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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Because the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 such have been considered.
Drawings
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following are quotations of the relevant sections of 35 U.S.C. § 112:
(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.
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4 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.
The terms “relatively softer” and “relatively harder” in claim 2 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Though examples of softer and harder materials are disclosed (and claimed in claims 3-4), examples are insufficient to provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of relative softness or hardness because there are differences in the softness and hardness of the materials designated softer and harder. Furthermore, both the “relatively” and the “softer” or “harder,” as the case may be, render the claim indefinite. Suggested is replacing “relatively softer” and “relatively harder” with --soft-- and --hard--, respectively.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 recites “an axial length of at least 1.5 times an interior diameter of the open end,” which the recitation in claim 20, “the axial length is at least 1.5 times the interior diameter of the open end” does distinguish over. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 US 3,862,600 to Tocco in view of Sporting Arms Ammunition Manufacturing Institute (“SAAMI”) centerfire cartridge guidelines, Z299.3 (2022), pages 1-3 and 24 provided herewith but Applicant can find the entire document here: https://saami.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SAAMI-Z299.3-2022-Centerfire-Pistol-Revolver-Approved-12-13-2022.pdf.
Re: claim 1, Tocco discloses the claimed invention including a multi-projectile ammunition cartridge 90, e.g., Fig. 5, comprising: a casing 92 symmetrical about a central axis and extending along the central axis to a mouth (Tocco discloses “each of the projectiles [94] is formed of a generally conical configuration having a relatively short outer cylindrical body surface 104, receivable within the cartridge or shell casing 92,” col. 6, ll. 9-13, thus, symmetry is adequately disclosed), the casing having an internal surface and an external surface (each shown); and two or more coaxially aligned projectiles 94, 96, 98 retained within the portion of the casing adjacent the mouth (shown), each projectile having a tapered nose profile (shown; see also, e.g., Fig. 6) and a rear concavity profile (shown), wherein the tapered nose profile of a rearward one of the two or more projectiles differs from the rear concavity profile of a forward adjacent one of the two or more projectiles (though Tocco discloses and shows symmetrical projectiles, col. 6, ll. 16-20, Tocco further discloses with reference to Fig. 6 that “the included angle of the forward cone surface 106 can be substantially different from the rearward cone surface 108 without any apparent impairment of performance of such projectiles,” id., at ll. 32-35. Thus, Tocco has fully contemplated the tapered nose profile of a rearward projectile differing from a rear concavity of a forward adjacent projectile.
Thus, Tocco discloses the claimed invention except for wherein along a portion of the casing adjacent the mouth the internal surface is parallel to the central axis within 0.002 inch per inch of length, and where the external surface has a taper relative to the central axis.
Regarding parallelism with 0.002 inches per inch of length, it has been held that limitations relating to the size of an element were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Here, though Tocco is silent with respect to such, dimensional tolerancing is well-known in the industry as a means for controlling part interaction. Also known is the fact that the tighter the tolerances required, the more expensive the part is to make. Regardless, some measure of tolerance exists in the cartridge case of Tocco and there is no evidence that tightening or loosening such results is change in performance of the cartridge case.
Regarding tapering, SAAMI teaches this to be the norm for many cartridges otherwise identical to that of Tocco. For example, the 9mm Luger casing on page 24 of SAAMI clearly shows the cartridge case tapering from the head (leftmost portion) to the bullet seat. This is done to ease extraction of the cartridge case from the breech of the barrel. While straight-sided cartridges do exist, SAAMI teaches that a taper has been known since at least 23 JUN 21 (the latest revision). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tocco as taught by SAAMI in order to ease extraction of the case from the breech of a barrel. Further rationale: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S.Ct. 1742 (2007).
Re: claims 2-4, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Re: claim 5, Tocco fairly discloses wherein the rear concavity profile comprises a surface perpendicular to the central axis because of the discussion of angles, above.
Re: claim 6, Tocco further discloses wherein the tapered nose profile of a rearward projectile is partially nested within the rear concavity profile of a forward adjacent one of the two or more projectiles (shown), wherein the general shape of the tapered nose profile and the rear concavity profile are the same (shown), and wherein the tapered nose profile of the rearward one of the two or more projectiles is wider at least at one point than the rear concavity profile of the forward adjacent one of the two or more projectiles (shown).
Re: claim 7, Tocco fairly discloses wherein the tapered nose profile of the rearward one of the two or more projectiles is wider than the rear concavity profile of the forward adjacent one of the two or more projectiles due to an angle differential between the tapered nose profile and the rear concavity profile, and wherein an angle of the tapered nose profile with respect to the central axis is greater than an angle of the rear concavity profile with respect to the central axis. See above regarding Tocco’s discussion of implementing various angles.
Re: claims 8-10, see discussion above.
Re: claim 11, Tocco fairly discloses wherein the tapered nose profile of the rearward one of the two or more projectiles contacts the rear concavity profile of the forward adjacent one of the two or more projectiles at an annular contact area between the rear concavity and the tapered nose profile (such would be the result of certain different angles discussed by Tocco), the annular contact area centered on the central axis (such would similarly be the result thereof).
Re: claim 12, Tocco further discloses wherein the cartridge defines a peripheral air space between the inside surface of the casing, the tapered nose profile of the rearward projectile, and the rear concavity profile of the forward projectile (shown).
Re: claim 13, in view of the structure disclosed by Tocco such fairly meets the claim, i.e., wherein upon firing, the peripheral air space becomes sealed prior to the two or more projectiles leaving the casing, because it is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn thereto to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally, where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Re: claim 14, Tocco further discloses wherein the internal surface of the casing contacts the two or more projectiles at an annular bearing surface (shown).
Concerning method claims 15-20, the method of manufacturing the cartridge case would have been obvious since it is the normal and logical manner in which the case is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0234198 to Carmel discloses a cartridge case with similar projectiles to the instant claims.
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
24-Jul-26
Prosecution Insights