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 § 103
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 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 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 14, 23-25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al., hereafter Freeman, US Patent No. 10,352,671 in view of Mamrak et al., hereafter Mamrak, US Patent Publication No. 2020/0262147.
Regarding claim 14, Freeman discloses a firearm ammunition powder dispenser (30) for dispensing ammunition powder to a plurality of ammunition cases, the firearm ammunition powder dispenser comprising: a frame (broadly shown in figure 1); a gantry (100) supported by the frame; a dispensing head (a dispensing outlet (dispensing valve assembly disclosed in 7:14 for example) supported by the gantry and movable by the gantry to a plurality of dispensing locations with respect to the frame for dispensing ammunition powder to the plurality of ammunition cases from the plurality of dispensing locations (multi axis gantry 100 is disclosed and 7:16-22 discloses filling each station individually), and a scale sensor (sensors disclosed in 7:15 for example) configured to sense an amount of ammunition powder; however, while Freeman discloses sensing and dispensing by weight, Freeman does not disclose the specifics of the dispensing head having a powder receptacle and a scale sensor specifically sensing the weight of powder held in the powder receptacle. Nonetheless, Mamrak provides a clear teaching of a dispensing system which utilizes a dispensing unit with dispenser 1004 that has a hopper 1010 for storing powder 1006 and specifically teaches a sensing system 1040 which provides any number of sensos for monitoring level, distribution, weight, or other characteristics of the powder in the hopper as taught in [0060] and further provides a specific teaching of a weight sensor 1050 configured to measure the weight of the powder in the hopper as in [0064] for example.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the sensing means of determining weight as considered by Freeman to be similar to the weight sensor in association with the dispensing head and hopper similar to that as taught by Mamrak with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure proper levels are maintained in the hopper so powder dispensing is not interrupted like that taught by Mamrak in [0064] and generally to improve the overall system performance as considered by Mamrak.
Regarding claim 23, Freeman as modified by Mamrak further discloses wherein the powder receptacle comprises a funnel-shaped body (Mamrak, figure 8, the hopper 1010 (disclosed but not shown in figure 8 as part of 1004) is broadly, yet reasonably funnel shaped)
Regarding claim 24, Freeman as modified by Mamrak further discloses wherein the powder receptacle includes a dispensing outlet at a bottom of the funnel-shaped body, the dispensing head including a valve configured to selectively close the dispensing outlet to retain ammunition powder in the powder receptacle and open the dispensing outlet to dispense ammunition powder from the powder receptacle (Freeman as modified by Mamrak, the dispensing head of Mamrak is utilized to teach a hopper and weight sensor to the dispensing valve of Freeman. The combination meets the limitations of a powder receptacle, taught by Mamrak specifically, and a valve to open or close to dispense powder, reasonably disclosed by Freeman).
Regarding claim 25, Freeman as modified by Mamrak further discloses an ammunition case support supported by the frame and arranged to support the plurality of ammunition cases for receiving ammunition powder from the dispensing head (Freeman discloses a tray and 3:60-4:4 discloses the tray having a grid of partial through-holes or recesses in a regularly spaced grid and may be configured to hold any size of component).
Regarding claim 28, Freeman as modified by Mamrak further discloses the ammunition case support includes locating structure shaped and arranged to define a predetermined location of an ammunition case tray on the ammunition case support for holding the plurality of ammunition cases in predetermined case locations corresponding to respective ones of the plurality of dispensing locations of the dispensing outlet (Freeman 3:60-4:4 discloses the loading tray having a plurality of predetermined locations for holding components to be filled)
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman as modified by Mamrak in view of Vinson et al., hereafter Vinson, US Patent No. 4,149,576.
Regarding claim 16, Freeman as modified by Mamrak discloses the claimed invention except for specifically disclosing the dispensing head having a plunger head moveable in the receptacle to dispense powder and a corresponding plunger driver. Nonetheless, Vinson teaches a dispensing mechanism with a dispensing head that utilizes a plunger (20, 22 inter alia) having a plunger head (20) movable with respect to the powder receptacle to a closed position to close the powder receptacle to hold ammunition powder therein (figure 1) and to an open position to open the powder receptacle to dispense ammunition powder therefrom (figure 1 in phantom/dotted lines).
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Freeman as modified by Mamrak to have a plunger metered feed similar to that as taught by Vinson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure a predetermined amount is dispensed to a cartridge and prevent dripping or leaking from the feed like that as taught by Vinson in 6:30-49 in order to reliably fill cartridges and safely contain the explosive material when not being fed to prevent unsafe conditions in the dispenser.
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman as modified by Mamrak in view of Ciesiun, US Patent Publication No. 2017/0121039.
Regarding claim 26, Freeman discloses the claimed invention but does not specifically disclose the ammunition case support being moveable upward and downward to selectively decrease the distance from the dispensing outlet to the ammunition case support. Nonetheless, Ciesiun teaches a multi-axis gantry with case support 16 and the case support being moveable upward and downward as indicated in figures 2 and 3.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the ammunition case support of Freeman to be moveable with respect to the dispensing outlet in order to minimize the potential for energetic material to be dispensed and not be properly contained in the casing or cup. Furthermore, in multiple instances in the specification, Freeman discusses the desire that the loading assembly be scalable to suitable applications and modifying Freeman to have a moveable ammunition case or tray support would accomplish this intent.
Claim 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman as modified by Mamrak and Ciesiun in view of Le Molair, US Patent No. 4,629,063.
Regarding claim 27, Freeman as modified by Mamrak and Ciesiun disclose the claimed invention except for a limit switch on the frame, case support or dispensing head to actuate in response to the case support reaching a stop position. While Freeman 4:10-15 discloses at least one proximity sensor for detecting the status of the tray and component fill the proximity sensor is not specifically disclosed as a limit switch specifically functioning as claimed. Nonetheless, Le Molaire teaches a powder dispensing apparatus and generally describes 39 and 40 as limit switches for determining position.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Freeman to have a limit switch similar to that as taught by Le Molaire since Le Molaire sufficiently teaches analogous art which utilizes a limit switch and modifying Freeman to have a limit switch would have been an obvious matter of substitution for the proximity sensor based on user preference or in order to provide a redundant safety mechanism such that the energetic material is safely handled in the instance of a sensor failure.
Claims 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman as modified by Mamrak in view of Russel et al., hereafter Russel, US Patent Publication No. 2005/0280185.
Regarding claim 29, Freeman as modified by Mamrak discloses the claimed invention and Freeman further discloses the powder dispenser as part of a larger assembly process and therefore does not specifically detail the structure of the fill station. Nonetheless, Russel provides a teaching of a multi-axis gantry robot with dispensing head which provides a clear teaching of a frame (36, 46, 32, 30 inter alia), a hopper (6) configured to hold a supply of energetic powder, a conveyor (85, 64 inter alia) which is configured to dispense from the hopper as shown in figure 1 for example.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the structure of the multi-axis gantry robot of Freeman in the context of dispensing similar to that as taught by Russel since Russel was a well known structure in the art for use with dispensing and using a gantry robot and in order to provide a gantry system which is scalable, like that mentioned by Freeman several times, in order to allow for filling of a wide variety of known cartridge calibers.
Regarding claim 31, Freeman as modified by Mamrak and Russel further discloses the dispensing head is movable with respect to the hopper and the conveyor, the dispensing head being movable to a home position for receiving powder from the conveyor, and the dispensing outlet being movable away from the home position to the plurality of dispensing locations (Freeman, Russel and Mamrak all disclose or teach a gantry moveable to a plurality of locations and Russel specifically teaches the dispensing outlet is moveable to a home position to receive powder in [0057])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-31 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.
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the scale sensor are considered; however, Mamrak is relied upon to provide a clear teaching the at weight sensing of powder to be dispensed from a hopper would have been obvious in view of the consideration from Freeman and teaching of Mamrak.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 17, 21-22 and 30 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.
Additionally, claim 26 could be allowable if amended to include a plurality of tracks upon which the case support is movable, amended into independent claim 14 and addressing any possible antecedent basis issues from claim 25.
The applicant is invited to contact the Examiner for specifics on the allowability of claims or to propose amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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
Prosecution Insights