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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification fails to disclose “the open cells resemble a figure eight of two lobes, wherein each of the two lobes form a conduit to a lobe of a different figure eight” as required in claim 4.
The specification fails to disclose “wherein the heat transfer flutes transfer a liquid fluid” as required in claim 11.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, 18 and 19 recite the limitation “Additive Manufacturing” which should be --additive manufacturing--. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant should note that claims 2-17, and 20 are objected to because of their dependency from claims 1 and 19 respectively.
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 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the sponge-like" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glisovic et al (US 2020/0408477) [hereinafter Glisovic] in view of Nagy-Zambo et al (US 2022/0082345) [hereinafter Nagy-Zambo].
Regarding claim 1, Glisovic discloses a firearm barrel cooling system comprising (Abstract: “Methods of manufacturing metal, metal-matrix, metal-metal-matrix composite weapon barrels offer barrels with improved thermal performance”):
a heat transfer fin/element 158d/158e/158f (Fig. 2D-2F; applicant should note in this context a forward slash (/) most commonly indicates alternatives, meaning "or"; a heat transfer fin or heat transfer element would read in the claim) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
605
1199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of the heat transfer fins/elements 158d/158e/158f formed through additive manufacturing onto a barrel (Par. 0039: In accordance with other techniques, (e.g., additive manufacturing or sintering), the sleeve 154b may be consolidated from a powder that fuses together around the core 152b”; see also Par. 0072) of a heat conductive material (Par. 0030; 0033), wherein the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements together form a heat radiating sleeve 154 (Par. 0031: In the embodiments of FIGS. 2B-2F, the core 152(b-f) is shown as being joined to and enclosed within a sleeve 154(b-f)”); and
a plurality of heat transfer flutes 160d-160f defined by the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements and comprise heat transfer channels in the HRS (Par. 0032; Fig. 2D-2F)
which is interference fit along a barrel from a shank end to a muzzle end thereof (Par. 0070: “The first method involves using an interference fit, which may be achieved by shrink fitting, as described below. Here, interference implies that the core has a diameter that is larger than the opening in the sleeve so that the two parts interfere when assembled together”; 0083-0084)
Glisovic fails to disclose wherein the additive manufactured heat transfer fins/element is of a pattern of open cells comprising a foam-like heat conductive material, wherein each of the pattern of open cells form a conduit to a different open cell in the pattern.
Nagy-Zambo teaches that it is known in the art of barrel devices to additively manufacture a heat transfer fin/element 115, 110 with a pattern of open cells comprising a foam-like heat conductive material, wherein each of the pattern of open cells form a conduit to a different open cell in the pattern (Abstract; Par: 0095; Par. 0064: In some embodiments, as best shown in FIG. 4, body 110 may include vanes 115 that define channels 140. Vanes 115 may extend generally radially around bore 120. Vanes 115 may also extend helically along longitudinal axis of body 110. Vanes 115 may have a serpentine or undulating configuration (see, e.g., FIG. 2). Body 110, and specifically vanes 115, may be perforated so as to define a plurality of internal openings 144 to further increase flow of the muzzle gases through body 110, increase surface area of body 110, and decrease weight of muzzle device 100”; Par. 0066” “increasing the surface area of body 110 of muzzle device 100 increases the ability of body 110 to cool the gases produced by the firearm”).
PNG
media_image2.png
719
1254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Glisovic such that the barrel was to additively manufacture a pattern of open cells comprising a foam-like heat conductive material, wherein each of the pattern of open cells form a conduit to a different open cell in the pattern, in view of Nagy-Zambo, to obtain the desired result of decreasing the weight of the barrel, increasing flow of gasses through the body and increase surface area, thereby increasing the ability of the body to cool the gases produced by the firearm.
Regarding claim 2, Glisovic further discloses wherein the shank end of the HRS is configured to have an abrupt plurality of heat transfer flute starts and the muzzle end of the HRS is configured to have an abrupt plurality of heat transfer flute ends (Fig. 2D-2F).
