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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendment filed on November 23, 2025 and supplemental Amendment filed December 1, 2025. Claims 1-7 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 4, and 5 have been amended and new claims 6 and 7 have been added.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In this instance claim 1 recites a generic place holder “element” with recited function of producing sound without any corresponding structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case the sound producing element has structure identified in the specification as a leaf spring.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 7 include the language front, side, rear, and lower; however, the claims do not include any orientation or frame of reference (e.g., that of a user, the orientation of the firearm during use, the orientation with regard to how the magazine is inserted, that of an observer?) with which to determine the meaning of these terms within the claim. For purposes of examination these terms are interpreted as indicated in the reproduced figures below.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0378724 by Seigler (“Seigler”) Seigler in view of US Publication No. 2021/0156639 by Kirsch (“Kirsch”).
In re claim 1, Seigler discloses a dry firing training assembly [Fig. 19, Abstract] comprising: a magazine body comprising a first side panel formed and a second side panel parallel to said first side panel, a front panel which extends between front edges of said first and second side panels, a rear panel which extends between rear edges of said first and second side panels, and a floor plate coupled to lower edges of said first and second side panels and to lower edges of said front and rear panels, said first and second side panels and said front and rear panels defining an inner hollow portion of said magazine body, wherein inner faces of said first and second side panels and of said front and rear panels face inwards towards said inner hollow portion [Figs 1, 2, & 19, ¶43 describe magazine body 1 includes first and second side panels with front and rear panels and floor plate all of which frame an interior hollow portion, see, e.g., annotated figures below]
PNG
media_image1.png
840
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1031
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a trigger interface member which protrudes upwards from said magazine body and which is configured to be pushed by an action of pulling a trigger of a firearm into which said magazine body is inserted, said trigger interface member being biased by a biasing member [Fig. 19 shows projection (trigger interface) at top of lever 2 to interact with trigger at point A, the projection is biased by spring 8, ¶¶22,43,44, 49 describe the magazine is inserted in the pistol's magazine compartment to provide realistic muscle memory training by duplicating the action of the trigger in normal live fire, the feel and the sound of the release of the firing pin, and the resetting of the trigger for additional trigger activation. This device does not require the shooter to manipulate any parts in order to make it properly interface with the pistol's trigger mechanism]; and a pivoting lever coupled to said trigger interface member, said pivoting lever being arranged to pivot about a pivot and to actuate a sound-producing element [Fig. 19 shows lever 2 which pivots about fulcrum pin 7, which actuates reed 6 to produce sound ¶48].
Kirsch also teaches a magazine for dry fire practice. Kirsch teaches the magazine includes a magazine body comprising a first side panel formed with magazine catch groove and a second side panel parallel to said first side panel, a front panel which extends between front edges of said first and second side panels, a rear panel which extends between rear edges of said first and second side panels, and a floor plate coupled to lower edges of said first and second side panels and to lower edges of said front and rear panels, said first and second side panels and said front and rear panels defining an inner hollow portion of said magazine body, wherein inner faces of said first and second side panels and of said front and rear panels face inwards towards said inner hollow portion. In addition, Kirsch teaches and front and rear elongate members mounted inside said magazine body, wherein said front elongate member is adjacent to said inner face of said front panel and a width of said front elongate member protrudes inwards and rearward from said inner face of said front panel, and said rear elongate member is adjacent to said inner face of said rear panel and a width of said rear elongate member protrudes inwards and forward from said inner face of said rear panel, and thicknesses of said front and rear elongate members are located between said inner faces of said first and second side panels, and lengths of said front and rear elongate members extend upwards with respect to said floor plate [Fig. 1 shows magazine 10 with housings 20 and 30 with magazine catch notch 21 having front, side, and rear panels with interior surfaces 20b with two elongate members (e.g., weights 50) ¶¶25-28, 30, 32 describe the weights 50 placement within in the interior space].
PNG
media_image3.png
689
755
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kirsch, like Seigler, teaches a magazine for use in dry fire training for firearms. Kirsch teaches because it is important to practice firing and reloading a firearm and because it is particularly useful to do so with a realistic yet safe magazine, it would be desirable to provide a practice magazine that is simulates the feel and experience of using a real magazine. Additionally, it would further be desirable to provide a practice magazine that simulates the feel of a real magazine when ejected from and inserted into the firearm. Such a practice magazine would be a notable advance in the firearm and ammunition arts Importantly, dummy or practice magazines should simulate as closely as possible the feel and experience of handling a real loaded magazine. For example, they should be weighted like a real magazine. See, e.g., ¶¶ 5 and 8. Seigler also is directed to dry fire training includes a mechanism to automatically reset the firing pin allowing the trigger to return to its unfired position without needing manually rachet the slide; however, Seigler does not specifically teach adding weights to the magazine. In view of the teaching of Kirsch, that it is desirable to provide a practice magazine that is simulates the feel and experience of using a real magazine in order to enhance the user experience, one skilled in the art would look to add the weights 50 of Kirsch to the magazine of Seigler to simulate as closely as possible the feel and experience of handling a real loaded magazine (i.e., the weight of the bullets in a live fire magazine). The only space available in the magazine of Seigler in which to add the weights is the inner faces of the front and rear panels on opposite sides of the pivoting lever where there is space (as indicated in the annotated drawing above). Therefore, one skilled in firearms training would place the weights in these locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the magazine of Seigler to include the weights in an elongated manner positioned within the hollow interior portion of the magazine on opposite sides of the lever, as taught by Kirsch, to improve the user experience during training, for example, by providing a more realistic feeling of handling a loaded magazine when practicing, see, e.g., ¶¶8.
In addition, Seigler and Kirsch are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magazine design for firearms dry firing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magazine of Seigler to include a catch groove, as taught by Kirsch, to prevent the magazine from sliding out once inserted in firearm, as in common on almost all magazines used in modern firearms, and to prevent the practice magazine from rattling in the grip of the firearm, see, e.g., ¶38.
In re claim 3, Seigler lacks, but Kirsch teaches a dry firing training assembly wherein the magazine body is constructed of two halves secured together with fasteners [Fig. 1 shows magazine body formed by two halves 20 and 30 secured by fasteners 70].
Seigler and Kirsch are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dry fire training devices. Both Seigler and Kirsch show magazines that may be inserted in to firearms for dry fire training. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of housing (e.g., body 1 of Seigler) for another type of housing (e.g., the two halves w/ fasteners of Seigler) to achieve the predictable result of simulating a magazine for weapons to practice dry fire training.
In re claim 4, Seigler discloses wherein said floor plate is an integral part of said magazine body [Fig. 19, #13].
In re claim 5, Seigler discloses said magazine body formed with a window, which allows access to inner components of said magazine body [Figs 1 & 19, ¶43 describes magazine body 1 includes holes by which inner components may be accessed, such as set screw 10, in addition the recitation following “window” is intended use, which does not structurally further limit the claim].
In re claim 6, Seigler in view of Kirsch lacks an explicit teaching that the lengths of said front and rear elongate members are not equal.
However, Kirsch teaches the desirability of including weights (elongate members) within the dry fire magazine to increase realism and enhance the user training experience. Therefore, one would be motivated to add the weights to Kirsch for this reason. Only limited space in which to place the weights is available and these places are of different sizes. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the weights of Kirsch in different lengths in an attempt to provide the improved realism within the confines of the magazine, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the members having different lengths as the selection of dimensions will depend on the specific implementation of the magazine, and there is a limited range of possible sizes for any particular application; therefore, the choice of an explicit dimension are part of routine magazine design; moreover, Applicant does not provide any description of the elongate members or their lengths (as they are only shown in the drawings) and thus has not disclosed that the length of either member solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
In re claim 7, Seigler discloses a dry firing training assembly [Fig. 19, Abstract] comprising: a magazine body comprising a first side panel formed and a second side panel parallel to said first side panel, a front panel which extends between front edges of said first and second side panels, a rear panel which extends between rear edges of said first and second side panels, and a floor plate coupled to lower edges of said first and second side panels and to lower edges of said front and rear panels, said first and second side panels and said front and rear panels defining an inner hollow portion of said magazine body, wherein inner faces of said first and second side panels and of said front and rear panels face inwards towards said inner hollow portion [Figs 1, 2, & 19, ¶43 describe magazine body 1 includes first and second side panels with front and rear panels and floor plate all of which frame an interior hollow portion, see, e.g., annotated figures above]; a trigger interface member which protrudes upwards from said magazine body and which is configured to be pushed by an action of pulling a trigger of a firearm into which said magazine body is inserted, said trigger interface member being biased by a biasing member [Fig. 19 shows projection (trigger interface) at top of lever 2 to interact with trigger at point A, the projection is biased by spring 8, ¶¶22,43,44, 49 describe the magazine is inserted in the pistol's magazine compartment to provide realistic muscle memory training by duplicating the action of the trigger in normal live fire, the feel and the sound of the release of the firing pin, and the resetting of the trigger for additional trigger activation. This device does not require the shooter to manipulate any parts in order to make it properly interface with the pistol's trigger mechanism].
Seigler lacks, but Kirsch teaches a dry firing training assembly wherein the magazine body is constructed of two halves secured together with fasteners [Fig. 1 shows magazine body formed by two halves 20 and 30 secured by fasteners 70].
Seigler and Kirsch are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dry fire training devices. Both Seigler and Kirsch show magazines that may be inserted in to firearms for dry fire training. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of housing (e.g., body 1 of Seigler) for another type of housing (e.g., the two halves w/ fasteners of Seigler) to achieve the predictable result of simulating a magazine for weapons to practice dry fire training.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Seigler in view of Kirsch, or in the alternative, as rejected as being unpatentable over Seigler in view of Kirsch and further in view of US Patent No. 5,954,169 to Jensen (“Jensen”) or US Patent No. 4,354,629 to Grassauer et al. (“Grassauer”).
In re claim 2, Seigler discloses said sound-producing element which produces a clicking sound when bent by said pivoting lever pushing thereagainst [Fig. 19 #6, ¶48 describes reed 6 is activated by lever 2 to simulate audible response of the weapon's firing pin, in addition, the recitation following “which” is intended use that does not structurally further limit the claim]. Although, claim 2 recites a leaf spring, the specification does not provide any further description of this element, such as what it is made of. Seigler describes element 6 as a reed; however, structurally the two components are identical in the drawings of both applications and perform the same function.
To the extent that Seigler fails to explicitly disclose a leaf spring, Jensen teaches the equivalency of these elements as springs, for example, “By the term ‘flexible plate,’ what is referred to is a generally-flat (but could also be slightly conical or curved), thin piece of spring material, such as a disc, conical disc, a reed member, or a leaf spring,” see, e.g., col. 7, ll. 7-10. In addition, Grassauer teaches the interchangeability of the terms “leaf spring” and “reed,” see, e.g., col. 4, l. 19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the reed of Seigler for a leaf spring as the two elements are structurally/functionally equivalent, perform in the same manner, and/or are interchangeable terms as taught be either Jensen or Grassauer, and achieve the predictable result of producing sound in response to mechanical activation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 23, 2025, have been fully considered.
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 112(a) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments of November 23, 2025.
The rejection of the claims as anticipated by Seigler is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1; however, a new ground of rejection under Section 103 has been made over Seigler in view of Kirsch, as explained above. No additional arguments were presented with regard to the new combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715