DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-2, 5-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeJessa, US Patent Publication No. 2024/0060742.
Regarding claim 1, DeJessa discloses a quick-disconnect muzzle mounting mechanism, comprising: a mount fixture (18) fixable to the muzzle end of a firearm barrel and including a plurality of substantially radial lugs (76); a coupling assembly (16) fixable to a muzzle device, the coupling assembly including a first part (34) with a non-round opening (figure 9 for example shows an opening with internal lugs 36 and is non-round) adapted to axially receive the lugs of the mount fixture before rotating to engage the lugs ([0026-0028] for example) and a second part (22) axially adjustable relative to the first part to clamp the lugs therebetween (best shown in figures 10 and 14 for example), wherein the mount fixture includes a frustoconical surface and the coupling assembly includes a complementary frustoconical surface (shown in figure 10 for example), the complementary frustoconical surfaces being drawn into mating engagement to maintain coaxial alignment of the mount fixture and the coupling assembly as the second part is axially adjusted to clamp the lugs ([0035] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, DeJessa further discloses the first part includes recesses for receiving each of the lugs after rotating to engage the lugs ([0032-0033] and shown in figures 9 and 11)
Regarding claim 5, DeJessa further discloses comprising three circumferentially spaced lugs (DeJessa discloses 5 circumferentially spaced lugs; however, the claim is a comprising claim and is therefore open-ended. The configuration of DeJessa meets the limitation because DeJessa does disclose three circumferentially spaced lugs even though additional lugs are disclosed as well)
Regarding claim 6, DeJessa further discloses at least one lug is unequally spaced from the other lugs (because DeGessa discloses five lugs, one of the lugs is unequally spaced from at least two other lugs. For example, the lug receiving areas shown in figure 8 show the bottom lug would be unequally spaced from the lug to the immediate right and the next lug on the right. The open-endedness of the comprising claim allows for additional elements while meeting the limitation)
Regarding claim 14, DeJessa further discloses the recesses are configured to permit rotation of the coupling assembly relative to the mount fixture in only one direction to seat the lugs (shown in figure 9, once the lugs pass through 70, the mount fixture could only rotate one direction because of protrusions shown)
Regarding claim 15, DeJessa further discloses the complementary frustoconical surfaces form a seal against back-pressure leakage when the second part is axially adjusted to clamp the lugs ([0040])
Regarding claim 16, DeJessa further discloses the mount fixture includes a flash hider or muzzle brake at a forward end thereof (figure 2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al., hereafter Young, US Patent No. 10,184,744.
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses a quick-disconnect muzzle mounting mechanism, comprising: a mount fixture (150) fixable to the muzzle end of a firearm barrel and including a plurality of substantially radial lugs (151); a coupling assembly (100) fixable to a muzzle device, the coupling assembly including a first part (20) with a non-round opening adapted to axially receive the lugs of the mount fixture (figure 5 for example) before rotating to engage the lugs (7:50-8:24) and a second part (30) axially adjustable relative to the first part to clamp the lugs therebetween, wherein the mount fixture includes a frustoconical surface (154) and the coupling assembly includes a complementary frustoconical surface (rear face of 30 as in figure 2 for example), the complementary frustoconical surfaces being drawn into mating engagement to maintain coaxial alignment of the mount fixture and the coupling assembly as the second part is axially adjusted to clamp the lugs (7:4-8:24 discloses the action of mating the two components by the lugs being inserted into corresponding receiving spaces and the washer 30 biased against the lugs which, as shown in figure 2, would mate with the forward surface of the lugs).
Regarding claim 2, Young further discloses the first part includes recesses for receiving each of the lugs after rotating to engage the lugs (26).
Regarding claim 5, Young further discloses three circumferentially spaced lugs (Young discloses 4 circumferentially spaced lugs; however, the claim is a comprising claim and is therefore open-ended. The configuration of Young meets the limitation because Young does disclose three circumferentially spaced lugs even though Young has an additional lug)
Regarding claim 6, Young further discloses at least one lug is unequally spaced from the other lugs (because Young discloses four lugs, three of the lugs are spaced such that one is unequally spaced from the others. For example, as shown in figure 10, two of the lugs are equally spaced from each other at the bottom of the cylinder and the lug at the top right is spaced farther from the bottom left lug than it is from the bottom right lug. The open-endedness of the comprising claim allows for additional elements while meeting the limitation)
Regarding claim 8, Young further discloses a hub (50) that is threadingly engaged relative to the first part to adjustably clamp the lugs after rotating to engage the lugs (shown in figure 15 for example).
Regarding claim 14, Young further discloses the recesses are configured to permit rotation of the coupling assembly relative to the mount fixture in only one direction to seat the lugs (9:3-24 discloses rotating to attach the device and rotating the opposite direction to detach the device and therefore implies only one direction to install the device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant is invited to contact the examiner to discuss allowability of dependent claims or particular limitations as compared to the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DERRICK R MORGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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 5712726874. 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.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
