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 .
Response to Amendment
Pursuant to the applicant’s response filed on 8/26/2026, the amendments to the claims have been entered into the application. By this amendment, no claims are cancelled, claims 16-19 have been added, and claims 1-19 are pending in the application. The rejections have been updated to reflect the new limitations and arguments are addressed below. The amendments to the specification and drawings have been entered into the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,12-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beretta (US 20060096148). Based on the interpretation of the word “fuclie” in the original Italian application the examiner incudes shotgun in the interpretation for the US application.
Regarding claim 1, Beretta teaches a shotgun, a shotgun comprises a receiver, a kinetic shooting mechanism and a butt (Fig. 1, 11), wherein the butt comprises: a butt body (11) extending in length along a butt axis, between a head end facing the main body and a bottom end; a butt tube (20, a tube is a thing with and internal cavity that extends at least partially down the length of the thing and it is not necessarily circular), engaged with the main body, extending along the butt axis and housed in the butt body (Abstract); a damper group comprising: a support device (50) comprising a base (51) integrally engaged with the bottom end (Fig.. 3, 34; Paragraph 52, “a hole 34 is also provided, preferably in a lower position transversally along one of the bars, in order to allow the insert to be fixed into place”), and at least two arms (53) extending parallel to the butt axis inside the butt body from the base (Fig. 2); an abutment device (23) extending at least partially into the butt tube and comprising a radial abutment (27) suitable for abuttingly engaging the butt tube (Paragraph 48), wherein the abutment device is engaged with the at least two arms movable in an axial direction (Fig. 5, arms 53 fit inside); a hydraulic piston (41) engaged with the abutment device at a first piston end (Fig. 5) and with the support device at a second piston end (42); and a spring (43) positioned between the base and the radial abutment (Fig. 5); wherein the main body transmits a thrust action to the butt tube which in turn pushes the radial abutment and the hydraulic piston, while the spring transmits a return action in an opposite direction (Fig. 5, Paragraph 61).
Regarding claim 2, Beretta teaches the butt tube (Fig. 1, 20) comprises a tube cavity (26,26’ and Fig. 5) and the abutment device comprises an axial segment shaped complementarily to the tube cavity (Paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 3, Beretta teaches the main body comprises a body protrusion at least partially housed in the tube cavity on an opposite side to the damper group (Fig. 5). The examiner interprets the protrusion and recesses in Fig. 5 parts 20 and 21 to be used to engage a corresponding structure on the
Regarding claim 4, Beretta teaches the butt body comprises a butt cavity and the butt tube comprises an outer section complementary to the butt cavity (Abstract, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Beretta teaches at least two arms extend into the abutment device (Fig. 5, 53), the at least two arms comprising a retaining tooth (Fig. 2, 56) which snap engages the abutment device (Fig. 2, 29; Paragraph 56), and wherein the retaining tooth comprises a sliding wall suitable for allowing a sliding into the abutment device forcing the at least two arms to bend (Paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 6, Beretta teaches the sliding wall is shaped with a varying inclination (Fig. 2, 56; Paragraph 56)
Regarding claim 7, Beretta teaches the support device comprises four arms (Fig. 2, arms 53 have slits 54 that split the end of each arm into two new arms 55).
Regarding claim 12, Beretta teaches the base is engaged with the bottom end by transverse fastening members (Fig. 3, 34; Paragraph 52, “a hole 34 is also provided, preferably in a lower position transversally along one of the bars, in order to allow the insert to be fixed into place”).
Regarding claim 13, Beretta teaches the support device comprises a buttpad engaged with the base on an opposite side to that comprising the at least two arms (Fig. 1, 14).
Regarding claim 16, Beretta teaches the transverse fastening members are screws (Paragraph 52, “fixed into place using suitable means (screws, pins or similar), once it has been inserted inside the rifle stock.”).
Regarding claim 17, Beretta teaches the butt tube is slidable inside said butt body (Paragraph 52, “once it has been inserted inside the rifle stock”).
Regarding claim 18, Beretta teaches the butt tube is radial (The butt tube expands radially outward from the butt axis).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8-11,15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beretta (US 20060096148 A1) in view of Caravaggi (WO 2009156814 A1).
Beretta teaches all parts as described previously.
Regarding claim 8, Beretta doesn’t teach a rod group comprising a tie-rod extending along a tie-rod axis between an end engaged with the main body and an end engaged with the butt tube.
Caravaggi teaches a rod that connects the receiver to a portion of the stock (Abstract, Fig. 1a, 21).
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the shotgun receiver and butt tube with recoil dampening device and a tie-rod into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate both the butt tube with recoil dampening device and receiver of Beretta and the tie-rod of Caravaggi into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results. Even in the context of a combined apparatus, the features of the receiver and butt tube with recoil dampening device of Beretta and the tie-rod of Caravaggi would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination. The functionality of the combined apparatus would be the same as if one had used the butt tube with recoil dampening device and receiver of Beretta to reduce the recoil experienced by the user, and use the tie-rod to attach the stock to the receiver of Caravaggi. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the receiver and butt tube with recoil dampening device of Beretta with the tie-rod of Caravaggi to yield the predictable result of a combined apparatus that attaches the receiver and recoil dampening device together via a tie-rod.
Regarding claim 9, Beretta teaches a transverse wall in the butt tube. Beretta doesn’t teach the tie-rod engaging the butt tube across a transverse wall.
Caravaggi teaches a tie-rod group engaging the stock of a shotgun against an inner wall with a washer and nut (Fig. 1a, 34,35)
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the transvers wall of the butt tube and a tie-rod into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate both the transvers wall of the butt tube of Beretta and the tie-rod of Caravaggi into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results. Even in the context of a combined apparatus, the features of the transvers wall of the butt tube of Beretta and the tie-rod of Caravaggi would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination. The functionality of the combined apparatus would be the same as if one had used the transvers wall of the butt tube of Beretta to give structure of the butt tube, and use the tie-rod to attach the stock to the receiver of Caravaggi. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transvers wall of the butt tube of Beretta with the tie-rod of Caravaggi to yield the predictable result of a combined apparatus that attaches the receiver and butt tube together via a tie-rod.
Regarding claim 10, Beretta teaches a head member that engages the receiver. Beretta doesn’t teach a tie-rod extending through the head member.
Caravaggi teaches a tie-rod group that extends through a longitudinal cavity in the stock and engages part of the stock to hold it in place at an angle relative to the fixture angle of the tie-rod group to the receiver (Fig. 1a, 34,35,15,12).
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the head member of the butt tube with and a tie-rod that passes through a longitudinal cavity into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate both the head member of the butt tube of Beretta and the tie-rod that passes through a longitudinal cavity of Caravaggi into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results. Even in the context of a combined apparatus, the features of the head member of the butt tube of Beretta and the tie-rod that passes through a longitudinal cavity of Caravaggi would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination. The functionality of the combined apparatus would be the same as if one had used the head member of the butt tube of Beretta to limit the forward movement of the butt tube, and use the tie-rod that passes through a longitudinal cavity to attach the stock to the receiver of Caravaggi. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the head member of the butt tube of Beretta with the tie-rod that passes through a longitudinal cavity of Caravaggi to yield the predictable result of a combined apparatus that attaches the receiver and recoil dampening device together via a tie-rod.
Regarding claim 11, Beretta doesn’t teach the spring in the recoil dampening device to be concentric around the piston.
Caravaggi teaches the spring being concentric around the piston (Fig. 4, 42).
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the use of a spring and a piston into a concentric combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate both the spring and piston of Beretta and the spring around the piston of Caravaggi into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results. Even in the context of a combined apparatus, the features of the spring and piston of Beretta and the spring around the piston of Caravaggi would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination. The functionality of the combined apparatus would be the same as if one had used the spring and piston of Beretta to reduce recoil and return the system to its original position, and use the spring around the piston of Caravaggi to perform the same task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spring and piston of Beretta with the spring around the piston of Caravaggi to yield the predictable result of a combined apparatus that reduces recoil and return the system to its original position.
Regarding claim 14, Beretta doesn’t teach the use of the butt tube for use in a semi-automatic shotgun.
Caravaggi teaches the use of the tie-rod system in semi-automatic shotguns (Col. 1 lines 6-8).
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the use of the recoil dampening device and a semi-automatic shotgun combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate both the recoil dampening device of Beretta and a semi-automatic shotgun of Caravaggi into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results. Even in the context of a combined apparatus, the features of the dampening device of Beretta and semi-automatic shotgun of Caravaggi would be expected to work as intended, with each element in the combined apparatus performing the same function as it did separately. No new functionality would arise from the combination. The functionality of the combined apparatus would be the same as if one had used the recoil dampening device of Beretta to reduce the recoil experienced by the user in any other firearm with a stock, and use of a semi-automatic shotgun of Caravaggi. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the recoil dampening device of Beretta with the semi-automatic shotgun of Caravaggi to yield the predictable result of a combined apparatus that reduces the recoil experienced by the user of a semi-automatic shotgun.
Regarding claim 15, Beretta doesn’t teach the use of a tie-rod for attaching the butt tube to the receiver as previously explained. Beretta does teach the inner transverse wall is located on the centerline of the butt tube (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Beretta and Caravaggi teach the device as previously shown. Caravaggi also teaches the spring (Fig. 2, 42), the hydraulic piston (43), and the butt tube are concentric along the butt axis (Fig. 4 shows the parts of the butt tube are concentric within the housing and Fig. 1 shows the housing along the butt axis).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants statement that element 10 of Beretta is a “recoil damper system” not a “butt tube” (The recoil damper system of Beretta is a device that fits in the butt of the rifle). Applicant states that if element 20 of Beretta is used as the “butt tube” it is not “engaged with the main body” (examiner points out that applicants figures show element 6 is engaged with the main body via an extra protrusion 25 not directly engaged with the main body). Either of the elements of Beretta 10 or 20 are engaged with the main body via the butt body 11. Applicant states that the support device as identified is not “integrally engaged with the bottom end”, applicant also states that the base of the support device as identified moves relative to the device itself. Applicant make no assertion in the claims or in the specification that the support device cannot move relative to the bottom end while still being integrally engaged. The butt tube as identified above is integrally connected to the bottom end and all parts of the butt tube are integrally connected with each other. Applicant states that the lack of identifying a “butt tube” in the reference thereby fails to identify all the limitations of the claims however the “butt tube” was identified above. Applicant also makes note that the examiner does not create a case of prima facie for using 102 anticipation however prima facie is used when an obviousness rejection under 103 not 102 is made.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. S.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN W CAUDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-0481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET. Friday 8 a.m. - 12 p.m.
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.
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
/L.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3641
