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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 14-20) in the reply filed on 4/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious burden for the Examiner. This is not found persuasive for the reasons stated on page 4 of the restriction requirement mailed on 2/24/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibarguren et al. (US 10,359,255 B2) in view of Murguiondo (US 3,710,411).
Regarding claim 14, Ibarguren teaches a magnetic breechface assembly comprising an outer sleeve (outer sleeve 70), an inner sleeve concentrically positioned within the outer sleeve (inner sleeve 51 positioned within outer sleeve 70), wherein the inner sleeve and outer sleeve define a concentric sleeve assembly for receiving and sealing a primer. Ibarguren does not explicitly teach a magnet concentrically positioned within the outer sleeve and adjacent the inner sleeve.
Murguiondo teaches a permanent magnet (magnet 16) having a central opening through which a rod extends, wherein the magnet is arranged concentrically about the longitudinal axis of the rod and functions to magnetically retain and hold a firearm-related component in position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the permanent magnet of Murguiondo into the concentric sleeve assembly of Ibarguren adjacent the inner sleeve in order to magnetically retain and position a primer or ignition source, since Murguiondo teaches the known benefit of using a magnet positioned concentrically about a central axis to retain and hold a firearm-related component.
Regarding claim 15, Ibarguren and Murguiondo teach the limitations of claim 14. Murguiondo further teaches a disk-shaped permanent magnet having a central opening through which a rod extends. It would have been obvious to provide the magnet of the modified Ibarguren device in an annular configuration because Murguiondo teaches a magnet having a central opening arranged around a central axis, which is an annular geometry suitable for surrounding an inner component.
Regarding claim 16, Ibarguren teaches an outer sleeve, an inner sleeve concentrically positioned within the outer sleeve, the inner sleeve having first and second ends, a first bore segment extending inwardly from the first end, a second bore segment extending inwardly from the second end, the first bore segment having a diameter greater than the second bore segment, the first bore segment configured to receive a bolt, the second bore segment configured to receive a primer, and the first and second bore segments being coaxial. Ibarguren does not explicitly teach a magnet adjacent the first bore segment. Murguiondo teaches a permanent magnet arranged concentrically about a central axis and positioned adjacent a central opening. It would have been obvious to position the magnet adjacent the first bore segment of the Ibarguren assembly to magnetically position and retain a primer.
Regarding claim 18, Ibarguren and Murguiondo teach the limitations of claim 16. The recited axial or diametrical magnetic polarity represents a selection of known magnetic orientations and would have been an obvious matter of design choice depending upon the desired magnetic field distribution and retention force.
Regarding claim 19, Ibarguren and Murguiondo teach the limitations of claim 14. Ibarguren further teaches an actuating spring (spring 52) associated with the concentric sleeve assembly and functioning to bias movement of the assembly. Therefore, claim 19 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Ibarguren teaches a muzzleloading firearm including the modified breechface assembly discussed above. The combination of Ibarguren and Murguiondo therefore teaches or renders obvious the claimed muzzleloading firearm.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibarguren et al. (US 10,359,255 B2) in view of Murguiondo (US 3,710,411) and further in view of Fridley (2013/0185979 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ibarguren, Murguiondo, and the rationale applied to claim 16 teach the claimed assembly. Fridley teaches N52 neodymium magnets (par. 74) for firearm-related retention applications. It would have been obvious to utilize an N52 neodymium magnet as taught by Fridley because N52 neodymium magnets were known to provide strong magnetic retention in firearm-related environments.
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 MICHAEL D DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-3737 and whose email address is michael.david@uspto.gov*. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
*Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Applicant is welcome to file an electronic communication authorization (sb439) form at any time if he/she would like to communicate via e-mail:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdfWithout a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights