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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 19 June 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 shoulder thickness comparison relating thicknesses of the shoulder to the clearance band thickness and interference band thickness 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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent 8,875,633 issued to Padgett (Padgett).
Regarding claim 1, Padgett discloses a cartridge for a firearm (See at least Figures 14 and 15A, clearly illustrated), comprising: a projectile (Inserts into element 208, understood); and a case (100), comprising: a base configured to hold a primer (400), a body extending from a first end adjacent the base to a second end (See at least Figure 14, clearly illustrated), and a two-stage neck extending from the second end of the body to a mouth and configured to retain the projectile, the two-stage neck comprising a neck length, an interior surface, and an exterior surface, the interior surface of the two-stage neck comprising: an interference band comprising an interference diameter and extending an interference length along the two-stage neck, the interference band configured to provide an interference fit with the projectile resulting in an interference retention force, a clearance band comprising a clearance diameter and extending a clearance length along the two-stage neck, and a transition portion located between and adjoining the interference band and the clearance band, the transition portion comprising a continuous interior surface extending axially between the interference band and the clearance band, wherein both the interference band and the clearance band are at least partially coextensive with the projectile when the projectile is seated in the case (206, 250, 255, 208, See at least Figures 14 and 15A, all aspects clearly illustrated, and Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 3, Padgett further discloses wherein the continuous interior surface defines a change in inner diameter that is not mirrored by a corresponding change in outer diameter of the two-stage neck (See at least Figures 14 and 15A, all aspects clearly illustrated, and Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 4, Padgett further discloses wherein the clearance diameter is consistent along the clearance band to the mouth of the two-stage neck, and the mouth has an inner diameter that is substantially equal to or greater than the clearance diameter (See at least Col. 13 Lines 43-63, “stair stepped”).
Regarding claim 5, Padgett further discloses wherein the projectile comprises an exterior surface that does not conform to the clearance band (See at least Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 6, Padgett further discloses wherein at least a portion of the projectile is both coextensive with the clearance band and not in contact with the clearance band (See at least Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 7, Padgett further discloses the clearance band comprising a cylindrical inner surface of substantially consistent diameter, the interference band comprising a cylindrical inner surface of substantially consistent diameter, and the exterior surface of the two-stage neck comprises a substantially cylindrical shape with a substantially consistent outer diameter along the neck length (See at least Figures 14 and 15A, clearly illustrated, and Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 8, Padgett further discloses wherein the continuous interior surface of the transition portion is angled relative to a central axis of the case or curved between the interference band and the clearance band (See at least Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 9, Padgett further discloses wherein the clearance diameter is greater than the interference diameter, and the transition portion comprises a gradual decrease in internal diameter from the clearance diameter to the interference diameter (See at least Figures 14 and 15A, clearly illustrated, and Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 10, Padgett further discloses wherein the case further comprises a shoulder extending from the second end of the body to the two-stage neck, wherein the clearance band is configured to provide a clearance fit with the projectile, resulting in a radial gap between the clearance band and the projectile, and a majority of a length of the shoulder is not configured for contact with the projectile (See at least Figures 14 and 15A, clearly illustrated, and Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 12, Padgett further discloses a sealant between at least a portion of the clearance band and at least a portion of the projectile (See at least Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 13, Padgett further discloses wherein the interference band provides substantially an entire interference retention force of the projectile in the case (See at least Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 14, Padgett further discloses wherein the case is configured for a cartridge of standardized cartridge dimensions comprising a predetermined projectile diameter, and wherein the neck length conforms to the standardized cartridge dimensions (See at least Col. 7 Lines 52-62 and Col. 16 Lines 53-59).
Regarding claim 15, Padgett further discloses wherein the case is configured for a cartridge of standardized cartridge dimensions comprising a predetermined projectile diameter, and wherein the interference diameter is less than the predetermined projectile diameter and the clearance diameter is equal to or greater than the predetermined projectile diameter (See at least Col. 7 Lines 52-62, Col. 16 Lines 53-59, and Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Regarding claim 16, Padgett further discloses wherein the case comprises a material selected from steel and a steel alloy (See Col. 7 Line 63-Col. 8 Line 11).
Regarding claim 17, Padgett discloses a cartridge for a firearm, comprising: a projectile; and a case, comprising: a base configured to hold a primer, a body extending from a first end adjacent the base to a second end, and a two-stage neck extending from the second end of the body to a forward mouth and configured to retain the projectile, the two-stage neck comprising: an interference band adjacent the second end of the body, the interference band having an interference diameter and configured to provide an interference fit with the projectile, a clearance band forward of the interference band and having a clearance diameter greater than the interference diameter, the clearance band configured to provide one of a reduced interference fit with the projectile compared to the interference band, a line-to-line fit, or a clearance fit, and a transition portion between the interference band and the clearance band, the transition portion comprising a continuous interior surface having a gradual decrease in inner diameter from the clearance diameter to the interference diameter, wherein the interference band and the clearance band are at least partially coextensive with the projectile (Limitations previously addressed, see rejections above).
Regarding claim 18, Padgett further discloses wherein the reduced interference fit is defined by the clearance diameter being less than a diameter of the projectile, wherein the line-to-line fit is defined by the clearance diameter being substantially equal to a projectile diameter, and wherein the clearance fit is defined by an interior surface at the clearance band being radially spaced from the projectile (Limitations previously addressed, see rejections above).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padgett.
Regarding claim 2, Padgett further discloses wherein an exterior of the two-stage neck comprises a reduced diameter relative to the body, the case further comprising a shoulder extending from the second end of the body to the two-stage neck, wherein the interference band extends from the shoulder to the clearance band (See at least Figures 14 and 15A, all aspects clearly illustrated).
Padgett discloses the claimed invention except for where the shoulder thickness does not exceed the thickness of the interference band or the clearance band. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the shoulder thickness not exceed the thickness of the interference band or the clearance band, since applicant has not disclosed that such details regarding the comparative thicknesses of the identified components solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a shoulder that is thicker than the interference band or the clearance band thickness.
Regarding claim 11, Padgett further discloses wherein an exterior of the two-stage neck comprises a reduced diameter relative to the body, the case further comprising a shoulder extending from the second end of the body to the two-stage neck, wherein the interference band extends from the shoulder to the clearance band (See at least Figures 14 and 15A, clearly illustrated, and Col. 13 Lines 43-63).
Padgett discloses the claimed invention except for where the shoulder thickness does not exceed the thickness of the interference band and the clearance band. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the shoulder thickness not exceed the thickness of the interference band and the clearance band, since applicant has not disclosed that such details regarding the comparative thicknesses of the identified components solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a shoulder that is thicker than the interference band or the clearance band thickness.
Regarding claim 19, Padgett obviously discloses a cartridge for a firearm, comprising: a projectile; and a case, comprising: a base configured to hold a primer; a body extending from a first end adjacent the base to a second end; and a two-stage neck comprising an interior surface and an exterior surface, the two- stage neck extending from the second end of the body to a mouth, the mouth configured to receive therethrough the projectile, wherein the two-stage neck defines: an interference band adjacent the second end of the body, the interference band having an interference diameter and extending an interference length along the two-stage neck, the interference diameter configured to provide an interference fit with the projectile resulting in an interference retention force, a clearance band adjacent the mouth, the clearance band having a clearance diameter and extending a clearance length along the two-stage neck, the clearance diameter being greater than the interference diameter, a transition portion located between and adjoining the interference band and the clearance band, and a shoulder located between the body and the two-stage neck, wherein the shoulder has a radial wall thickness that is less than or equal to a radial wall thickness of either the interference band or the clearance band (Limitations previously addressed, see rejections above).
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 the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,899 in view of obvious design choice. The claims in the current application are broader in scope and fully encompassed by the issued claims with the exception of the details relating to the relative thicknesses of the shoulder, clearance band, and interference band.
The issued patent discloses the claimed invention except for where the shoulder thickness does not exceed the thickness of the interference band and/or the clearance band. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the shoulder thickness not exceed the thickness of the interference band and/or the clearance band, since applicant has not disclosed that such details regarding the comparative thicknesses of the identified components solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a shoulder that is thicker than the interference band and/or the clearance band thickness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 Form for a listing of applicable prior art references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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 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 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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights