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 .
The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 3/26/2026. Claim 21 has been amended. New claim 30 has been added. Therefore claims 1-5, 8, 12-17, 19-22, 24-26 and 29-30 are pending and addressed below.
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 5, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poongsan (KR 102171895 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Poongsan discloses a plant for the automated production of ammunition including a plurality of ammunition parts and a plurality of production stations, and a conveying device configured to convey the plurality of ammunition parts to and/or from the production stations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0027]–[0030], Figures 1 and 2a–2d). Poongsan further discloses that the conveying device is formed by a rail/slide arrangement in which a rail defines a conveying track of the plant and a plurality of slides are guided by the rail and configured to hold ammunition parts during conveyance (paragraphs [0027]–[0031]). The disclosed rail corresponds to the claimed rail defining a conveying track, and the disclosed slides correspond to the claimed plurality of carriages configured to be guided by the rail and to hold the plurality of ammunition parts.
Regarding claim 5, Poongsan discloses that each slide is form-fittingly coupled to and guided on the rail by rollers and guide elements, such that the slide is interlocked with and movable along the rail in a rolling and sliding manner (Poongsan, paragraph [0031], Figures 2c and 2d). The slide further partially encompasses the rail via the roller arrangement, corresponding to the claimed carriage being coupled to the rail in an interlocking manner and guided in a rolling, sliding, and/or encompassing configuration.
Regarding claim 21, Poongsan discloses a conveying device for a plant for automated ammunition production, wherein the conveying device comprises a rail defining a conveying path of the plant and a plurality of slides guided by the rail, the slides being configured to receive and hold at least some of the ammunition parts during conveyance (Poongsan, paragraphs [0027]–[0031], Figures 1 and 2a–2d). The disclosed rail/slide arrangement corresponds to the claimed rail/carriage arrangement including a rail defining a conveying track and a plurality of carriages configured to receive ammunition parts.
Regarding claim 29, Poongsan discloses a method for the automated production of ammunition in which a plurality of ammunition parts are conveyed by a conveying device formed by a rail/slide arrangement to respective production stations, and ammunition is produced by the production stations from the conveyed ammunition parts (Poongsan, paragraphs [0027]–[0036], Figures 1 and 2a–2d). The disclosed conveying and producing steps correspond to the claimed method steps of conveying ammunition parts by a conveying device including a rail and plurality of carriages and producing ammunition by the production stations.
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.
In the alternative claims 1-5, 8, 12-17,19-22, 24-26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Poongsan (KR 102171895 B1).
Poongsan discloses the claimed invention except he may not explicitly disclose the exact recited arrangement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the same arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Poongsan discloses that the slides are actively driven along the rail to transport ammunition parts between production stations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0028]–[0031]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the drive system to individually drive the slides with different movement characteristics along the conveying track in order to accommodate differing processing requirements at different stations, as individualized motion control is a known design consideration in automated conveying systems.
Regarding claim 3, Poongsan discloses guided and driven movement of slides along the rail using mechanical drive and guidance components (Poongsan, paragraphs [0031] and [0033]). It would have been obvious to implement the disclosed driven rail system using a linear motor comprising coils and permanent magnets, including equipping the slide with at least one permanent magnet, as an alternative drive technology providing precise positioning and control.
Regarding claim 4, Poongsan discloses that the slides are driven and positioned along the conveying rail for precise alignment at production stations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0031]–[0033]). It would have been obvious to provide a linear spindle drive mounted on the conveying device to drive and/or position the slide without play, as a known mechanical alternative for achieving accurate positioning.
Regarding claim 8, Poongsan discloses moving slides into defined processing positions and holding them stationary during processing operations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0028] and [0031]). It would have been obvious to configure the drive system to move the slides into a rest position using different movement characteristics, such as different acceleration or speed profiles, to optimize handling of ammunition parts.
Regarding claim 12, Poongsan discloses filling ammunition components with propellant charges and subsequently transporting the slides after filling (Poongsan, paragraphs [0032]–[0034]). It would have been obvious to approach a rest position before filling with a different movement characteristic than after filling, in order to account for changes in mass and safety considerations.
Regarding claim 13, Poongsan discloses cyclic feeding and discharging of slides at production stations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0028]–[0033]). Selecting a specific time interval for feeding and/or discharging a slide to a production station represents an optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 14, Poongsan discloses standstill of slides at production stations during manipulation of ammunition parts (Poongsan, paragraphs [0031]–[0033]). Selecting a standstill time within a particular millisecond range represents an optimization of processing dwell time.
Regarding claim 15, Poongsan discloses standstill of slides at quality testing stations while inspection is performed (Poongsan, paragraphs [0033]–[0035]). Selecting a standstill time within the claimed range represents an obvious optimization of inspection duration.
Regarding claim 16, Poongsan discloses controlled movement and positioning of slides along the rail using a drive system (Poongsan, paragraphs [0028]–[0031]). Configuring a control system to actuate the slides at specified speeds and accelerations represents an obvious implementation detail of automated transport systems.
Regarding claim 17, Poongsan discloses that the slides are held on the rail by rollers and guide surfaces that constrain movement relative to the rail (Poongsan, paragraph [0031], Figures 2c and 2d). It would have been obvious to replace or supplement the roller-based holding mechanism with a magnetic holding force oriented horizontally to secure the slide to the rail, as an alternative known holding technique.
Regarding claim 19, Poongsan discloses a rail/slide conveying system for ammunition production (Poongsan, paragraphs [0027]–[0036]). It would have been obvious to configure the rail/slide arrangement as a magnetic levitation system in order to reduce friction and wear, as magnetic levitation is a known alternative in conveying technology.
Regarding claim 22, Poongsan discloses driving slides along the rail to transport ammunition parts between stations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0028]–[0031]). It would have been obvious to individually drive the slides with freely programmable movement characteristics and to operate the slides synchronously or asynchronously to improve process flexibility.
Regarding claim 24, Poongsan discloses controlled movement of slides after filling with propellant charge (Poongsan, paragraphs [0032]–[0034]). It would have been obvious to move a filled slide into a rest position using a jerk-limited movement characteristic to reduce dynamic loading on the filled ammunition part.
Regarding claim 25, Poongsan discloses application of driving forces to slides sufficient to move ammunition parts along the conveying rail (Poongsan, paragraphs [0028]–[0031]). Selecting a specific force magnitude per slide represents an obvious design choice based on load requirements.
Regarding claim 26, Poongsan discloses guided movement of slides along the rail using contact-based guidance elements (Poongsan, paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to guide a slide in a magnetically floating manner as an alternative to contact-based guidance in order to reduce friction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 21 overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Accordingly, the rejection of claims 21-22 and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, 21, and 29 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poongsan (KR 102171895 B1). Claims 1-5, 8, 12-17, 19-22, 24-26, 29, and 30 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Poongsan (KR 102171895 B1).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Poongsan is merely directed to tracer charging operations and does not disclose a plant configured to assemble ammunition from multiple distinct ammunition parts, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 merely recites “a plant for the automated production of ammunition including a plurality of ammunition parts” and does not require complete end-to-end cartridge assembly, simultaneous handling of all ammunition components, or assembly of a finished cartridge from all possible ammunition components. Poongsan discloses automated ammunition manufacturing operations including transport and processing of ammunition components between production stations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0027]-[0036]). Therefore, Poongsan discloses the claimed automated production of ammunition including a plurality of ammunition parts.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Poongsan fails to disclose a rail/carriage arrangement including a plurality of discrete carriages guided by a rail, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Poongsan discloses a conveying arrangement including a track/rail structure and multiple movable transport members/slides guided by the track and configured to transport ammunition components between stations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0027]-[0031], Figures 1 and 2a-2d). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “carriages” read on Poongsan’s movable slides/modules. Claim 1 does not require the carriages to be independently removable, independently powered, decentralized, asynchronously controlled, or structurally separated from the conveying architecture in the manner argued by applicant.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Poongsan merely describes a synchronized transfer mechanism rather than a plurality of discrete carriages distributed along and guided by a rail, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not exclude synchronized movement of multiple transport members. The claims broadly recite a plurality of carriages guided by a rail and configured to hold ammunition parts. Poongsan’s movable slides/modules satisfy these limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Regarding applicant’s argument that modifying Poongsan to provide a rail/carriage arrangement would require substantial redesign and reconstruction, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 does not require bodily incorporation of applicant’s disclosure into Poongsan, nor does it require wholesale reconstruction of the reference. Rather, the rejection relies on the obviousness of implementing known conveyor and transport control variations within automated manufacturing systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that individualized transport control and varying movement characteristics for transported workpieces were known techniques for improving throughput, synchronization, handling precision, and process flexibility in automated manufacturing systems.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Poongsan fails to disclose or suggest individually driving separate carriages with different movement characteristics as recited in claim 2, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Poongsan discloses actively driven transport members/slides that move ammunition components between stations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0028]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to configure the transport members to experience different speed and/or acceleration profiles in order to optimize throughput, reduce impact loading, accommodate different processing operations, improve synchronization with station timing requirements, and improve handling of sensitive ammunition components. Varying movement characteristics including speed profiles, acceleration profiles, and movement timing were well known control techniques in automated manufacturing systems.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Poongsan’s synchronized track-based system teaches away from independently driven carriages, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Poongsan does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage individualized motion control. The mere disclosure of synchronized movement does not teach away from implementing known individualized transport control techniques.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Poongsan fails to disclose or suggest different movement characteristics transferred independently to the plurality of carriages as recited in claim 30, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independently applying different speed and/or acceleration profiles to transported workpieces represents a known and predictable control variation in automated conveying systems. It would have been obvious to independently apply different movement profiles to Poongsan’s transport members in order to optimize handling characteristics and production efficiency.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the claimed invention achieves increased production capacity, improved reliability, improved reject rates, and improved flexibility, Examiner respectfully disagrees that such alleged advantages overcome the pending rejections. Applicant has not provided objective evidence establishing that the alleged advantages are unexpected, commensurate in scope with the claims, or attributable to limitations not already taught or suggested by the prior art.
Claims 1, 5, 21, and 29 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poongsan (KR 102171895 B1).
Claims 1-5, 8, 12-17, 19-22, 24-26, 29, and 30 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Poongsan (KR 102171895 B1).
Regarding claim 30, Poongsan discloses actively driven transport members/slides for transporting ammunition components between production stations (Poongsan, paragraphs [0028]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to configure the transport members such that different movement characteristics comprise different speed and/or acceleration profiles independently transferred to the plurality of transport members in order to optimize throughput, synchronization, handling precision, and processing efficiency, as varying speed and acceleration profiles for conveyed workpieces were well known control techniques in automated manufacturing systems.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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