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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/29/2025 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/12/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The 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 Objections
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 8, the word “section” in line 2 should say “segment”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the tether being positionable within the recessed slot so as to be recessed beneath an outer diameter of the tail segment” in lines 1-2 is unclear as claimed. A diameter is defined as a straight line passing from side to side through the center of a body or figure. As such, it is impossible for the tether to be recessed beneath an outer diameter of the tail segment, as claimed. For examination, it was assumed that applicant intended to claim, for example, that the tether is recessed beneath an outer surface of the tail segment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manley et al. (US 10408588), herein ‘Manley’.
Regarding claims 1-2, Manley discloses an anchor (Figs. 1-11) for use in an entangling projectile (col. 1 lines 12-20), the anchor comprising:
a head segment (8) and a tail segment (3, 6) positionable relative to one another in at least a first, primary configuration (Figs. 1-6 and 8) and a second, displaced configuration (Fig. 7);
a shank segment (7) intermediate the head segment and tail segment (Figs. 3, 5, and 7-8);
a biasing element (1) associated with one or both of the head segment and the tail segment (Fig. 3), the biasing element operable to apply a restorative force to one or both of the head segment and the tail segment to return the respective segments into the primary configuration after being moved into the displaced configuration (Fig. 8; col. 2 lines 43-47); and
one or more hook segments (5; col. 3 lines 43-44) carried by the head segment (Figs. 1-8; col. 4 lines 24-26), the one or more hook segments operable to engage the person of a subject (15) about which the entangling projectile has been deployed (col. 3 lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 3, Manley discloses wherein the shank segment comprises the biasing element (Figs. 3, 5, and 7-8).
Regarding claim 4, Manley discloses wherein the biasing element is coupled to the head segment (Fig. 3; at the lower end of biasing element 1, via portion 201 of shank segment 7, which is threaded at portion 203 to head segment 8), and the tail segment is coupled to an opposing end of the biasing element (Fig. 3; at the upper end of biasing element 1, which engages portion 109 of tail segment 3, 6).
Regarding claim 6, Manley discloses wherein the biasing element comprises a coil spring (Figs. 3, 5, and 7-8; col. 3 lines 55-56).
Regarding claim 7, Manley discloses wherein each of the head segment and tail segment includes an extension portion, installable within an inner core of the coil spring (Figs. 7-8 and 10; head segment 8 and tail segment 3, 6 may each comprise a portion of shank 202 within spring 1).
Regarding claim 8, Manley discloses a tether (10, 12) coupled to and extending from the tail segment (Figs. 1-8; col. 3 lines 39-41).
Regarding claim 9, Manley discloses wherein the tail segment includes a recessed slot formed therein (Figs. 3, 5, and 7-8; into which component 10 is positioned), the tether being positionable within the recessed slot so as to be recessed beneath an outer surface of the tail segment (Figs. 3, 5, and 7-9).
Regarding claim 10, Manley discloses a second anchor coupled to an opposing end of the tether (col. 3 lines 39-41; drag device coupled to tether 10, 12).
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.
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.
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) 1-5 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norris et al. (US 2017/0276460) and further in view of G.F. Griffin et al. (US 0289909), herein ‘Griffin’.
Regarding claims 1-2, Norris discloses an anchor (14) for use in an entangling projectile (12, 120), the anchor comprising:
a head segment (Fig. 1, 7; portion 170 of anchor 14 which is opposite tether 16) and a tail segment (Fig. 1; portion of anchor 14 which is adjacent tether 16);
a shank segment (140, 160) extending between the head and tail segments (Fig. 7);
one or more hook segments (144), the one or more hook segments operable to engage the person of a subject about which the entangling projectile has been deployed (par. 73).
Norris does not expressly teach that the hook segments are carried by the head segment.
However, applicant discloses that it is known in the art for hook segments to be carried by either the head segment or the tail segment (page 12 lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the hook segment of Norris to be carried by the head segment with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Norris also does not expressly teach a biasing element associated with one or both of the head segment and the tail segment, the biasing element operable to apply a restorative force to one or both of the head segment and the tail segment, the restorative force tending to return the respective segments into a primary configuration from a displaced configuration.
