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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olson et al (US 6,283,035) [hereinafter Olson].
Regarding claim 1, Olson discloses a cartridge case 4 for a firearm having reduced internal volume (title; abstract; Fig. 1) comprising:
the cartridge case 4 including a case head, the case head including a primer pocket, a cartridge case wall integrally formed to the case head, the cartridge case wall being tubular in construction, the cartridge case wall extending between the case head and a shoulder portion which reduces the diameter of the cartridge case wall while still maintaining the tubular shape, the shoulder portion transitioning to a neck portion integrally formed to the shoulder, the neck portion maintaining the tubular construction and extending substantially parallel to the cartridge case wall, terminating in a cartridge case mouth for accepting and locating a bullet assembly, the cartridge case defining a propellant chamber including an inner surface defining a first volume (cleary seen in Fig. 1, 7, 8),
a propellant fill adapter 8 positioned within the propellant chamber for reducing the volume of propellant that will fit into the cartridge case defining a second volume (Fig. 1; Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Olson further disclose wherein the propellant fill adapter is constructed from a polymer (“in preferred embodiments of the reduced propellant ammunition cartridge 2, the tube 8 is made of aluminum, but it may be made of brass or other malleable metal. Alternatively, the tube 8 may be made of plastic. Also, the thickness of the tube 8 is predetermined to control the maximum quantity of powder charge 10 contained within the ammunition cartridge 2”).
Regarding claim 3, Olson further discloses wherein the propellant fill adapter is constructed as a tubular member having an inner surface, an outer surface, a base end surface, and a mouth end surface (clearly seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Olson further discloses wherein the outer surface of the propellant fill adapter is constructed and arranged to be spaced away from the inner surface of the propellant chamber along the full length of the propellant fill adapter. (Fig. 1, 7, 11)
Claims 1-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maljkovic et al (US 9,182,204) [hereinafter Maljkovic].
Regarding claim 1, Maljkovic discloses a cartridge case 2 for a firearm having reduced internal volume (Title; Abstract; Fig. 3) comprising:
the cartridge case including a case head, the case head including a primer pocket, a cartridge case wall integrally formed to the case head, the cartridge case wall being tubular in construction, the cartridge case wall extending between the case head and a shoulder portion which reduces the diameter of the cartridge case wall while still maintaining the tubular shape, the shoulder portion transitioning to a neck portion integrally formed to the shoulder, the neck portion maintaining the tubular construction and extending substantially parallel to the cartridge case wall, terminating in a cartridge case mouth for accepting and locating a bullet assembly, the cartridge case defining a propellant chamber including an inner surface defining a first volume (clearly seen in Fig. 3),
a propellant fill adapter 5 positioned within the propellant chamber for reducing the volume of propellant that will fit into the cartridge case defining a second volume (Abstract; Fig. 3; Col. 6 line 56 – Col. 7, line 8: “FIG. 3 itself shows one possible embodiment of the invention. In this embodiment, the subsonic casing is constructed from a hybrid two-piece casing design. A hybrid two-piece casing design, such as that shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, lends itself well to the incorporation of a separate polymeric restrictor 5 into the caselet 4 to partially form the engineered propellant volume or chamber 7. In such an embodiment, the restrictor is easily inserted from the primer end of caselet 4, prior to the attachment of cap 6. Following the attachment of the cap 6 to the caselet 4 the restrictor 5 is held tightly within the resulting shell and therefore the whole casing structure of FIG. 3 remains intact following the firing event without risk of expulsion from the casing or attendant movement of the restrictor or propellant in relation to other elements of the casing”).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Maljkovic further discloses wherein the propellant fill adapter is constructed from a polymer (Col. 6, lines 64-67: “A hybrid two-piece casing design, such as that shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, lends itself well to the incorporation of a separate polymeric restrictor 5 into the caselet 4 to partially form the engineered propellant volume or chamber 7”).
Regarding claim 3, Maljkovic further discloses wherein the propellant fill adapter is constructed as a tubular member having an inner surface, an outer surface, a base end surface, and a mouth end surface (clearly shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Maljkovic further discloses wherein the outer surface is constructed and arranged to conform to the inner surface of the propellant chamber from the base end surface to the mouth end surface (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Maljkovic further discloses wherein the inner surface of the propellant fill adapter is constructed and arranged to include a first cylindrical portion extending from the base end surface to the mouth end surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Maljkovic further discloses wherein the cartridge case is constructed from polymer (Claim 1; Col. 1, lines 10-15: “The present invention generally relates to ammunition articles, and more particularly to subsonic ammunition casings formed from polymeric materials”).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson.
Regarding claim 10, fails to disclose wherein the fill adapter is constructed and arranged to be positioned against the inner surface of the propellant chamber spaced away from the inner surface of the propellant chamber at the case head and spaced away from the inner surface of the propellant chamber at the case shoulder.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the fill adapter is constructed and arranged to be positioned against the inner surface of the propellant chamber spaced away from the inner surface of the propellant chamber at the case head and spaced away from the inner surface of the propellant chamber at the case shoulder, 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.
Furthermore, Absent of any affidavit showing unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to made the fill adapter is constructed and arranged to be positioned against the inner surface of the propellant chamber spaced away from the inner surface of the propellant chamber at the case head and spaced away from the inner surface of the propellant chamber at the case shoulder. Applicant has not disclosed that claimed shape provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maljkovic in view of Burrow (US 2022/0349691).
Regarding claim 6, Maljkovic further discloses any suitable cross-sectional shape may be used within the subsonic casings of the instant invention, such as, for example, hexagonal, triangular, square, etc., as shown for example in FIG. 6. Likewise, the cross-section of the engineered propellant chamber need not be uniform along the longitudinal length of the casing. The dimensions of the engineered propellant volume could taper from proximal to distal ends, or from distal to proximal ends, or a series of interconnected chambers of propellant could be formed. In short, any size shape or number of engineered propellant chambers may be used providing these engineered propellant volumes or chamber satisfy the overall volume limitations described herein.
Maljkovic fails to expressly disclose wherein the inner surface of the propellant fill adapter is constructed and arranged to include a first cylindrical portion extending from the base end surface transitioning to a first frustoconical portion extending to the mouth end surface.
Burrow teaches that it is known in the art of subsonic ammunition to provide a propellant fill adapter constructed and arranged to include a first cylindrical portion extending from the base end surface transitioning to a first frustoconical portion extending to the mouth end surface (Fig. 2C; Par. 0042: “ FIG. 2c shows a propellant chamber insert 66 that is thicker in the bottom of the propellant chamber 14 extending about half of the middle body component 28 and thinner at the near the bullet-end component 18 with the propellant chamber insert 66 tapering from towards the bullet-end 18.” See also Par. 0046: “The propellant chamber insert 66 may be of any shape or profile to occupy the necessary volume in the powder (propellant) chamber 14. In addition having any profile, the present invention may have a varied profile throughout the casing which allows the shoulder region to have a greater volume than the base region or to have a multistage propellant load. In addition, the propellant chamber insert 66 may have separate profiles in separate regions to achieve a specific burn and specific ignition”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maljkovic such that the fill adapter had an internal volume to include a first cylindrical portion extending from the base end surface transitioning to a first frustoconical portion extending to the mouth end surface, in view of Burrow, to obtain the desire result of achieving a specific burn and specific ignition.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Maljkovic fails to expressly disclose wherein the inner surface of the propellant fill adapter is constructed and arranged to include a first cylindrical portion extending from the base end surface transitioning to a first frustoconical portion, the first frustoconical portion transitioning to a second cylindrical portion extending to the mouth end surface or wherein the inner surface of the propellant fill adapter is constructed and arranged to include a first cylindrical portion extending from the base end surface transitioning to a first frustoconical portion, the first frustoconical portion transitioning to a second cylindrical portion, the second cylindrical portion transitioning to a second frustoconical portion, the second frustoconical portion transitioning to a third cylindrical portion and extending to the mouth end surface.
Burrow teaches that it is known in the art of subsonic ammunition to provide a propellant chamber insert 66 may be of any shape or profile to occupy the necessary volume in the powder (propellant) and a varied profile throughout the casing which allows the shoulder region to have a greater volume than the base region or to have a multistage propellant load. Burrow further teaches the propellant chamber insert 66 may have separate profiles in separate regions to achieve a specific burn and specific ignition (Par. 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maljkovic such that the fill adapter had internal volume was shaped and profiled as claimed, in view of Burrow, to obtain the desire result of achieving a specific burn and specific ignition.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maljkovic in view of Baxter et al (US 2017/0307343) [hereinafter Baxter].
Regarding claims 11-13, Maljkovic fails to disclose wherein the cartridge case is constructed from brass, steel or aluminum.
Baxter teaches that it is known in the art to make cartridge casings out of brass, steel or aluminum (Par. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize brass, steel or aluminum as the casing material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
Additional art representing the state of the art of cartridge cases for a firearm having reduced internal volume considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure is cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
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
Prosecution Insights