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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/16/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the detent means between the first and second parts must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Amato, US Patent No. 12,601,557.
Regarding claim 1, D’Amato discloses a quick-disconnect muzzle mounting mechanism (160, 140), comprising: a mount fixture (160) fixable to the muzzle end of a firearm barrel and including a plurality of substantially radial lugs (figure 12); a coupling assembly (140) fixable to a muzzle device, the coupling assembly including a first part (142) with a non-round opening (shown in figures 6-7, the opening is non-round because of the lug openings) adapted to axially receive the lugs of the mount fixture before rotating to engage the lugs (figures 5-8 show the lugs being received by 142 and 142 is disclosed as having lug receiving openings and lug retaining members which are at least partially shown in figures 6 and 8 as radially offset for engaging the lugs after rotating) and a second part (146) axially adjustable relative to the first part to clamp the lugs therebetween.
Regarding claim 2, D’Amato further discloses the first part includes recesses (partially shown in figure 6 and disclosed in 4:14-17 for example) for receiving each of the lugs after rotating to engage the lugs.
Regarding claim 5, D’Amato further discloses three circumferentially spaced lugs (4:14-17 and figures 5-8)
Regarding claim 7, D’Amato further discloses an internal detent means between the first and second parts (broadly, yet reasonably, spring 148 is a detent because it acts to secure the adapter 160 with 140 and the spring is disposed between 142 and 146).
Regarding claim 8, D’Amato further discloses a hub (144) that is threadingly engaged relative to at least one of the first and second parts to adjustably clamp the lugs after rotating to engage the lugs (4:19-22 discloses 144 being coupled by threads and serving to bias the components to a locked position in combination with 148.)
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jen et al., hereafter Jen, US Patent No. 10,641,573.
Regarding claim 1, Jen discloses a quick-disconnect muzzle mounting mechanism (figure 11A for example), comprising: a mount fixture (comp in figure 11A) fixable to the muzzle end of a firearm barrel (figure 11A) and including a plurality of substantially radial lugs (shown in figure 11A-A); a coupling assembly (14 and 22 inter alia) fixable to a muzzle device, the coupling assembly including a first part (14) with a non-round opening (figure 3 for example) adapted to axially receive the lugs of the mount fixture before rotating to engage the lugs (figures 11A-B) and a second part (1) axially adjustable relative to the first part to clamp the lugs therebetween (8:38-67).
Regarding claim 2, Jen further discloses the first part includes recesses for receiving each of the lugs after rotating to engage the lugs (at least partially shown in figures 3-4 and 9, recesses are offset from the corners of the opening of 14)
Regarding claim 5, Jen further discloses three circumferentially spaced lugs (Jen discloses 4 circumferentially spaced lugs; however, the claim is a comprising claim and is therefore open-ended. The configuration of Jen meets the limitation because Jen does disclose three circumferentially spaced lugs even though Jen has an additional lug)
Regarding claim 6, Jen further discloses at least one lug is unequally spaced from the other lugs (because Jen discloses four lugs, three of the lugs are spaced such that one is unequally spaced from the others. For example, as shown in figure 11A-A, two of the lugs are equally spaced from the middle lug; however, those two lugs have a much larger space from one another around the back side of the comp even though there is an intervening fourth lug. The open-endedness of the comprising claim allows for additional elements while meeting the limitation)
Regarding claim 7, Jen further discloses an internal detent means between the first and second parts (as best understood by the examiner, pins 6A-B received in 15A-B meet the limitation of a detent means between the first and second parts)
Regarding claim 8, Jen further discloses a hub (22) that is threadingly engaged relative to at least one of the first and second parts to adjustably clamp the lugs after rotating to engage the lugs (shown in figures 4-5 and 9 for example)
Regarding claim 9, Jen further discloses a detent to releasably hold the hub in at least one position (pins 8A-D, recesses 25A-D and rear surface of 1 as disclosed in 7:30-40 are broadly, yet reasonably a detent)
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latka, US Patent No. 5,559,302 in view of Young et al., hereafter Young, US Patent No. 10,184,744.
Regarding claim 1, Latka discloses a quick-disconnect muzzle mounting mechanism (figure 1 for example), comprising: a mount fixture (figure 1 for example) at an end of a firearm barrel and including a plurality of substantially radial lugs (16); a coupling assembly (figure 2) fixable to a muzzle device, the coupling assembly including a first part (22) with a non-round opening (30) adapted to axially receive the lugs of the mount fixture before rotating to engage the lugs and a second part (48) axially adjustable relative to the first part to clamp the lugs therebetween (4:22-39); however, Latka does not specifically disclose the mount fixture being a separate mount fixture fixable to the muzzle end of a firearm barrel. Nonetheless, Young teaches analogous art and specifically teaches the mount fixture 150 is a separate element which is threadable onto the barrel in 8:1-24.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Latka to have a removeable mount fixture similar to that as taught by Young with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for a variety of accessories to be attached to the barrel including accessories that may not fit the quick disconnect lugs or adapter.
Regarding claim 2, Latka as modified by Young further discloses the first part includes recesses for receiving each of the lugs after rotating to engage the lugs (Latka 58).
Regarding claim 5, Latka as modified by Young further discloses three circumferentially spaced lugs (Latka, figures 3-8)
Regarding claim 7, Latka as modified by Young further discloses an internal detent means between the first and second parts (broadly, yet reasonably, spring 57 is a detent because it acts to secure the mount fixture with 22)
Regarding claim 8, Latka as modified by Young further discloses a hub (40) that is threadingly engaged relative to at least one of the first and second parts to adjustably clamp the lugs after rotating to engage the lugs (40 is threadedly attached to 22 and serves to bias the components to a locked position in combination with 57 and 48. 40 is at least partially adjustable axially because of the threaded connection.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Amato in view of Bixler, US Patent N0. 4,893,426.
Regarding claim 6, D’Amato discloses the invention but does not specifically disclose at least one lug is unequally spaced from the other lugs. Nonetheless, Bixler teaches similar art and specifically teaches at least one of three lugs is unequally spaced from the other lugs as shown in figures 11 and 12.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify D’Amato to have a lug spacing configuration similar to that as taught by Bixler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve a predetermined set position of the mount fixture with respect to the adapter to obtain accurate indexed alignment of the coupled components like that taught by Bixler in 3:22-28.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Amato in view of La France, US Patent No. 5,433,133.
Regarding claim 9, D’Amato discloses the invention but does not specifically disclose a detent to releasably hold the hub in at least one position. Nonetheless, La France teaches similar art and specifically teaches a detent (52/50) which prevents rotation between two coupled elements.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify D’Amato to have a detent mechanism similar to that of La France with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure the threaded connection between the hub and adapter does not loosen over time due to use thereby enhancing the safety and reliability of D’Amato.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
The applicant is invited to call the examiner for additional information on how particular cited references would be interpreted or applied to the claimed invention or potential amendments.
While the Examiner is available via telephone to resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. The Examiner may be reached by telephone at 571-272-6352.
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.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights