DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 JUN 26 have been fully considered but they are not completely persuasive.
With respect “without acquiescing to the merits of the Office Action’s rejection or characterization of the prior art” and like contentions, the examiner notes that MPEP § 714.02 requires that replies to non-final office action be fully responsive. Thus, any future attempt to argue the merits of the prior art relied upon may be rightfully ignored as untimely.
With respect to the argument regarding US 2008/0311822 to Kim failing to disclose ‘the base fitting configured to removable lock the end fitting with the base fitting’ because the party poppers disclosed “are designed for one time use and are typically disposable after use,” whether this is true is irrelevant because claim 1 merely requires the base fitting be configured to removably lock the end fitting therewith. At ¶ [0035], Kim discloses:
The closing part (130) of the aforementioned tape branch pipe is a metallic cylinder formed around the edge of the pressurized gas discharging hole (101). An injection groove (131), into which one end of the tape branch pipe (140) is inserted, is formed at one end, and a hanging pin (132), which is installed on the insertion groove (141) at the other end of the tape branch pipe (140), is fixed by the trigger spring [40]. The hanging pin (132) is separated from the insertion groove (141). The lower part of the hanging pin (132) is in a slanted form. Insertion of a tape branch pipe (140) elevates the hanging pin (132) along the outer surface of the branch pipe (140) until the pin is located on the insertion groove (141) of the branch pipe (140). The hanging pin (132) is fixed on the insertion groove (141) of the closing part (130) of the tape branch pipe with a thud due to the elasticity of the spring (132a).
From, e.g., Figs. 1-2 and 4, it is evident that hanging pin 132 is clearly capable of being grasped, either by hand or a tool of some kind (it is clearly shown having a top piece extending over the periphery of the opening therefor in housing 130), and lifted against the urging of spring 132a. Thus, the base fitting (asserted to be the inner portion of housing 130 by the examiner) of Kim appears to be adequately configured to removably lock the end fitting (asserted to be the rightmost end of 140) with the base fitting. Note that Kim discloses hanging pin 132 fixed within insertion groove 141, but only by the force of the spring 132a. Even were the pin 132 disclosed as immovable after installation of the canister 140, such would still be capable of removal with adequate force, use of tools, and/or destruction of one or more elements. However, Kim does disclose immovability but simply how the two elements are connected. Whether one-time use is intended, the components are still capable of being separated, which suffices for anticipation.
Note that a prior inventor does not need to know everything about how or why its invention worked. Nor must it conceive of its invention using the same words as the patentee would later use to claim it. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, 331 F.3d 1378, 100 USPQ2d 1885, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, whether Kim discloses removability or configured to language, etc., is irrelevant because the structure fairly anticipates these recitations. Furthermore, the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2131.
For these reasons, the rejections must stand as applied to the relevant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim.
Re: claim 1, Kim discloses the claimed invention including an air gun 1, e.g., Fig. 1, comprising: a housing, inter alia, 130, configured to receive compressed gas from a compressed gas cylinder 121, ¶ [0027]; a base fitting (inner portion of 130) supported by the housing (shown), said base fitting configured to receive a corresponding end fitting (rightmost end of 140) of a canister 140; and a trigger 110 supported by the housing (shown), wherein the trigger is configured to selectively provide compressed gas from the compressed gas cylinder to the base fitting via an output 101 of the housing, ¶ [0031].
Re: claim 2, Kim further discloses wherein: the housing comprises a main housing (shown); and the main housing comprises an adapter, inter alia, 120, said adapter configured to receive the compressed gas cylinder (shown).
Re: claim 3, Kim further discloses said adapter configured to pierce the compressed gas cylinder, via 123, ¶ [0028].
Re: claim 11, Kim fairly discloses the air gun comprising the canister, above.
Re: claim 14, Kim further discloses wherein: the air gun further comprises the canister; and the canister comprises: the end fitting; a cylinder 144 extending forward from the end fitting; and a payload 145 stored within the cylinder. See relevant claim(s), above.
Re: claim 15, Kim further discloses a covering 142 (leftmost) opposite the end fitting (shown), said covering configured to retain the payload within the cylinder until the trigger is actuated and compressed gas is provided from the compressed gas cylinder to the output of the housing and through the canister to dislodge the payload from the cylinder via the endcap, (see relevant claims, above, and ¶ [0037]).
Re: claim 16, Kim further discloses an inlet cap 142 (rightmost) at the end fitting (shown), said inlet cap configured to retain the payload within the cylinder until the trigger is actuated; and the covering 142 opposite the end fitting, said covering configured to retain the payload within the cylinder until the trigger is actuated and compressed gas is provided from the compressed gas cylinder to the output of the housing and through the inlet cap and cylinder to dislodge the payload from the cylinder. See relevant claim(s), above.
Re: claim 17, Kim further discloses the compressed gas cylinder contains compressed carbon dioxide, ¶ [0028]. See relevant claim(s), above.
Re: claims 18-20, see relevant claim(s), above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-7, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 5,592,931 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson,” also cited by Applicant).
Re: claim 4, Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above including a main housing (see above) except for further comprising a rotary housing; the rotary housing comprising the base fitting; the rotary housing being supported by the main housing; and the base fitting being one of a plurality of base fittings of the rotary housing.
Johnson teaches an air gun 10, e.g., Figs. 1-2, wherein: a housing comprises a main housing 11 and a rotary housing 18; the rotary housing comprising a base fitting 27; the rotary housing being supported by the main housing, via 25; and the base fitting being one of a plurality of base fittings of the rotary housing, col. 2, ll. 50-63, in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of making “a rapid fire compressed air gun,” col. 1, ll. 48-49.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim as taught by Johnson in order to make a rapid fire air gun with a reasonable expectation of success because Johnson further discloses “pneumatic indexing means for sequentially positioning projectiles in the magazine for firing,” id., at ll. 52-53, thus resolving loading issues. Further rationale: All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Re: claim 5, Johnson further teaches each base fitting of the plurality of base fittings being configured to receive a corresponding end fitting of a canister (end of barrel 26 attached to fitting 27, shown).
Re: claim 6, Johnson further teaches the rotary housing being configured to rotate relative to the main housing, col. 2, ll. 46-47.
Re: claim 7, Johnson further teaches the rotary housing comprising a plurality of detents 28, each detent corresponding to a base fitting of the plurality of base fittings (shown/disclosed).
Re: claim 10, Johnson further teaches the air gun further comprises a seal 38, 42 extending between the output of the main housing and the rotary housing (shown).
Re: claim 13, see relevant claim(s), above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2024/0125575 to Chia (also cited by Applicant).
Kim discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for wherein the base fitting is twist lock fitting and the end fitting is a twist lock fitting corresponding to the twist lock of the base fitting.
Chia teaches an air gun 100, e.g., Fig. 1A, comprising a base fitting (rightmost 195, e.g., Figs. 1B-1C) being a twist lock fitting, ¶ [0049], and an end fitting (leftmost 195) being a twist lock fitting corresponding the twist lock fitting of the base fitting, id., in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of detaching barrel 160 from the gun 100, ¶ [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim as taught by Chia in order to detach elements from each other with a reasonable expectation of success because Chia further discloses replacing such barrel with larger diameter barrel, thus providing for variations among projectile types. See also further rationale provided above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 has been allowed.
Reasons for allowance to be included in a future office action, if necessary.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern.
The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874.
/Bret Hayes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
31-Aug-26
Prosecution Insights