DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are active.
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/13/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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) 6-7, 10-11, and 13-14 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 6 further recites the limitation “the faceplate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a faceplate was not previously recited.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation “the body” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a body was not previously recited.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the body” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a body was not previously recited.
Claim 13 further recites the limitation “the interior volume” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since an interior volume was not previously recited.
Claim 14 further recites the limitation “the faceplate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a faceplate was not previously recited.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US10890404) herein ‘Peterson’ and further in view of Presz et al. (US8522662) herein ‘Presz’.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Peterson discloses a monolithic suppressor (100; Fig. 15; col. 8 lines 4-20), comprising:
one end (108);
a breech end (104) distal to the one end (Fig. 1);
a plurality of cooling channels (220), wherein each of the plurality of cooling channels has a first opening (1702) proximate the breech end and a second opening (226) proximate the one end;
an outer ring (106) spanning from the breech end to the one end (Fig. 15);
a longitudinal wall spanning from the breech end to the one end (Fig. 15; longitudinal wall separating baffles 1505 from baffle tubes 220), wherein the longitudinal wall is disposed radially inward of the outer ring (Fig. 15);
a plurality of radially oriented walls (Figs. 15-18; side walls of baffle tubes 220 which radially define the baffle tubes 220) extending between the longitudinal wall and the outer ring, wherein the plurality of cooling channels is disposed between the longitudinal wall, the outer ring, and the radially oriented walls (Figs. 15-18);
a central bore (112, 103, 212) extending from the breech end to the one end (Fig. 15); and
a plurality of baffles (1505) surrounding the central bore (Fig. 15).
Peterson does not expressly teach a cone shaped nozzle disposed at the one end.
Presz teaches a suppressor (100; Figs. 8-10) comprising a housing (102) defining an outer ring (Figs. 8-10) at a muzzle end (115) of which is a cone-shaped nozzle (124; Figs. 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the one end of the suppressor of Peterson to comprise a cone-shaped nozzle as taught by Presz with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce near isentropic expansion of the muzzle gases out of the suppressor (Presz; col. 7 lines 40-43).
Regarding claims 8-9, the modified Peterson discloses wherein the plurality of baffles comprises a continuous ribbon structure having a helical geometry extending around the central bore (Fig. 6; col. 13 lines 24-60) in a range of about 3 revolutions to about 20 revolutions (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Peterson discloses wherein the suppressor comprises a first section (Fig. 15; defined by tubular housing 102) having a first diameter (Fig. 15) and a second section (Fig. 15; defined by barrel attachment portion with threading 306) having a second diameter (Fig. 15) that is less than the first diameter (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 12, Presz, as applied above, discloses wherein the cone shaped nozzle (124) includes a muzzle chamber at a muzzle end of the suppressor (Figs. 8-10).
Regarding claim 13, Presz, as applied above, discloses wherein the suppressor incudes a first portion including the muzzle chamber and a second portion including an interior volume (Figs. 8-10), but does not expressly teach wherein a volumetric ratio of the interior volume relative to the muzzle chamber is about 85%:15%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the volumetric ratio of the interior volume relative to the muzzle chamber of the modified Peterson to be about 85%:15% with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Presz, as applied above, discloses wherein the cone shaped nozzle (124) is formed by the outer ring extending from a faceplate to a muzzle end (115) of the suppressor (Figs. 8-10).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 10890404) in view of Presz, Jr. et al. (US 8522662) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bundy et al. (US 2020/0224989), herein ‘Bundy’.
Regarding claims 6-7, the modified Peterson does not expressly teach a flash hider extending from a faceplate into a muzzle chamber within the cone shaped nozzle, wherein the flash hider comprises from 2 prongs to 6 prongs extending into the muzzle chamber, and wherein the central bore passes between the prongs.
Bundy teaches a firearm barrel (40) mounted device (12) comprising a body (18, 66) within which are a plurality of baffles (62, 64), the forward portion of the body having a muzzle chamber (Fig. 6), wherein a flash hider (22) extends from a faceplate (66) of the body and includes 2 to 6 prongs (24) extending into the muzzle chamber (Fig. 6) and surrounding a central bore (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cone shaped nozzle of the modified Peterson to have a flash hider in a muzzle chamber therewithin as taught by Bundy with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of flash signature reduction (Bundy; par. 83).
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 10890404) in view of Presz, Jr. et al. (US 8522662) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the Singhal et al. Non-Patent Literature (NPL) document, herein ‘Singhal’.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Peterson does not expressly teach wherein the cone shaped nozzle forms a venturi angle having a range from about 155 degrees to about 170 degrees within the suppressor.
Singhal teaches that the optimized value for the converging angle of a Venturi type air restrictor was found, using numerous simulations in SolidWorks Flow Simulation, to be 18 degrees (abstract; last 5 lines), which corresponds to a venturi angle of 162 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cone shaped nozzle of the modified Peterson to form a venturi angle of 155 to 170 degrees as taught by Singhal with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve the maximum possible mass flow rate by minimizing the pressure loss through the cone shaped nozzle (Singhal; conclusion; lines 1-3), and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2nd 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12276467. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least the broader independent claims of the present application appear to be entirely encompassed by the narrower independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 12276467.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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 monolithic suppressor, comprising: a cone shaped nozzle disposed at one end; a breech end distal to the cone shaped nozzle; a plurality of cooling channels, wherein each of the plurality of cooling channels has a first opening proximate the breech end and a second opening proximate the cone shaped nozzle; an outer ring spanning from the breech end to the cone shaped nozzle; a longitudinal wall spanning from the breech end to the cone shaped nozzle, wherein the longitudinal wall is disposed radially inward of the outer ring; a plurality of radially oriented walls extending between the longitudinal wall and the outer ring, wherein the plurality of cooling channels is disposed between the longitudinal wall, the outer ring, and the radially oriented walls; a central bore extending from the breech end to the cone shaped nozzle; a plurality of baffles surrounding the central bore; and a plurality of internal channels disposed radially inward of the cooling channels; wherein the plurality of internal channels has a helical geometry extending around the central bore, as required by dependent claim 2.
Conclusion
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 on (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