claim 25, Sorensen further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles are constructed of lead, steel, copper, tungsten, or a lead, steel, copper, or tungsten alloy (See at least Col. 6 Line 64-Col. 7 Line 20).
Regarding claim 26, Sorensen further discloses wherein said one or more spacers further comprise one or more hemispherical depressions equal to or slightly oversized relative to an outer diameter of said sub-projectile (See at least Figures 1-2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 27, Sorensen further discloses wherein said one or more spacers further comprise a bore (See at least Figures 1-2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 28, Sorensen further discloses wherein said one or more spacers is constructed of a metal, metal alloy, or a polymer (See at least Col. 8 Lines 36-54).
Regarding claim 30, Sorensen discloses a pellet projectile for a firearm comprising: a nose comprising a first half and a second half held together by a fracture point that forms a hollow interior; one or more sub-projectiles positioned within said hollow interior; and a rear assembly (See at least Figures 1-2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 40, Sorensen further discloses wherein said one or more sub-projectiles are constructed of lead, steel, copper, tungsten, or a lead, steel, copper, or tungsten alloy (See at least Col. 6 Line 64-Col. 7 Line 20).
Regarding claim 41, Sorensen further discloses wherein said rear assembly further comprises a sub-projectile retainer (54).
Regarding claim 42, Sorensen further discloses wherein said sub-projectile retainer further comprises a hemispherical depression equal to or slightly oversized relative to an outer diameter of said sub-projectile (54).
Regarding claim 43, Sorensen further discloses one or more spacers, wherein said one or more spacers further comprise a bore (See at least Figure 2, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 44, Sorensen further discloses wherein said rear assembly is constructed from copper, copper alloy, or brass (See at least Col. 3 Lines 54-67).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 20, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham.
Regarding claim 6, Graham discloses the claimed invention in the specific embodiment, illustrated in figures 9-11, utilized in the rejection, but does not disclose a cannelure in the aforementioned embodiment.
Graham, in a separate embodiment, further discloses wherein said nose further comprises a cannelure to accept a case crimp during assembly (28/728, See at least Figures 25-27, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the separate embodiments disclosed by Graham. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to locate the projectile within the case of the cartridge assembly, ensure it is held securely, and allow the projectile holder to be crimped within the case as taught by Graham at Page 37 Lines 27-31.
Regarding claim 20, Graham discloses the claimed invention in the specific embodiment, illustrated in figures 9-11, utilized in the rejection, but does not disclose a cannelure in the aforementioned embodiment.
Graham, in a separate embodiment, further discloses wherein said nose further comprises a cannelure to accept a case crimp during assembly (28/728, See at least Figures 25-27, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the separate embodiments disclosed by Graham. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to locate the projectile within the case of the cartridge assembly, ensure it is held securely, and allow the projectile holder to be crimped within the case as taught by Graham at Page 37 Lines 27-31.
Regarding claim 35, Graham discloses the claimed invention in the specific embodiment, illustrated in figures 9-11, utilized in the rejection, but does not disclose a cannelure in the aforementioned embodiment.
Graham, in a separate embodiment, further discloses wherein said nose further comprises a cannelure to accept a case crimp during assembly (28/728, See at least Figures 25-27, clearly illustrated).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the separate embodiments disclosed by Graham. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to locate the projectile within the case of the cartridge assembly, ensure it is held securely, and allow the projectile holder to be crimped within the case as taught by Graham at Page 37 Lines 27-31.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 Form for a listing of applicable prior art references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights