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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9, 12-17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein” does not agree with “including,” which should be --includes--. Note there are multiple instances of this in the claims.
Claims 2-4, 12, 14-15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein,” does not require a comma thereafter because the term begins a clause. Note there are multiple instances of this in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7-9 and 18-20 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites "the vibration isolator on each of the at least one mechanical fastener is configured to dampen movements of the launcher about the launcher adaptation kit, and vice versa" in lines 2-4. The issue is what is intended by vice versa, which means: the same but with the two items mentioned reversed, per OneLook.com. Though identically disclosed, it is unclear which two elements Applicant intends. Does such mean to dampen movements of the launcher about the launcher adaptation kit and to dampen movements of the launcher adaptation kit about the launcher? I.e., the kit 10 isolates vibration from the launcher 12 to the weapon station 14 and from the weapon station to the launcher. Such is how the recitation will be further treated on the merits.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the use" in lines 3, 5, and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested is simply eliminating "the use of". Claim 18 further recites the limitation "the vibration isolators" in lines 7-8. Though antecedent basis appears satisfactory, the conjunction "or" in line 8 conveys all preceding limitations are alternatives, wherein none are dependent on previous abilities/features. Thus, "the" should be deleted.
Claim 19 recites similarly to claims 7 and 18, above, with the exception of reciting "vibration isolators" in the last line, which should be precede by "the" because of the previous recitation thereof six lines above it and the conjunction "and" two lines above it.
Claim 20 recites similarly to claim 18, above.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0011070 to MSI Defense Solutions, LLC, (“MSI,” cited by Applicant).
Based on the Written Opinion in the related PCT application (PCT/US2025/052249), MSI fairly meets the claims above. That opinion meticulously demonstrates how MSI anticipates every limitation of those claims. Thus, absent evidence or persuasive arguments to the contrary, such must be given full faith and credit but will not be reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MSI.
Similarly to the above, the Written Opinion meticulously demonstrates how modifications to MSI would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, absent evidence or persuasive arguments to the contrary, such must be given full faith and credit but will not be reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MSI in view of US 3,437,119 to Dey (also cited by Applicant).
Similarly to the above, the Written Opinion meticulously demonstrates how modifications to MSI would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on the teaching of Dey. Thus, absent evidence or persuasive arguments to the contrary, such must be given full faith and credit but will not be reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MSI in view of CN 204917452 to Pan (also cited by Applicant).
Similarly to the above, the Written Opinion meticulously demonstrates how modifications to MSI would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on the teaching of Dey. Thus, absent evidence or persuasive arguments to the contrary, such must be given full faith and credit but will not be reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for allowance to be included in a future action, if necessary.
Conclusion
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
8-Jul-26
Prosecution Insights