Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that “..retrained...” should be “…restrained….” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Simpson (US 2,748,662). Simpson discloses a firearm utilizing an adjustable gas block comprising: a receiver (inherent); a barrel (12) connected to the receiver; a gas operating system; a nozzle (21) having a front end, back end, and internal void (30) with means to communicate with the barrel and gas operating system through a plurality of ports (34-36) which are spaced about the back end; a gas block housing (14) having a receiving channel with a portion of the barrel contained therein, a cylindrical bore which runs parallel to the axis of the barrel located above the receiving channel with a port in communication with the barrel, the cylindrical bore contains the back end of the nozzle therein, wherein the gas block housing is a ventless gas block housing that does not vent excess gas from the adjustable gas block into atmosphere around the gas block housing; a rotatable knob is utilized which both receives and rotates the nozzle within the cylindrical bore, said knob has a means to retain and rotate (45 and 47) the nozzle within the cylindrical bore.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Moore (US 1,738,501). discloses a firearm utilizing an adjustable gas block comprising: a receiver (inherent); a barrel connected to the receiver; a gas operating system; a nozzle (6) having a front end, back end, and internal void with means to communicate with the barrel and gas operating system through a plurality of ports (Fig 2) which are spaced about the back end; a gas block housing having a receiving channel with a portion of the barrel contained therein, a cylindrical bore which runs parallel to the axis of the barrel located above the receiving channel with a port in communication with the barrel, the cylindrical bore contains the back end of the nozzle therein, wherein the gas block housing is a ventless gas block housing that does not vent excess gas from the adjustable gas block into atmosphere around the gas block housing; a rotatable knob (14) is utilized which both receives and rotates the nozzle within the cylindrical bore, said knob has a means to retain and rotate the nozzle within the cylindrical bore.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Noveske (US 7,856,917). Noveske (Fig 1) discloses a firearm utilizing an adjustable gas block comprising: a receiver (Fig 5); a barrel connected to the receiver; a gas operating system; a nozzle (2) having a front end, back end, and internal void with means to communicate with the barrel and gas operating system through a plurality of ports (20 and 21) which are spaced about the back end; a gas block housing (10) having a receiving channel with a portion of the barrel contained therein, a cylindrical bore which runs parallel to the axis of the barrel located above the receiving channel with a port in communication with the barrel, the cylindrical bore contains the back end of the nozzle therein, wherein the gas block housing is a ventless gas block housing that does not vent excess gas from the adjustable gas block into atmosphere around the gas block housing; a rotatable knob (3) is utilized which both receives and rotates the nozzle within the cylindrical bore, said knob has a means to retain and rotate the nozzle within the cylindrical bore.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Barrett (US 7,891,284).
Re claims 6-8, In an indirect gas operated firearm (Fig 4) having a receiver, a stock connected to an end of the receiver, a barrel connected to a front of the receiver, a handguard connected to the barrel and a gas operating system, wherein the improvement comprises: a gas block (24) with means to secure about the barrel, the gas block housing has a barrel receiving channel with a portion of the barrel therein, the housing also has a piston receiving channel with a portion of the piston contained therein; and said piston receiving channel has a void which houses an adjustment knob (for 80), the adjustment knobs is indexable into four positions (standard, oversized, undersized, and off; see c. 3, l. 59-63); and a piston (Fig 6, 80) is in operational communication with the barrel and the operating system, the piston communicates with the barrel by a series of ports located about its periphery, by rotating the adjustment knob the port of appropriate size is selected and put into communication with the indirect gas operating system and barrel, one port provides a standard flow of gas, one port provides a reduced flow of gas, one port provides a higher than standard flow of gas; a fourth position of adjustment is provided by the adjustment knob where no port is present on the piston thereby preventing the communication of the barrel with the indirect gas operating system (see c. 3, l. 59-63).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moore (US 1,738,501) in view of Barrett (US 7,891,284). Moore discloses the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the rotatable knob provides four positions of adjustment. Barrett teaches an adjustable gas block wherein the rotatable knob provides four positions of adjustment so that an aperture appropriate for the circumstances may be selected (c. 3, l. 55+). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in that art to modify the system in Moore to have the limitations of this claim. The motivation (as taught by Barrett) would be so that an aperture appropriate for the circumstances may be selected. 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.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simpson (US 2,748,662) in view of Barrett (US 7,891,284). Simpson discloses the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the nozzle includes a circumferential non-ported portion between the ports, and in a fourth indexed position of the rotatable knob the non-ported portion of the nozzle is aligned with the port of the cylindrical bore so that no gas flows from the barrel to the gas operating system.
Barrett teaches an adjustable gas block wherein the nozzle includes a circumferential non-ported portion between the ports, and in a fourth indexed position of the rotatable knob the non-ported portion of the nozzle is aligned with the port of the cylindrical bore so that no gas flows from the barrel to the gas operating system so that an aperture appropriate for the circumstances may be selected (c. 3, l. 55+). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in that art to modify the system in Simpson to have the limitations of this claim. The motivation (as taught by Barrett) would be so that an aperture appropriate for the circumstances may be selected. 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.
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 6-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,875,614. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the current application are broader in scope and therefore fully encompass the subject matter claimed in U.S. Patent No. 8,875,614.
Claims 6-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,170,061. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the current application are broader in scope and therefore fully encompass the subject matter claimed in U.S. Patent No. 9,170,061.
Claims 6-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,029,107. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the current application are broader in scope and therefore fully encompass the subject matter claimed in U.S. Patent No. 11,029,107.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5-11-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the examiner’s reference to Barrett (US 7,891,284) does not disclose at least claim 6 because Barrett does not disclose an indirect gas operating system and that the adjustable knob has four positions; the examiner disagrees. Barrett clearly discloses an indirect gas operating system (see Fig 1 and c. 2, l. 55+ discussing operating rod and piston). Barret also clearly discloses that the adjustable knob has four positions (see c. 3, l. 55+).
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 REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7010. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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.
/REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights