DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 SEP 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to substitute: --firearm control group-- for the previously-recited “trigger”; and to replace “circular feeder” with: --length of at least the length of the magazine and defines cutouts for at least one portion of the magazine--. These cannot serve to patentably distinguish over US 11,248,864 (“the ‘864 patent”) for the following reasoning and/or rationales.
As previously asserted, nowhere does the instant application or the ‘864 patent disclose “firearm control group,” “control,” or “group,” in the Detailed Description section. Thus, the metes and bounds of this limitation not only lack support in the description as required by MPEP § 608.01(o), but are therefore ambiguous because such must be somehow divined. See previous office action for further explanation regarding this limitation.
Next, the replacement of “the passage having a circular feeder” with “the passage having a length of at least the length of the magazine and defines cutouts for at least one portion of the magazine” is problematic for the following reasons.
Though cutouts are disclosed as drawing reference characters 64 and 66, instant and patent claims 6-9 require, in combination: the magazine being an elongate body having elongated side edges, the side edges being exposed when the frames are in the closed position, and the magazine including an ammunition exit facility at an upper surface and rear end of the magazine. Thus, whether cutouts are particularly recited in the claims is irrelevant because the side edges, including those of the ammunition exit facility at the upper surface and rear end of the magazine, are claimed as being exposed when the frames are in the closed position. One reading the specification of the ’864 patent would understand that cutouts are merely an extension of the exposed areas of the magazine. Regardless, removing material where necessary or beneficial, i.e., for weight-savings, is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 has been amened to reintroduce an ammunition exit facility, cf. lines 1-2 with line 3. In the previous office action, an issue was noted because “circular feeder” in claim 1 thereof create an issue as to how many ammunition exit facilities there were.
Because these the only changes to the claims, because such are merely linguistic, because the meanings of the terms are not clearly defined as other than those in the patented claims, and because a reading of the specification is required to glean any meaning of at least some of the amendments the claim language, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection must stand.
Any objection/rejection not maintained herein has been withdrawn/overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-9 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. See explanation, above. The second iteration of ammunition exit facility should be preceded by --the--, as originally presented.
Double Patenting
See previous office action for details regarding this rejection and methods to overcome.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of the ’864 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only discernable difference appears to reside in claim 1, i.e., instant claims 2-19 are identical to patent claims 2-19. The inclusion of the metes and bounds of what claims 8-9 were understood to cover renders claim 1 obvious.
See previous action(s) and above, for details.
Evidence to the contrary is welcome.
Conclusion
All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 extension fee 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 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
19-Mar-26
Prosecution Insights