Regarding claim 3, Glisovic further discloses wherein the shank end of the HRS is configured to have an abrupt plurality of heat transfer fin/element starts and the muzzle end of the HRS is configured to have an abrupt plurality of heat transfer fin/element ends (Fig. 2D-2F).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Glisovic and Nagy-Zambo, as applied to claim 1 above, fails to disclose/teach wherein a shape of the open cells resemble a figure eight of two lobes, wherein each of the two lobes form a conduit to a lobe of a different figure eight.
Absent of any affidavit showing unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the combination of Glisovic and Nagy-Zambo (as applied to claim 1 above) such that a shape of the open cells resemble a figure eight of two lobes, wherein each of the two lobes form a conduit to a lobe of a different figure eight, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. It would be expected for such a shape to decreasing the weight of the barrel, increasing flow of gasses through the body and increase surface area, thereby increasing the ability of the body to cool the gases produced by the firearm.
Regarding claim 5, Glisovic fails to discloses wherein the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements and the plurality of heat transfer flutes follow a helical configuration along the barrel.
Nagy Zambo teaches wherein the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements 115 and the plurality of heat transfer flutes follow a helical configuration along the barrel. (Par. 0064: “In some embodiments, as best shown in FIG. 4, body 110 may include vanes 115 that define channels 140. Vanes 115 may extend generally radially around bore 120. Vanes 115 may also extend helically along longitudinal axis of body 110.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Glisovic such that the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements and the plurality of heat transfer flutes follow a helical configuration along the barrel, in view of Nagy-Zambo, to obtain the desired result increasing surface area and enhancing the heat transfer efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Glisovic further discloses wherein a number of the plurality of heat transfer flutes is equal to a number of the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements (Fig. 2D-2F).
Regarding claim 7, Glisovic further discloses wherein the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements and the plurality of heat transfer flutes are longitudinally oriented with respect to a length of the barrel (Fig. 2D-2F).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Glisovic and Nagy-Zambo, as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the foam-like heat conductive material is a laser sintering of metal powder in the additive manufacturing (Nagy-Zambo: Par. 0091: “Additive manufacturing processes suitable for manufacturing the muzzle device include but are not limited to, selective laser melting (SLM), direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), or electron beam melting (EBM), among others. The muzzle device may be formed using a metal powder. In some embodiments, the metal powder may have an average diameter in a range of 0.5 μm to 5 μm”)
Regarding claim 9, Glisovic further discloses wherein the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements and the plurality of heat transfer flutes are radially oriented with respect to a length of the barrel (Par. 0034: “radial structures are also contemplated as an aspect of this disclosure. To that end, each of the longitudinal features of, for example, FIGS. 2C (fins 158f) and 4A-4E may alternatively be implemented as radial or annular structures (e.g., ring-shaped structures) that are placed at intervals along the length of the barrel to increase surface area and to otherwise enhance cooling properties”).
Regarding claim 10, Glisovic further discloses wherein the heat transfer flutes is capable of transferring a gaseous fluid. Applicant should note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Glisovic further discloses wherein the heat transfer flutes is capable of transferring a gaseous liquid fluid. Applicant should note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Glisovic further discloses wherein the foam-like heat conductive material comprises a material similar to the heat conductive barrel material (Par. 0049: “Exemplary materials that are suitable for use in the barrel core include… (12) titanium and titanium alloys”; Par. 0054 “suitable sleeve materials include… titanium”)
Regarding claim 13, Glisovic further discloses wherein the foam-like heat conductive material comprises a material that is different than the barrel material with a greater thermal conductivity (Par. 0049: “Exemplary materials that are suitable for use in the barrel core include… (12) titanium and titanium alloys”; Par. 0054 “suitable sleeve materials include aluminum”; applicant should note that aluminum has a much greater thermal conductivity than titanium, making it a better conductor of heat).
Regarding claim 14, Glisovic further discloses wherein an inside diameter of any single part of the HRS is smaller than any barrel outside dimension to allow the HRS to be interference fit on any portion of the barrel (Par. 0072-0084; Par. 0070: “interference implies that the core has a diameter that is larger than the opening in the sleeve so that the two parts interfere when assembled together”).
Regarding claim 15, Glisovic further discloses wherein the HRS is monolithic (Par. 0072-0084; Abstract: “Thermally conductive sleeve made from metal, metal-matrix composite (MMC) materials, also referred to as metal-matrix material”.
Regarding claim 17, Glisovic further discloses wherein a first heat radiating section is adapted to a first section (Breech section; proximal section) of the barrel and a second heat radiating section is adapted to a second section (barrel section; distal section); of the barrel (Fig. 3a-3d).
Regarding claim 18, Glisovic discloses a barrel cooling system (Abstract: “Methods of manufacturing metal, metal-matrix, metal-metal-matrix composite weapon barrels offer barrels with improved thermal performance”): comprising:
a heat transfer fin/element 158d/158e/158f (Fig. 2D-2F; applicant should note in this context a forward slash (/) most commonly indicates alternatives, meaning "or"; a heat transfer fin or heat transfer element would read in the claim) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
605
1199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of the heat transfer fins/elements 158d/158e/158f formed through additive manufacturing onto a barrel ((Par. 0039: In accordance with other techniques, (e.g., additive manufacturing or sintering), the sleeve 154b may be consolidated from a powder that fuses together around the core 152b”; see also Par. 0072) of a heat conductive material (Par. 0030; 0033), wherein the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements together form a heat radiating sleeve 154 (Par. 0031: In the embodiments of FIGS. 2B-2F, the core 152(b-f) is shown as being joined to and enclosed within a sleeve 154(b-f)”);
wherein an inside diameter of any single part of the HRS is smaller than any barrel outside dimension to allow the HRS to be interference fit on any portion of the barrel (Par. 0070: “The first method involves using an interference fit, which may be achieved by shrink fitting, as described below. Here, interference implies that the core has a diameter that is larger than the opening in the sleeve so that the two parts interfere when assembled together. The extent of the desired amount of interference depends on the difference in thermal expansion coefficients between the parts to be joined”); and
a plurality of heat transfer flutes 160d-160f defined by the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements and comprise heat transfer channels in the HRS (Par. 0032; Fig. 2D-2F) which is interference fit along a length of the barrel (Par. 0070).
Glisovic fails to disclose wherein the additive manufactured heat transfer fins/element is of a pattern of open cells comprising a foam-like heat conductive material, wherein each of the pattern of open cells form a conduit to a different open cell in the pattern.
Nagy-Zambo teaches that it is known in the art of barrel devices to additively manufacture a heat transfer fin/element 115, 110 with a pattern of open cells comprising a foam-like heat conductive material, wherein each of the pattern of open cells form a conduit to a different open cell in the pattern (Abstract; Par: 0095; Par. 0064: In some embodiments, as best shown in FIG. 4, body 110 may include vanes 115 that define channels 140. Vanes 115 may extend generally radially around bore 120. Vanes 115 may also extend helically along longitudinal axis of body 110. Vanes 115 may have a serpentine or undulating configuration (see, e.g., FIG. 2). Body 110, and specifically vanes 115, may be perforated so as to define a plurality of internal openings 144 to further increase flow of the muzzle gases through body 110, increase surface area of body 110, and decrease weight of muzzle device 100”; Par. 0066” “increasing the surface area of body 110 of muzzle device 100 increases the ability of body 110 to cool the gases produced by the firearm”).
PNG
media_image2.png
719
1254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Glisovic such that the barrel was to additively manufacture a pattern of open cells comprising a foam-like heat conductive material, wherein each of the pattern of open cells form a conduit to a different open cell in the pattern, in view of Nagy-Zambo, to obtain the desired result of decreasing the weight of the barrel, increasing flow of gasses through the body and increase surface area, thereby increasing the ability of the body to cool the gases produced by the firearm.
Claims 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Glisovic and Nagy-Zambo, as applied to claims 1-15 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Lagenbeck (US 2018/0120044).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Glisovic discloses a method of making a firearm barrel (abstract) comprising:
printing a plurality of the heat transfer fins/elements 158d/158e/158f formed through additive manufacturing onto a barrel ((Par. 0039: In accordance with other techniques, (e.g., additive manufacturing or sintering), the sleeve 154b may be consolidated from a powder that fuses together around the core 152b”; see also Par. 0072) of a heat conductive material (Par. 0030; 0033), wherein the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements together form a heat radiating sleeve 154 (Par. 0031: In the embodiments of FIGS. 2B-2F, the core 152(b-f) is shown as being joined to and enclosed within a sleeve 154(b-f)”);
PNG
media_image1.png
605
1199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein a plurality of heat transfer flutes 160d-160f defined by the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements and comprise heat transfer channels in the HRS (Par. 0032; Fig. 2D-2F)
Glisovic fails to disclose wherein the additive manufactured heat transfer fins/element is of a pattern of open cells comprising a foam-like heat conductive material, wherein each of the pattern of open cells form a conduit to a different open cell in the pattern and wherein the HRS is monolithic with the barrel from a shank end to a muzzle end thereof.
Nagy-Zambo teaches that it is known in the art of barrel devices to additively manufacture a heat transfer fin/element 115, 110 with a pattern of open cells comprising a foam-like heat conductive material, wherein each of the pattern of open cells form a conduit to a different open cell in the pattern (Abstract; Par: 0095; Par. 0064: In some embodiments, as best shown in FIG. 4, body 110 may include vanes 115 that define channels 140. Vanes 115 may extend generally radially around bore 120. Vanes 115 may also extend helically along longitudinal axis of body 110. Vanes 115 may have a serpentine or undulating configuration (see, e.g., FIG. 2). Body 110, and specifically vanes 115, may be perforated so as to define a plurality of internal openings 144 to further increase flow of the muzzle gases through body 110, increase surface area of body 110, and decrease weight of muzzle device 100”; Par. 0066” “increasing the surface area of body 110 of muzzle device 100 increases the ability of body 110 to cool the gases produced by the firearm”).
PNG
media_image2.png
719
1254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Glisovic such that the barrel was to additively manufacture a pattern of open cells comprising a foam-like heat conductive material, wherein each of the pattern of open cells form a conduit to a different open cell in the pattern, in view of Nagy-Zambo, to obtain the desired result of decreasing the weight of the barrel, increasing flow of gasses through the body and increase surface area, thereby increasing the ability of the body to cool the gases produced by the firearm.
The combination of Glisovic and Nagy Zambo, as applied to claim 19 above, fails to disclose wherein the HRS and the barrel together are monolithic.
Lagenbeck teaches that it is known in the art to provide a HRS and the barrel together as monolithic (Fig. 29; Par. 0084).
PNG
media_image3.png
722
1429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the combination of Glisovic and Nagy Zambo such that the a HRS and the barrel together as monolithic, in view of Lagenbeck, to obtain the desired result of simplified development and deployment, and increased structural integrity and durability.
Regarding claim 20, Glisovic further discloses printing the plurality of heat transfer fins/elements in one of a longitudinal orientation, a radial orientation and a spiral orientation with respect to a length of the HRB (Fig. 2D-2F; Par. 0034; “It is noted that while the above-mentioned embodiments depict longitudinal structures that extend over at least a portion of the barrel's length, radial structures are also contemplated as an aspect of this disclosure. To that end, each of the longitudinal features of, for example, FIGS. 2C (fins 158f) and 4A-4E may alternatively be implemented as radial or annular structures (e.g., ring-shaped structures)”).
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4269. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM MST M-F.
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.
/JOSHUA E FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641