Griffin teaches a line carrying projectile (A) comprising a head segment (b), a tail segment (c and/or h), a tether (f) extending from the tail segment (Fig. 2), and a biasing element (e; page 1 line 57) associated with one or both of the head segment and the tail segment (Figs. 1-2; page 1 lines 53-57), the biasing element operable to apply a restorative force to one or both of the head segment and the tail segment, the restorative force tending to return the respective segments into a primary configuration from a displaced configuration (page 1 lines 60-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the projectile of Norris to include a biasing element as taught by Griffin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable the projectile to fit bores of different sizes, which is a necessity to keep the projectile in its proper central position and ensure accuracy of flight (Griffin; page 1 lines 71-74).
Regarding claim 3, Griffin, as applied above, discloses wherein the shank segment comprises the biasing element (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Griffin, as applied above, discloses wherein the biasing element is coupled to the head segment, and the tail segment is coupled to an opposing end of the biasing element (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Griffin, as applied above, discloses wherein the biasing element is displaceable laterally, but is substantially unextendible and incompressible (page 1 lines 60-70).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Norris discloses a tether (16) coupled to and extending from the tail segment (Figs. 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Norris discloses wherein the tail segment includes a recessed slot (162) formed therein, the tether being positionable within the recessed slot so as to be recessed beneath an outer surface of the tail segment (Figs. 7-8; par. 81).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Norris discloses a second anchor (14; Figs. 1 and 3-4), coupled to an opposing end of the tether (Figs. 1 and 3-4).
Regarding claims 11-12, the modified Norris discloses wherein the second anchor includes:
a second head segment (Fig. 1, 7; portion 170 of anchor 14 which is opposite tether 16) and a second tail segment (Fig. 1; portion of anchor 14 which is adjacent tether 16);
a second shank segment (140, 160) extending between the second head segment and the second tail segment (Fig. 7); and
one or more second hook segments (144), the one or more second hook segments operable to engage the person of a subject about which the anchors and tether have been deployed (par. 73).
Norris also discloses that each of the first and second anchors of Norris are essentially identical (Figs. 1 and 3-4), but does not expressly teach that the second hook segments are carried by the second head segment.
However, applicant discloses that it is known in the art for hook segments to be carried by either the head segment or the tail segment (page 12 lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the hook segment of Norris to be carried by the head segment with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Norris also does not expressly teach a second biasing element associated with one or both of the second head segment and the second tail segment, the second biasing element operable to apply a restorative force to one or both of the second head segment and the second tail segment, the restorative force tending to return the respective segments into a primary configuration from a displaced configuration.
Griffin teaches a line carrying projectile (A) comprising a head segment (b), a tail segment (c and/or h), a tether (f) extending from the tail segment (Fig. 2), and a biasing element (e; page 1 line 57) associated with one or both of the head segment and the tail segment (Figs. 1-2; page 1 lines 53-57), the biasing element operable to apply a restorative force to one or both of the head segment and the tail segment, the restorative force tending to return the respective segments into a primary configuration from a displaced configuration (page 1 lines 60-70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the projectile of Norris to include a biasing element as taught by Griffin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable the projectile to fit bores of different sizes, which is a necessity to keep the projectile in its proper central position and ensure accuracy of flight (Griffin; page 1 lines 71-74).
Regarding claim 13, Griffin, as applied above, discloses wherein the second shank segment comprises the second biasing element (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Griffin, as applied above, discloses wherein the second biasing element is coupled to the second head segment, and the second tail segment is coupled to an opposing end of the second biasing element (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Griffin, as applied above, discloses wherein the second biasing element is displaceable laterally, but is substantially unextendible and incompressible (page 1 lines 60-70).
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) 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12264899 (herein “the ‘899 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application only recite broader limitations than those of the ‘899 patent. Said another way, claims 1-10 of the ‘899 patent recite a species of the invention, while claims 1-15 of the present application recite a genus of the invention. The result is that all of the limitations recited in the broader claims of the present application are anticipated by the limitations recited in the narrower claims of the ‘899 patent.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
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