DETAILED ACTION
In the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/1/2025:
Claims 1-13 were rejected.
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 1/2/2026 has been entered:
Claims 3 and 9-13 are cancelled.
Claims 14-20 are new.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14-20 are active.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant only argues that the claims were amended to expedite prosecution, and does not provide any reasoning for why the claims are allowable over the prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the outer barrel surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because an outer barrel surface was not previously recited in the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 18, the preamble refers only to “the rifle barrel of claim 17”. However, claims 5 and 17, from which claim 18 depend, are directed to an assembly which comprises a rifle barrel. As such, the claim is of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Potter (US 10274273), herein ‘Potter’.
Regarding claim 1, Potter discloses a rifle barrel (10; Fig. 2) comprising:
a barrel tube (10; Figs. 2) extending between a rear end (17) and an exit end (14);
an inner barrel surface (Fig. 2) of the barrel tube defining a barrel bore (13); and
a gas port (11) in the barrel tube in communication with the barrel bore (Fig. 2);
wherein the gas port extends at an acute angle relative to the barrel bore (Fig. 2); and
wherein the gas port is configured to accommodate a gas tube (15).
Regarding claim 5, Potter discloses an assembly (Fig. 2) comprising:
a rifle barrel (10) comprising a gas port (11) in communication with a barrel bore (13), wherein the rifle barrel comprises a rear end (17) and an exit end (14); and
a gas tube (15) comprising a forward end with a front surface (Fig. 2), wherein the gas tube defines a gas tube bore formed through the front surface (Fig. 2);
wherein the gas tube is removably coupled with the gas port to allow compressed gas to exit the barrel bore and enter the gas tube bore through the front surface (Fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US 10274273) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, respectively, and further in view of Vuksanovich (US 8161864), herein ‘Vuksanovich’.
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 6-8, Potter does not expressly teach wherein the rear end of the rifle barrel is monolithically formed with a plurality of locking lug channel peaks and a plurality of lug channels configured to accommodate a plurality of locking lugs of a bolt.
Vuksanovich teaches a rifle barrel (31) capable of use with a fixed gas tube type system (col. 21 lines 43-44), comprising: a gas port (120) in communication with a barrel bore (34) of the rifle barrel, wherein a rear end (100) of the rifle barrel is monolithically formed (col. 7 lines 45-47: “bolt locking lugs 105 are formed in a… barrel extension 100 that is… integral with barrel 31”) with a plurality of locking lug channel peaks (105) and a plurality of lug channels (Fig. 13; channels defined between bolt locking lugs 105) configured to accommodate (col. 7 lines 41-43) a plurality of locking lugs (64) of a bolt (62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rear end of the rifle barrel of Potter to be monolithically formed with a plurality of locking lug peaks and channels which are configured to accommodate a plurality of locking lugs of a bolt as taught by Vuksanovich with a reasonable expectation of success in order to lock the breech to the rifle barrel prior to firing the rifle (Vuksanovich; col. 7 lines 41-44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15, 17, and 19-20 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.
Claims 16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(d), respectively, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art neither discloses, nor provides a teaching of obviousness, for a rifle barrel comprising: a rear end; an exit end; an inner barrel surface defining a barrel bore; and a gas port in communication with the barrel bore; wherein the gas port is at an acute angle to the barrel bore; wherein the gas port is configured to accommodate a gas tube; and either (a) wherein a portion of the gas tube is positioned within the gas port, as required by claim 14; or (b) further comprising a protruding nozzle extending away from an outer barrel surface, wherein the protruding nozzle is positioned within the gas tube, as required by claim 16.
Additionally, the closest prior art neither discloses, nor provides a teaching of obviousness, for an assembly comprising: a rifle barrel comprising a gas port in communication with a barrel bore, wherein the rifle barrel comprises a rear end and an exit end; and a gas tube comprising a forward end, wherein the forward end comprises a front surface, wherein the gas tube defines a gas tube bore formed through the front surface; wherein the gas tube is removably coupled with the gas port to allow at least a portion of compressed gas to exit the barrel bore and enter the gas tube bore through the front surface; and either (a) wherein the front surface of the gas tube is positioned within the gas port, as required by claim 17; (b) wherein a portion of the gas tube is positioned within the gas port, as required by claim 19; or (c) further comprising a protruding nozzle extending away from the rifle barrel, wherein the protruding nozzle is positioned within the gas tube bore, as required by claim 20.
Conclusion
Claims 3 and 9-13 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 16, and 18 are rejected. Claims 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are objected to.
Any prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BENJAMIN S GOMBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-4802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM 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.
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
/BENJAMIN S. GOMBERG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights