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 .
Response to Amendment
Pursuant to the applicant’s response filed 23 June 2026, the amendments to the claims have been entered into the application. By this amendment, no claims have been added or cancelled, and claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. The rejections are maintained by the examiner and the arguments are addressed below.
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) 1-3, 5-10, 13-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by World Intellectual Property Office Document WO 2020/123878 by Parker (Parker).
Regarding claim 1, Parker discloses an assembly for directing gas to an action of a firearm (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated), comprising: a barrel (533) defining a bore configured to guide a projectile (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated), the barrel having a plurality of barrel gas ports (539) and a groove formed therein (541), each of the plurality of barrel gas ports being in fluid communication between the bore and the groove (See at least Paragraph 0037); and at least one gas block (511) configured to align with an axial location of the groove along a length of the barrel (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated), the at least one gas block having a gas block gas port (521) formed therein and configured to fluidically communicate with the plurality of barrel gas ports via the groove (See at least Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 2, Parker further discloses wherein the groove has a width in an axial direction along the length of the barrel, wherein the width is greater than a diameter of the plurality of barrel gas ports (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 3, Parker further discloses wherein the groove extends around an entirety of a circumference of the barrel (See at least Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 5, Parker further discloses wherein the plurality of barrel gas ports are positioned at radially spaced positions about a circumference of the barrel (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 6, Parker further discloses wherein the barrel comprises a single piece barrel (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 7, Parker further discloses wherein the single piece barrel is formed as the single piece barrel from a block of material having no discontinuities along the bore (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 8, Parker discloses a barrel (533) for a firearm (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated), the barrel comprising: an inner surface defining a bore configured to guide a projectile; an outer surface (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated); a groove (541) defined in the outer surface about at least a portion of a circumference of the barrel (See at least Paragraph 0038); and a plurality of barrel gas ports defined between the inner surface and the groove (539), wherein each of the plurality of barrel gas ports has an entrance defined by the inner surface of the barrel, wherein the plurality of barrel gas ports are radially spaced about an axis of the barrel (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 9, Parker further discloses wherein the groove has a width in an axial direction along a length of the barrel, wherein the width is greater than a diameter of the plurality of barrel gas ports (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 10, Parker further discloses wherein the groove extends around an entirety of the circumference of the barrel (See at least Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 13, Parker further discloses wherein the plurality of barrel gas ports are radially spaced regularly about the circumference of the barrel (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 14, Parker further discloses wherein the barrel comprises a single piece barrel (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 16, Parker further discloses a firearm comprising the barrel of claim 8 (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 17, Parker discloses an assembly for a firearm (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated), the assembly comprising: a gas block (511) defining a gas block gas port (521); and a barrel (533) defining a bore (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated) the barrel comprising: means for permitting gas to exit the bore via multiple flow paths at a single axial location along the bore (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated); and means for combining the multiple flow paths upstream of the gas block gas port (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 18, Parker further discloses wherein the barrel is a single piece barrel formed from a block of material and having no discontinuities along the bore (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 19, Parker further discloses wherein the means for combining the multiple flow paths upstream of the gas block gas port comprise means for facilitating semi-automatic operation of the firearm (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 20, Parker further discloses wherein the barrel further defines a step from a first diameter of the barrel to a second diameter of the barrel, wherein an internal diameter of the gas block corresponds to the first diameter, and where the gas block is configured to slide over the barrel at the first diameter and stops at the step to the second diameter to align the gas block gas port with the means for combining the multiple flow paths (See at least Figures 30-31, clearly illustrated).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent 817,197 issued to Smith (Smith).
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses a barrel (4) for a firearm (See at least Figure 1a, clearly illustrated), the barrel comprising: an inner surface defining a bore configured to guide a projectile; an outer surface (See at least Figure 1a, clearly illustrated); a groove (18) defined in the outer surface about at least a portion of a circumference of the barrel (See at least Page 2 Lines 1-30); and a plurality of barrel gas ports defined between the inner surface and the groove (19), wherein each of the plurality of barrel gas ports has an entrance defined by the inner surface of the barrel (See at least Figure 1a, clearly illustrated), wherein the plurality of barrel gas ports are radially spaced about an axis of the barrel (See at least Figure 1a, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 15, Smith further discloses wherein the plurality of barrel gas ports are spaced apart longitudinally along an axis of the barrel (See at least Figure 1a, clearly illustrated).
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) 4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Parker discloses the claimed invention except for the groove not extending around an entirety of a circumference of the barrel. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the groove extend partially around the circumference of the barrel, since applicant has not disclosed that having such an arrangement solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a groove that extends around the entire circumference of the barrel.
Regarding claim 12, Parker discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of barrel gas ports are radially spaced irregularly about the circumference of the barrel. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have irregular spacing of the plurality of barrel gas ports about the circumference of the barrel, since applicant has not disclosed that having such an arrangement solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with regularly spacing of the plurality of barrel gas ports.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,365,945 or 11,747,101 in view of Parker or Smith. The claims in the current application are broader in scope and fully encompassed by the issued claims with some minor exceptions that are clearly disclosed in the identified references. 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 noted teachings of the issued patents with the teachings of the references. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to make a more complete firearm assembly and/or utilize known alternative arrangements of components having a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Parker does not disclose the barrel having a plurality of barrel gas ports and a groove formed therein as found in claim 1 or similar details in the other independent claims, rather Parker discloses a barrel extension, the examiner offers the following: The claims are not specific enough to negate the use of a barrel extension to teach the claimed elements once the device is assembled as shown in at least Figures 30-31. Additionally, the applicant’s specification does not provide a narrowed definition of the term barrel that would prevent the reference from being used to reject the claimed elements as indicated by the examiner. The examiner notes that the definition of “barrel” is the tube on a firearm through which the bullet/projectile is propelled, which would mean that the assembled elements shown in Parker would meet the claimed limitation of a “barrel”. Therefore, the rejections are deemed proper and maintained.
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 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