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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the recitation “break down position” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what structural or operational position constitutes the claimed “break down position.” The claims fail to define whether the “break down position” corresponds to a disassembly position, unlocked position, retracted position, maintenance position, or some other position.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the recitation “a groove circumnavigating a diameter” / “a circumferential groove” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what specific structural relationship is intended by “circumnavigating a diameter.” A groove does not literally circumnavigate a diameter. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed groove structure are unclear.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “when activated” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to specify what causes activation of the locking pin. It is unclear whether activation occurs mechanically, pneumatically, electrically, manually, or by some other means.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation “causes the locking pin piston to extend from the frame” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the locking pin piston itself extends from the frame or whether only the locking pin extends from the frame while the piston remains within the cylinder. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. In light of the above, the claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farrell (US 2006/0027221 A1) in view of Gardner (US 2019/0257612 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Farrell discloses a paintball gun system comprising: a frame (frame 24); an operating assembly at least partially slidably received into the frame and having a locking pin receptacle (bolt/operating assembly 50 slidably received within frame 24, restrictable propulsion gas passageway 192, restrictor bore 222); and a locking pin within the frame having a break down position wherein the locking pin is received entirely within the frame and the operating assembly can freely slide in or out of the frame, and a firing position wherein the locking pin extends from the frame into the locking pin receptacle within the operating assembly, preventing the operating assembly from being removed from the frame (restrictor latch 180, gas passageway restrictor 184 movable between latched and unlatched positions). Gardner discloses movable pneumatic valve actuator members configured to transition between engaged and disengaged positions in response to pneumatic actuation (valve actuator 150, pin valve member 154, plug member 156). It would have been obvious to modify Farrell to utilize a pneumatically actuated locking member as taught by Gardner in order to secure the operating assembly during pressurized operation while permitting disassembly during non-pressurized conditions.
Regarding claim 2, Gardner discloses a spring biasing the locking pin into the frame (spring return mechanism 159).
Regarding claim 3, Farrell discloses a locking pin piston included in the locking pin and a locking pin cylinder within the frame which receives the locking pin piston (reduced-thrust bolt piston 78, full-thrust bolt piston 82, restrictable propulsion gas passageway 192), and Gardner discloses a pressurized gas system in fluid communication with the locking pin cylinder (input port 144, valve chamber 143, output ports 146, 148).
Regarding claim 4, Farrell and Gardner disclose the pressurized gas system configured to transition the locking pin from the break down position to the firing position when a pressurized gas is introduced to the pressurized gas system by applying pressure to the locking pin piston (compressed gas moving gas passageway restrictor 184 and valve actuator 150 between positions).
Regarding claim 5, Farrell discloses the locking pin piston prevents the operating assembly from removal from the frame when in the firing position (gas passageway restrictor 184 retained in latched position during operation).
Regarding claim 6, Farrell discloses the locking pin receptacle comprises a groove circumnavigating a diameter of the operating assembly (restrictor bore 222 surrounding reduced-thrust bolt piston 78).
Regarding claim 7, Farrell discloses the operating assembly is configured to be inserted into the frame through a rear operating assembly port (cartridge housing 40 inserted through rear gun plug 46 into frame 24).
Regarding claim 8, Farrell discloses a frame assembly for a paintball gun comprising: a frame (frame 24); and a locking pin received in the frame, the locking pin having a biased inward position configured to travel outward into a receptacle in an operating assembly when activated, whereby the locking pin is adapted to be received into the operating assembly to secure the operating assembly to the frame (restrictor latch 180, gas passageway restrictor 184, restrictor bore 222). Gardner discloses movable pneumatic actuator members configured to transition between engaged and disengaged positions in response to pneumatic actuation (valve actuator 150, pin valve member 154, plug member 156). It would have been obvious to modify Farrell to utilize a pneumatically actuated locking member as taught by Gardner in order to secure the operating assembly during pressurized operation.
Regarding claim 9, Gardner discloses a spring biasing the locking pin towards the inward position (spring return mechanism 159).
Regarding claim 10, Farrell discloses a locking pin piston attached to the locking pin and a locking pin cylinder within the frame configured to receive the locking pin piston (reduced-thrust bolt piston 78, full-thrust bolt piston 82, restrictable propulsion gas passageway 192).
Regarding claim 11, Farrell and Gardner disclose a pressurized gas system in fluid communication with the locking pin cylinder, wherein the pressurized gas system is configured to move the locking pin from the inward position to an outward position when pressurized gas is introduced (compressed gas moving gas passageway restrictor 184 and valve actuator 150).
Regarding claim 12, Farrell discloses the locking pin piston is configured to prevent the operating assembly from being removed from the frame when pressurized (gas passageway restrictor 184 retained during operation).
Regarding claim 13, Farrell discloses the locking pin is configured to engage with a circumferential groove in the operating assembly when in the outward position (restrictor bore 222 surrounding reduced-thrust bolt piston 78).
Regarding claim 14, Gardner discloses an O-ring carried by the locking pin assembly (o-rings 162, 166).
Regarding claim 15, Farrell discloses a pressurized paintball gun system comprising: a frame (frame 24); an operating assembly at least partially slidably received in the frame and having a locking pin receptacle (bolt 50, restrictable propulsion gas passageway 192, restrictor bore 222); a locking pin received in the frame (restrictor latch 180, gas passageway restrictor 184); and a pressurized gas system in fluid communication with the locking pin, wherein introduction of pressurized gas to the pressurized gas system causes the locking pin to extend from the frame into the locking pin receptacle of the operating assembly (compressed gas acting on gas passageway restrictor 184). Gardner discloses movable pneumatic valve members configured to transition between engaged and disengaged positions in response to pneumatic actuation (valve actuator 150, pin valve member 154, plug member 156). It would have been obvious to modify Farrell to utilize a pneumatically actuated locking member as taught by Gardner in order to secure the operating assembly during pressurized operation while preventing improper operation when not fully assembled.
Regarding claim 16, Gardner discloses a spring biasing the locking pin towards a retracted position within the frame (spring return mechanism 159).
Regarding claim 17, Farrell discloses a locking pin piston attached to the locking pin and a locking pin cylinder within the frame configured to receive the locking pin piston (reduced-thrust bolt piston 78, full-thrust bolt piston 82, restrictable propulsion gas passageway 192).
Regarding claim 18, Farrell discloses the pressurized gas system is in fluid communication with the locking pin cylinder, and wherein introduction of pressurized gas into the locking pin cylinder causes the locking pin piston to extend from the frame (compressed gas moving gas passageway restrictor 184).
Regarding claim 19, Farrell discloses the locking pin piston is configured to prevent removal of the operating assembly when pressurized (gas passageway restrictor 184 retained during operation).
Regarding claim 20, Farrell discloses the locking pin receptacle comprises a circumferential groove in the operating assembly, and wherein the locking pin engages with the circumferential groove when extended from the frame (restrictor bore 222 surrounding reduced-thrust bolt piston 78).
In the alternative, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farrell (US 2006/0027221 A1) in view of Gardner (US 2019/0257612 A1).
Regarding claims 1-20, Farrell in combination with Gardner disclose the claimed invention except they 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.
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