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 information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 16 October 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent 3,169,445 issued to Stanton et al (Stanton).
Regarding claim 1, Stanton discloses a magazine (118) for an artillery installation, said magazine comprising: a frame (See at least Figure 6) configured for internally housing a plurality of pieces of ammunition (R) and comprising an inlet (120) configured for receiving said pieces of ammunition to be introduced into said frame, an outlet (351) configured for feeding said pieces of ammunition out of said frame to a weapon assembly of the artillery installation, a guide structure (331, 334, 342) extending between said inlet and said outlet to define a guide path, and configured to allow said pieces of ammunition to slide laterally along said guide path (See Figures, clearly illustrated); and a moving system comprising: a movable chain structure (309, 313), which is moveably supported by said frame, and which is configured for carrying and laterally pushing said pieces of ammunition along said guide path, a motor (See at least Col. 8 Lines 39-40) configured for generating mechanical power, and a transmission mechanism (“power drive unit” shown in and described with reference to Figure 22A and Col. 8 Lines 39-61) configured to be driven by said motor to move said movable chain structure along said guide path in both travel directions, comprising a forward travel direction and a backward travel direction opposite each other (See at least Col. 5 Lines 19-52).
Regarding claim 4, Stanton further discloses wherein said transmission mechanism is a gear reducer (See at least Col. 4 Lines 49-64)
Regarding claim 8, Stanton further discloses wherein said motor is controllable either locally or remotely (Col. 9 Lines 19-35).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanton in view of U.S. Patent 4,860,633 issued to Wiethoff et al (Wiethoff).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-7, Stanton does not disclose the collective limitations of the motor assembly and transmission mechanism.
Wiethoff, a related prior art references discloses [Claim 2] wherein said motor comprises a bidirectional motor and is configured for turning in a forward direction and, respectively, in a backward direction opposite to the forward direction; [Claim 3] wherein, when said motor turns in said forward direction and, respectively, in said backward direction, said transmission mechanism moves said movable chain structure in said forward travel direction and, respectively, in said backward travel direction; [Claim 5] wherein said transmission mechanism is prearranged for being manually operable, independently of said motor; [Claim 6] wherein said transmission mechanism is prearranged for coupling with a driving member configured to be operated manually by a user; and [Claim 7] wherein said transmission mechanism comprises a socket and said driving member comprises a crank handle that is configured to be coupled with said socket (See at least Figures 2, 6-8, & 11, Col. 5 Lines 7-26 & 40-65, and Col. 6 Lines 25-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Stanton with the noted teachings of Wiethoff. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to utilize an art recognized equivalent means of driving the magazine assembly with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanton in view of U.S. Patent 2,474,975 issued to Goodhue (Goodhue).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 15, Stanton does not disclose the collective limitations of the feeding system.
Goodhue, a related prior art reference, discloses [Claim 9] a feeding system configured for influencing transfer of said pieces of ammunition from said outlet to the weapon assembly as a function of the direction in which said movable chain structure is moved along said guide path; [Claim 10] wherein, when said movable chain structure is moved along said guide path in said forward travel direction and, respectively, in said backward travel direction, said feeding system mechanically allows and, respectively, prevents transfer of said pieces of ammunition from said outlet to the weapon assembly; and [Claim 15] wherein said feeding system further comprises a loading assembly configured for picking up each piece of ammunition that crosses said outlet and for transferring each picked-up piece of ammunition to the weapon assembly (See at least Figures 3, 5, 8, & 11-14, Col. 1 Lines 1-3, Col. 5 Line 51-Col. 6 Line 27, Col. 7 Lines 3-34, and Col. 8 Line 40-Col. 9 Line 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Stanton with the noted teachings of Goodhue. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to utilize an art recognized equivalent means of transferring munitions from the feeding system to the weapon assembly with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 16-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose the limitations of at least claims 11 and 16 directed to particular design aspects of the feeding system as claimed, including the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 Form for a listing of applicable prior art references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights