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 office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on October 31, 2025 for the patent application 17/851,998 originally filed on June 28, 2022. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 1, 2, and 6 are canceled. Claims 3-5 and 7-20 remain pending. The first office action of July 31, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the outstanding objections to the claims. The outstanding objections to the claims are withdrawn. However, new claim objections are applied to the amended claims, as set forth below.
The Applicant has canceled claim 1, which was the sole claim rejected under 35 USC 102. Therefore, the 35 USC 102 rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections to the claims. The outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections are therefore withdrawn. However, new claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are applied to the amended claims, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 and 7-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 4 and 20, recites the limitation “linerally recipricating bolt assembly.” The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected to “ linearly reciprocating bolt assembly.” Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3. Dependent claim 5 is also objected to based on its dependency to claim 4.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, recites the limitation “the recipricating bolt assembly” (twice in claim 20). The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected to “the reciprocating bolt assembly.” Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims rejected under § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 3-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 4 and 20, recites a linearly reciprocating bolt assembly. This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. Specifically, while Applicants’ disclosure describes a reciprocating bolt assembly, the disclosure does not disclose a “linearly” reciprocating bolt assembly. Examiner can find no instances of the word “linear,” “linearly,” or any misspelling of the word in Applicants’ disclosure, except for one instance in paragraph [0053] describing “linear actuators.” As such, the claimed subject matter is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 3, 4, and 20 are deemed to recite new matter and is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also rejected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3. Dependent claim 5 is also rejected to based on its dependency to claim 4.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claims 8, 12, and 20, recites a “pivoted reset finger.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. Specifically, Applicant’s disclosure does not disclose a “pivoted reset finger.” Claim 14 as originally filed does recite “the reset finger is pivoted,” but this is subtly different from a “pivoted reset finger.” The instant specification also discloses a “pivoting reset finger” in paragraph [0043]. The Examiner reasonably believes that the “pivoted reset finger” should be amended to the “pivoting reset finger,” so as to remain consistent with the disclosure. As such, the claimed subject matter is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 3, 8, 12, and 20 are deemed to recite new matter and is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also rejected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3.
Claims rejected under § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(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.
Claims 3-5 and 7-20 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.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, recites the limitation “a rifle platform weapons system.” The limitation is originally introduced earlier in respective claim 3 or 20. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the rifle platform weapon[[s]] system.”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of respective claim 3 or 20. Therefore, claims 3 and 20 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. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also rejected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, recites the limitation “the recipricating bolt assembly.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 3 or 20, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3 and 20 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. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also rejected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, recites the limitation “the weapons system” (appearing twice in claim 3, and four times in claim 20; note plural “weapons”). The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 3 or 20, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3 and 20 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. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also rejected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, recites the limitation “the user.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 3 or 20, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3 and 20 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. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also rejected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, recites the limitation “the trigger pull.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 3 or 20, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3 and 20 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. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also rejected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3.
Claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, recites the limitation “the user’s positioning and sight alignment.” The limitation is not previously introduced in claim 3 or 20, respectively. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 3 and 20 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. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 7-19 are also rejected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 3.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigler (hereinafter “Seigler1,” US 2021/0262752) in view of Seigler (hereinafter “Seigler2,” US 2014/0193778).
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, Seigler1 discloses a rifle platform weapon system dry firing device comprising:
a dry firing device bolt carrier group configured to replace the standard bolt carrier group of a rifle platform weapons system including a linerally recipricating bolt assembly (Seigler1 [0021], “This invention is simple to use, provides realistic feel of the trigger operation, produces a sound that simulates the release and reset of the rifle's firing pin, and does not require major alterations to the rifle. This invention is simple to install by removing the bolt carrier group that houses the rifle's firing pin, inserting the dry fire components that are the same basic shape of the blot carrier group”; also Seigler1 Claim 1, “A dry fire practice device to be used in AR 15 type rifles which replaces the bolt carrier group (BCG) during the training session, designed to approximate the size and dimensions of a functioning BCG,” wherein AR 15 type rifles are known in the art as having a linearly reciprocating bolt assembly).
Seigler1 does not explicitly teach a magazine having a pivoted reset finger configured to move the recipricating bolt assembly to reset a hammer of the weapons system and a spring powering the pivoted reset finger for the reset of the hammer of the weapons system, whereby the system is configured to allow the user to dry fire the rifle platform weapon system and still experience the trigger pull and cycling of the weapon system without breaking the user's positioning and sight alignment.
However, Seigler2 discloses a magazine having a pivoted reset finger configured to move the recipricating bolt assembly to reset a hammer of the weapons system and a spring powering the pivoted reset finger for the reset of the hammer of the weapons system, whereby the system is configured to allow the user to dry fire the rifle platform weapon system and still experience the trigger pull and cycling of the weapon system without breaking the user's positioning and sight alignment (Seigler2 Claim 8, “The dry fire training device… comprised of a lever of a length of channel material fabricated to support a compression spring between a platform of the said lever and the back wall of the said ammunition magazine which when compressed, returns the said lever to its resting position, thereby allowing for the intermediate reset of the said trigger mechanism for multiple trigger activations or when the trigger is completely released, allows the trigger to return to its unfired, resting position.”).
Seigler2 is analogous to Seigler1, as both are drawn to the art of firearm simulation. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Seigler1, to include a magazine having a pivoted reset finger configured to move the recipricating bolt assembly to reset a hammer of the weapons system and a spring powering the pivoted reset finger for the reset of the hammer of the weapons system, whereby the system is configured to allow the user to dry fire the rifle platform weapon system and still experience the trigger pull and cycling of the weapon system without breaking the user's positioning and sight alignment, as taught by Seigler2, in order to provide realistic dry fire training trigger operation (Seigler2 [0016]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Seigler1 in view of Seigler2 discloses wherein the dry firing device bolt carrier group includes spring biasing against a locating pin (see Seigler1 Fig. 10 and [0047], “a sectional drawing of the assembled bolt carrier group consisting of the cylinder 1 to house the various parts comprised of the spring loaded plunger 2 which locates the front end of the device in the rifle, the lever 5 which has the detente reed 3 secured to its top surface providing the tactile and audible simulation of the rifle's firing pin release and reset”).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigler1 in view of Seigler2, and in further view of Allgaier et al. (hereinafter “Allgaier,” US 2023/0272994).
Regarding claim 10, Seigler1 in view of Seigler2 does not explicitly teach wherein the magazine includes a spur gear.
However, Allgaier discloses wherein the magazine includes a spur gear (see Allgaier Fig. 5 and [0012], “an enlarged isometric view of the motors, gear train, energy storage element, and input rotor of the training magazine”).
Allgaier is analogous to Seigler1 in view of Seigler2, as both are drawn to the art of firearm simulation. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Seigler1 in view of Seigler2, to include wherein the magazine includes a spur gear, as taught by Allgaier, in order to enable repeated dry firing of a firearm without having to retract the slide or other trigger resetting system or device of the firearm (Allgaier [0004-0005]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Seigler1 in view of Seigler2 does not explicitly teach wherein the magazine includes a second spur gear meshed to the spur gear.
However, Allgaier discloses wherein the magazine includes a second spur gear meshed to the spur gear (see Allgaier Fig. 5 and [0027], “The input rotor is connected to two motors by a gear train 46”).
Allgaier is analogous to Seigler1 in view of Seigler2, as both are drawn to the art of firearm simulation. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Seigler1 in view of Seigler2, to include wherein the magazine includes a second spur gear meshed to the spur gear, as taught by Allgaier, in order to enable repeated dry firing of a firearm without having to retract the slide or other trigger resetting system or device of the firearm (Allgaier [0004-0005]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigler1 in view of Seigler2, and in further view of Jackson (US 2023/0235993).
Regarding claim 17, Seigler1 in view of Seigler2 does not explicitly teach wherein the magazine includes a mechanism allowing the bolt assembly to lock to the rear when the magazine is empty.
However, Jackson discloses wherein the magazine includes a mechanism allowing the bolt assembly to lock to the rear when the magazine is empty (Jackson claim 10, “the trainer magazine includes a bolt carrier lock, the method further comprising: simulating an empty-magazine scenario by extending the bolt carrier lock into the trainer bolt assembly, the extension of the bolt carrier lock into the trainer bolt assembly precluding a distal movement of the trainer bolt assembly”).
Jackson is analogous to Seigler1 in view of Seigler2, as both are drawn to the art of firearm simulation. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Seigler1 in view of Seigler2, to include wherein the magazine includes a mechanism allowing the bolt assembly to lock to the rear when the magazine is empty, as taught by Jackson, in order to more realistically replicate operating conditions of an actual firearm without the use of live or frangible rounds (Jackson [0004]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seigler1 in view of Seigler2 and Jackson, and in further view of Bascom (US 2019/0025000).
Regarding claim 18, Seigler1 in view of Seigler2 and Jackson does not explicitly teach wherein the mechanism allowing the bolt assembly to lock to the rear when the magazine is empty includes timing rack carrying a stop.
However, Bascom discloses wherein the mechanism allowing the bolt assembly to lock to the rear when the magazine is empty includes timing rack carrying a stop (Bascom [0065], “Recoil and sound mechanisms can be keyed to the “round counting” of the microcontroller such that the microcontroller produces sound and recoil when the training magazine is “loaded,” but does not provide such feedback after the training magazine is “emptied.” A “re-set” button or the like can extend from the training magazine to allow the user to re-load and re-use the magazine.”).
Bascom is analogous to Seigler1 in view of Seigler2 and Jackson, as both are drawn to the art of firearm simulation. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Seigler1 in view of Seigler2 and Jackson, to include wherein the mechanism allowing the bolt assembly to lock to the rear when the magazine is empty includes timing rack carrying a stop, as taught by Bascom, in order to provide a more realistic experience when training with a firearm (Bascom [0026]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 12-16, and 19 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, and if the outstanding objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the cited prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious at least the limitations of “the dry firing device bolt carrier group includes a housing containing a reset spring engaging against the linerally recipricating bolt assembly.”
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the cited prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious at least limitations of a magazine having both a pivoted reset finger along with a pivoting release finger, the pivoting release finger “configured to release the power of the spring for powering the pivoted reset finger.”
Regarding claims 12-16, the cited prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious at least limitations of a spring powering the spur gear, or the spur gear interacting with a reset finger.
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious at least limitation of the spur gear engaging with a timing rack by a pinion-like feature.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on October 31, 2025 have been fully considered, and are addressed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the applicability of the Allgaier reference, the Examiner has reviewed the provisional documents 63/188,798, having a filing date of May 14, 2021 (prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, June 28, 2021), and found the Allgaier reference still applicable to instant claims 10 and 11. Figures 1-12 of Allgaier’s provisional application show spur gear structures operating within a magazine, as recited in instant claims 10 and 11.
However, instant claims 12-16 and 19 recite elements not disclosed by Allgaier’s provisional application. Therefore, the outstanding rejections 12-16 and 19 are withdrawn in this office action supra.
Conclusion
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 Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SA/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/PETER S VASAT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715