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 .
Claims 4-8 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim4-8 not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-3 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.
In claim 1, line 1, “lower caliber projectiles to be used in higher caliber ammunition” is vague and indefinite. It is normal in the art to define what caliber ammunition is by the caliber of the bullet or projectile. Therefore, it is not clear what limitations are intended by using caliber to first refer to projectiles and then to refer to ammunition.
In claim 1, line 3, it is not clear what defines “the ammunition”. Is this suppose to mean that a complete cartridge is encased by the adapter? If so, it is not clear how the structure could function. If not, it is not clear what structure is included in “the ammunition”.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because the reference number “20” has been used to refer to both the projectile adapter and the annular-shaped housing.
In claim 1, it is not clear exactly what defines the first caliber of the outer casing. Normally in the art, a casing’s caliber is a reference to the caliber of the bullet or projectile it holds. However, since this housing holds a projectile of a second caliber, it is not clear what structural limitation this entails.
In claim 1, line 9, “much smaller” is vague and indefinite. The term “much” is a relative term and there is no indication in the claims what limitations would correspond to the claimed term.
In claim 1, line 13, “much lower” is vague and indefinite. The term “lower” is a relative term and there is no indication in the claims what limitations would correspond to the claimed term.
In claim 1, line 15, “much higher” is vague and indefinite. The term “higher” is a relative term and there is no indication in the claims what limitations would correspond to the claimed term.
In claim 3, the term “modified barrel” is vague and indefinite since it is not clear what structural modifications are required since the only limitation is that the barrel has a chamber suitable for the projectile.
Claim 3 is also unclear and indefinite since the chamber is claimed as suitable for the projectile, but a chamber does not hold only the projectile but usually (and it appears to be the situation here) holds the entire cartridge. Therefore, the structural limitations are unclear.
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by WO2018083680.
WO2018083680 discloses a projectile adapter and barrel using it comprising all claimed elements including a Projectile adapter to allow lower caliber projectiles (24) to be used in higher caliber ammunition, (Page 11, lines 8-20); the aforementioned adapter comprises an outer casing (12) which also acts as a casing for the ammunition, and wherein the outer casing (12) has a containment volume of propellant, the aforementioned containment volume being positioned at the base of the projectile (24) (Page 11, Lines 8-20); the aforementioned outer casing (12) having a first caliber (CR1), and comprising a substantially annular- shaped housing (20) surrounding a projectile (24), wherein the aforementioned projectile (24) and the housing (20) have a second caliber (CR2) (Page 11, Lines 8-20); the second caliber (CR2) of said housing (20) and the projectile (24) being much smaller than the caliber (CR1) of the aforementioned outer casing (40) (CR2«CR1) then the caliber of the ammunition, wherein the aforementioned annular housing (20) is interposed between the outer casing (12) of the ammunition and the projectile (24); said adapter allowing the use of projectiles (24) of caliber (CR2) (CR2«CR1) much lower in ammunition (40) of a higher caliber (CR1) allowing the use of different types of projectiles (24) with the same weapon even if created for projectiles of a much higher caliber (CR2) (Page 12, Line 23-Page 13, Line 2). Also disclosed is a barrel 40 with chamber 42 for use with the adapter and ammunition.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018083680 in view of Schirneker (4,024,819).
WO2018083680 discloses a projectile adapter and barrel using it comprising most claimed elements including a Projectile adapter to allow lower caliber projectiles (24) to be used in higher caliber ammunition, (Page 11, lines 8-20); the aforementioned adapter comprises an outer casing (12) which also acts as a casing for the ammunition, and wherein the outer casing (12) has a containment volume of propellant, the aforementioned containment volume being positioned at the base of the projectile (24) (Page 11, Lines 8-20); the aforementioned outer casing (12) having a first caliber (CR1), and comprising a substantially annular- shaped housing (20) surrounding a projectile (24), wherein the aforementioned projectile (24) and the housing (20) have a second caliber (CR2) (Page 11, Lines 8-20); the second caliber (CR2) of said housing (20) and the projectile (24) being much smaller than the caliber (CR1) of the aforementioned outer casing (40) (CR2«CR1) then the caliber of the ammunition, wherein the aforementioned annular housing (20) is interposed between the outer casing (12) of the ammunition and the projectile (24); said adapter allowing the use of projectiles (24) of caliber (CR2) (CR2«CR1) much lower in ammunition (40) of a higher caliber (CR1) allowing the use of different types of projectiles (24) with the same weapon even if created for projectiles of a much higher caliber (CR2) (Page 12, Line 23-Page 13, Line 2).
WO2018083680 fails to disclose that the annular housing is made of plastic material. Schirneker teaches that it is known to form the sleeve of a projectile adaptor from a plastic material. Motivation to combine is the mere substitution of known materials to form an element while performing the same functions. To employ the teachings of Schirneker on the adaptor of WO2018083680 and have a plastic housing is considered to have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application’s filing.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Feese and Glasser are cited as being of interest since they disclose sub-caliber projectiles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. WOODROW ELDRED whose telephone number is (571)272-6901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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.
/J. Woodrow Eldred/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
JWE
