DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 2, line 2 and in claim 7, line 2, the language, “…the plurality of tungsten pellets…”, lacks a proper antecedent basis because tungsten pellets have not been recited in independent claim 1.
In claim 4, lines 1-2, the phrase, “…a wad container the metal short pellets…”, appears to be incomplete.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIntosh (US 2020/0355476 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, McIntosh discloses a shotshell cartridge 10 (Fig. 2; paragraph [0040]) comprising a cartridge casing 12, a plurality of tungsten shot pellets 20, 22 contained within the cartridge casing, wherein the tungsten pellets are of two different diameters, the larger forwardly positioned pellets 22 comprise size #1 (4.09 mm) or size #2 (3.81 mm), while the smaller rearwardly positioned pellets 20 comprise size #3 (3.43 mm) or size #4 (3.25 mm). McIntosh does not specifically disclose the weight of the tungsten pellets.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to try combinations of differently sized pellets, including 2.0mm diameter pellets, having a variety of different weights, including a weight of 2 ounces, so as to influence the effective range, dispersion and kinetic effect of the McIntosh effective load. Selecting a propellant capable of discharging the tungsten pellets at a velocity exceeding 1200 ft per second would also have been an obvious propellent for said POSITA to try, the motivation being to maximize the kinetic energy of the pellets at impact with a target, such as body armor.
Regarding claims 2, selecting the claimed number of contained tungsten pellets, 750, in the McIntosh cartridge would have been an obvious for said POSITA to try, the motivation being to improve the probability of hitting the target with an effective number of pellets.
Regarding claims 3, McIntosh pellets are tungsten pellets (see at least claim 8).
Regarding claim 4, McIntosh discloses a wad 18 and includes a first pellet section and a second pellet section, and wherein pellets 22 in the first pellet section have a larger diameter than pellets 20 in the second pellet section (Fig. 2; paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, McIntosh is silent on any waterproof properties. It would have been obvious to said POSITA to select a waterproof casing or coating for the cartridge so as to render the cartridge stable in damp conditions.
Regarding claim 6, selecting the claimed configuration for the McIntosh cartridge would have been an obvious configuration for said POSITA to try, the motivation being to deliver a useful kinetic energy at both 20 meters and 60 meters.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, selecting a configuration of the McIntosh cartridge that would deliver the claimed shot pattern and pattern density at the claimed 60-meter range would have been an obvious configuration of the McIntosh cartridge for said POSITA to try, the motivation being to deliver a useful kinetic on the target at a 60-meter range.
Regarding claim 9, see the section above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, see the section above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, selecting a configuration of the McIntosh cartridge that would deliver the claimed shot pattern and pattern density at the claimed 60-meter range would have been an obvious configuration of the McIntosh cartridge for said POSITA to try, the motivation being to deliver a useful kinetic on the target at a 60-meter range.
Regarding claims 13, McIntosh discloses the wad 18 ([paragraph 0039]). Selecting a wad that encased both layers of pellets 20, would have been obvious to said POSITA, so as to protect the barrel from excessive damage due to the hardness of tungsten.
Regarding claim 14, see the section above for claim 13.
Regarding claims 15-17, the McIntosh cartridge casing is inherently dimensioned for compatibility with a conventional shotgun receiver, conventional receivers include receivers that are sized to accept 12-gauge cartridges having a 3-inch length, and is inherently capable of being used in underslung mounts on M4 and AK-47 weapon systems.
Regarding claim 18, see the section above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, see the section above for claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, the McIntosh cartridge is inherently capable of being used with an underslung shotgun mount without eliminating primary function of an M4 or AK-47 weapon systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see the attached PTO-FORM 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S BERGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5am.
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.
/JAMES S BERGIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights