DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that “Claim 1 ties a shared-in-common "section twist rate" to the cross-sectional geometry of each baffle in a respective section. More specifically, the second section contains multiple baffles, "each" having a cross-sectional geometry twisted "at a second section twist rate."…in terms of claim construction, therefore, a "section twist rate" is the section-specific angular-progression relationship maintained through the recited cross-sectional geometry of each baffle and common to every baffle in that section. This construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the claim language and specification.” The examiner disagrees. Applicants arguments are too narrow in view of the broad claim language. The twist rate as claimed is not inherently constant through axial extent of the cross-section geometry.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a "section twist rate" is the section-specific angular-progression relationship maintained through the recited cross-sectional geometry of each baffle and common to every baffle in that section) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
An attempt was made to reach the applicant at 254-732-2242 to expedite prosecution. The receptionist stated that Mr. Mangrum had no extension and was unable to be reached by phone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latka (US 5,029,512) In view of Katcher (US 2,359,365).
Regarding claim 1, Latka discloses a firearm suppressor a first section along an axis (Annotated Fig. 1 below);
a second section along the axis downstream of the first section, the second section comprises a multiple of second section baffles, each of the multiple of second section baffles comprising a cross-sectional geometry that is twisted around the axis at a second section twist rate;
a third section along the axis downstream of the second section, the third section comprises a multiple of third section baffles, each of the multiple of third section baffles comprising a cross-sectional geometry that is twisted around the axis at a third section twist rate, Annotated Fig. 1 below); and
a fourth section along the axis downstream of the third section, the fourth section comprises a multiple of fourth section baffles, each of the multiple of fourth section baffles comprising a cross-sectional geometry that is twisted around the axis at a fourth section twist rate, Annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
291
1076
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Latka does not disclose wherein the twist rate increases from the second section to the fourth section.
Katcher teaches that it is known in the art of silencers (Col. 1 lines 1-5: “[t]his invention relates to mufflers or silencers for use in connection with the elimination of the noise caused by the sudden flow of gases”) which is pertinent to the particular problem of firearm suppressors, to provide a multiple second section baffles comprising a cross-sectional geometry that is twisted around the axis at a second section twist rate; a third section comprises a multiple of third section baffles, each of the multiple of third section baffles comprising a cross-sectional geometry that is twisted around the axis at a third section twist rate, the third section twist rate greater than the second section twist rate; a fourth section comprises a multiple of fourth section baffles, each of the multiple of fourth section baffles comprising a cross-sectional geometry that is twisted around the axis at a fourth section twist rate, the fourth section twist rate greater than the third section twist rate (annotated Fig. 5 below; Col. 2, lines 8-26: “The pitch of the spiral is reversed at points 15 and 16 and increases toward end piece 12. Increasing the Pitch of the spiral allows the gas to expand more rapidly thereby reducing its velocity [as shown below]. In a broad sense it can be said that the spiral has a variable pitch which does not necessarily increase toward the outlet, although this is the preferred form. For example, the increase could be toward the inlet end of the chamber [understood has twist rate increasing towards the end of the chamber as claimed]”)
PNG
media_image2.png
376
1001
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Latka such that the twist rate increases towards the end (outlet) of the suppressor; in view of Katcher to obtain the desired result of rapidly controlling the expansion of the gases reducing its velocity.
Regarding claim 7-10, the combination of Latka and Katcher, as applied to claim 1 above, does no expressly define the exact twist rate and length of the sections except to say “has twist rate increasing towards the end of the chamber”.
Applicant should note that the twist rate and length of sections is a matter of design and “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [see also MPEP 2144.05] and “determining where a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentage lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed Cir. 2003). See also In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A 1955).
Specifically, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have realized to use the claimed dimensions, since doing so would have achieved an optimal combination of varying the twist rate, causing the gas to expand more rapidly reducing its velocity.
Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Latka and Katcher, as applied to claims 1 and 7-15, and further in view of Peterson (US 9,851,166).
Regarding claim 2-6, the combination of Latka and Katcher fails to disclose the cross-sectional geometry is triangular.
Peterson teaches that it is known in the art of spiral/helical designed suppressors to have a triangular cross-sectional geometry (Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the combination of Latka and Katcher such that there was triangular cross-sectional geometry, in view of Peterson a since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicants amendment filed 4 September 2026 bring the case into allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4269. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM MST M-F.
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.
/JOSHUA E FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
