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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-44 of U.S. Patent No. 11,566,878 and claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,422,236. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are directed to substantially the same structure with rearrangement of the claims or omission of particular elements in the independent claims that would have been a matter of obviousness.
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.
Claim 1-5, 8-11, 13-14 and 18 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 Russel et al., hereafter Russel, US Patent Publication No. 2005/0280185.
Regarding claim 1, Freeman discloses a firearm ammunition powder dispenser (30) capable of dispensing ammunition powder to a plurality of ammunition cases, the firearm ammunition powder dispenser comprising: a frame (broadly shown in figure 1); a hopper configured to hold a supply of ammunition powder (7:31-34 discloses an individual reservoir or a single feed vessel holding the energetic formulation; a scale sensor (sensors disclosed in 7:15 for example) configured to sense an amount of ammunition powder from the hopper, the scale sensor configured to generate a scale sensor signal representative of the amount of ammunition powder (7:16-22 discloses filling each station with a precise amount of energetic material and the amount can be tailored as suited. Also, 7:30-31 discloses the fill quantity can be weight controlled), a dispensing outlet (dispensing valve assembly disclose din 7:14) downstream from the hopper configured to deliver ammunition powder to the plurality of cases (7:15-20 for example), the dispensing outlet supported by the frame and movable with respect to the frame to a plurality of dispensing locations (multi axis gantry 100 is disclosed and 7:16-22 discloses filling each station individually) for delivering ammunition powder to the plurality of ammunition cases from the plurality of dispensing locations (gantry 100 and dispensing valve assembly is disclosed as being configured to deliver energetic material to each cup or station individually or in batches and the multi-axis gantry robot is configured to move to the dispensing locations.); however, Freeman 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 2, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses a gantry (Freeman 100 and as taught by Russel 40) supporting the dispensing outlet (Freeman, dispensing valve assembly and as taught by Russel 61 and 66), the gantry supported by the frame and configured to move the dispensing outlet with respect to the frame to the plurality of dispensing locations for delivering the ammunition powder to the ammunition cases from the plurality of locations (Freeman 7:11-49 discloses the gantry and filling individual stations and Russel specifically teaches the gantry 40 is moveable in the x-axis and y-axis to move the dispensing head 61 and 66 to any location).
Regarding claim 3, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses the gantry includes a beam (Russel 40) supported by the frame (Russel figures 1, 4A and 4B), the beam being movable with respect to the frame to move the dispensing outlet to different ones of the dispensing locations (Russel [0061] and [0063] teaches the beam of the gantry is moveable with along the x-axis 59 shown in the figures and the dispensing outlet 61 and 66 is on the beam and movable in the y-axis)
Regarding claim 4, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses the beam extends from a first portion of the frame to a second portion of the frame across a gap between the first and second portions of the frame (frame portions 46 of Russel as shown in figures 1, 4A and 4B for example and a gap between the elements 46 is spanned by beam 40).
Regarding claim 5, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses the dispensing outlet is movable along the beam for moving the dispensing outlet to different ones of the dispensing locations (Russel [0057] for example teaches powder dispenser 61 which utilizes nozzle 66 moves along the beam in the y-axis 48)
Regarding claim 8, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses a dispensing head, the dispensing head (Russel 61 and Freeman dispensing valve assembly) including the dispensing outlet (Russel 66), the dispensing head being supported by and movable with respect to the frame to locate the dispensing outlet in the plurality of dispensing locations (Russel teaches the dispensing head 61/66 being moveable along the beam in the y-axis and the beam moveable in the x-axis and Freeman discloses the dispensing valve assembly is mounted on the multi-axis gantry. Thus the dispensing head of the combination is moveable with respect to the frame to a plurality of dispensing locations).
Regarding claim 9, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses the dispensing head includes the scale sensor (Freeman 7:44-49 discloses the sensors are mounted on the gantry and are configured to determine filling at each station. Freeman also discloses the quantity of material dispensed being by weight and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized at least one of the sensors to be a scale sensor of some sort)
Regarding claim 10, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses the dispensing head includes a powder receptacle (Russel 56) arranged to receive ammunition powder from the conveyor, the scale sensor being arranged to sense weight of powder in the powder receptacle (Freeman discloses the sensors and dispensing a quantity of the powder by weight in 7:16-49)
Regarding claim 11, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses an ammunition case support, the ammunition case support being supported by the frame and arranged to support the plurality of ammunition cases for receiving ammunition powder from the dispensing outlet from the plurality of dispensing locations (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 13, Freeman as modified by Russel 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)
Regarding claim 14, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses a firearm ammunition powder dispenser as addressed above in the rejections of claims 1-2 and 8-9. The limitations of 14 are encompassed in claims 1-2 and 8-9 and are broader in scope. Please refer to the above rejections for the structure of claim 14. Claim 14 is rejected using the same references and corresponding rationales; however, the specific rejection is omitted for the sake of brevity. For example, Freeman discloses an ammunition powder dispenser with a multi-axis gantry and dispensing head which is moveable to a plurality of locations. Russel provides a clear teaching of a gantry structure and the combination would have been obvious for at least the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Freeman as modified by Russel further discloses a firearm ammunition powder dispenser as addressed above in the rejections of claims 1 and 11. The limitations of 18 are encompassed in claims 1 and 11 and are broader in scope. Please refer to the above rejections for the structure of claim 18. Claim 18 is rejected using the same references and corresponding rationales; however, the specific rejection is omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claim 1-5, 8-11, 13-14 and 18 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman as modified by Russel in view of Poole et al., hereafter Poole, US Patent Publication No. 2007/0131707.
Generally regarding claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-14 and 18, the alternative rejection below is provided for the sake of thoroughness and is in no way an admission that the above rejection of Freeman in view of Russel is any less valid. If anything, the alternative rejection below bolsters the strength of the previous rejection by further defining the skill of one in the art and what would have been obvious in view of the evidence in the art at the time.
Regarding claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-14 and 18, Freeman as modified by Russel discloses the claimed invention as articulated above; however, for the sake of thoroughness, Poole is provided as a teaching of a powder dispensing module which utilizes weight sensor cells 114 which is used to sense the weight of the powder delivered to each respective cartridge as taught in [0007], [0009], [0026] and [0085] 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 further define the sensors used during filling disclosed by Freeman to be weight sensors similar to that as taught by Poole in order to ensure high accuracy, high speed and repeatability as taught by Poole in [0086].
Claims 6-7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman as modified by Russel in view of Poole et al., hereafter Poole, US Patent Publication No. 2007/0131707.
Regarding claim 6, Freeman as modified by Russel discloses the claimed invention and the conveyor (Russel 64) and scale sensor (Freeman sensors on the gantry as stated above) but does not specifically disclose the hopper being supported by the frame. Nonetheless, Pool provides a teaching of a powder dispensing module and a hopper 74 being supported on the apparatus itself in figure 5.
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 powder dispensing hopper located on the frame or filling station similar to that as taught by Poole in order to reduce the overall footprint of the filling station and allow for the frame and station to be more portable such that the assembly line of Freeman is made more modular.
Regarding claim 7, Freeman as modified by Russel and Poole further discloses the dispensing outlet is movable with respect to the hopper and conveyor, the dispensing outlet 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 positions (Russel [0057] teaches the dispensing outlet is moveable to a home position to receive powder).
Regarding claim 15, Freeman as modified by Russel and Poole further discloses the dispensing head includes a load cell comprising the scale sensor, the dispensing head including a beam connected to the load cell, the beam supporting the powder receptacle and connecting the powder receptacle to the load cell (Freeman discloses the scale sensor as articulated above and Poole teaches a powder dispenser which utilizes a load cell for powder weight measurement as taught in [0195]) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a load cell as the sensor for determining powder weights since it was known in the art, would’ve been obvious to try and would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 12, 19-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman as modified by Russel in view of Ciesiun, US Patent Publication No. 2017/0121039.
Regarding claims 12, 19 and 23, 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.
Regarding claims 20-21, Freeman as modified by Russel and Ciesiun further discloses a stop configured to stop movement of said at least one of the dispensing outlet or ammunition case support to define a decreased distance therebetween from which ammunition powder is dispensed from the dispensing outlet and the stop comprises a case proximity sensor configured to stop movement of said at least one of the dispensing outlet or ammunition case support when an ammunition case is sensed by the case proximity sensor in position to receive powder from the dispensing outlet (Freeman 4:10-15 discloses at least one proximity sensor for detecting the status of the tray and component fill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized it as obvious to utilize the proximity sensor as a detection method to determine position of the movement of the tray, as modified by Ciesiun, and implement a stop based on proximity sensor detection in order to prevent damage to the dispensing head or gantry and to ensure proper positioning and alignment of the tray as also considered by Freeman).
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman as modified by Russel and Ciesiun in view of Le Molair, US Patent No. 4,629,063.
Regarding claim 22, Freeman as modified by Russel and Ciesiun disclose the claimed invention except for the proximity sensor comprising a limit switch. 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.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman as modified by Russel in view of Vinson et al., hereafter Vinson, US Patent No. 4,149,576.
Regarding claim 16, Freeman as modified by Russel 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 Russel 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
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