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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 November 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 11, 12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds (6487805) in view of Jones, further in view of Lawley, and further in view of Yaniv.
In reference to claim 1, Reynolds discloses a chassis (figures 3 and 4, chassis 26’ + 90), comprising:
an internal portion which connects to a bolt action rifle action of a first type by takedown screw holes located to correspond with corresponding screw holes in the bolt action rifle action of the first type (figures 3 and 4, the internal portion receives rifle action 50, takedown screw holes in the action receive screws 29 and 36, which also extend through corresponding holes through the chassis);
an external portion that connects to a rifle stock (figures 3 and 4, chassis 26’ has an external portion that connects to rifle stock 20’); and
a trigger guard, the trigger guard formed in the external portion of the chassis between first and second ends of the chassis (figure 4, grip 90 includes a trigger guard).
Thus, Reynold discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the external portion connects to the rifle stock by mounting holes which are located to correspond with corresponding bolt holes in the rifle stock, a pinhole in a side of the external portion of the chassis which intersects the mounting holes in the external portion of the chassis, and wherein the trigger guard is between the mounting holes. However, Reynolds discloses that the chassis can be connected to the stock using any fastening means known to those skilled in the art (column 5, lines 4-7).
Jones teaches it is known to connect an external portion of a chassis (104) to a rifle stock (102) by mounting holes which are located to correspond with corresponding bolt holes in the rifle stock, wherein two of said mounting holes are located at opposing ends of the chassis (paragraphs 33, 37, 39, and figures 4-6: bolts 170 are disposed in holes mounting holes formed through chassis 104 and connect with corresponding holes in the rifle stock).
Further, Jones does not limit the fasteners to those explicitly disclosed, and contemplates the use of other types of fasteners (paragraph 37). Further, Jones teaches that a stock (102) can be interchangeably secured to a first chassis and action combination (e.g., chassis 104a + a Winchester action) and a second chassis and action combination (e.g., chassis 104b + a Remington action; paragraph 37), in order to provide advantageous modularity. Thus, it is implied that a user can selectively, interchangeably assemble the stock with a plurality of chassis/action combinations.
Lawley teaches it is known to provide a stock with a layer of resilient material on the interior surfaces thereof, in order to effectively isolate (against shock) a rifle action from the stock to produce greatly improved accuracy. Further, Yaniv teaches it is known to secure first and second rigid bodies having an interposed layer of resilient material via the use of a quick-action fastening arrangement. Yaniv teaches the arrangement includes a socket that is riveted to the first body, thus effectively forming an external portion of said first body. Further, the socket includes a pinhole in an external portion that receives a pin (figures 1-4, socket II, mounting hole 24, rivet 21, pin 26; figure 4 clearly shows pin 26 installed in a pinhole that extends transversely through portion 22 of socket II). Further, the pin (26) includes a portion that is exposed in a mounting hole (24) of the socket to interact with a quick-action bolt (I) to fasten the first and second bodies together. The fastening arrangement of Yaniv provides quick operation, low cost, and a firm connection even when exposed to vibration.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to (1) provide the stock of Reynolds with a layer of resilient material on the interior surfaces thereof and (2) modify the chassis to have the external portion connect to the rifle stock by mounting holes which are located to correspond with corresponding bolt holes in the rifle stock, wherein two of said mounting holes are located at opposing ends of the chassis, and to include sockets as external features, wherein each socket includes a pinhole formed therethrough that receives a pin that interacts with a quick-action bolt, so as to provide the fastening arrangement of Yaniv to fasten the chassis to the stock, with the resilient material therebetween, via the use of quick-action bolts, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide advantageous modularity, effectively isolate (against shock) the chassis/action combination from the stock to produce greatly improved accuracy, and provide quick fastening operation, low cost, and a firm connection even when exposed to vibration.
In reference to claim 2, Reynolds in view of Jones, further in view of Lawley, and further in view of Yaniv (“the modified Reynolds”) makes obvious the claimed invention (Jones: paragraphs 10, 11, 33, and 37, the disclosed “cage” maps to the claimed chassis, and the disclosed “stock/chassis” or “chassis” maps to the claimed rifle stock; modifying Reynolds to have the features taught by Jones would render the rifle stock universal to the chassis).
In reference to claim 5, the modified Reynolds makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1.
In reference to claim 6, the modified Reynolds makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above, since Yaniv teaches the fastening arrangement includes a mounting hole that passes through both of the rigid bodies to be connected.
In reference to claim 7, the modified Reynolds makes obvious the claimed invention (Yaniv, figure 1 and 2, helically inclined detent 14).
In reference to claim 8, the modified Reynolds makes obvious the claimed invention (Yaniv, figure 1 and 2, bolt head 11 is drawn into contact with a structure to be fastened).
In reference to claim 11, the modified Reynolds makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the references to claims 1 and 5-8. Also, the bolt taught by Yaniv includes a shank groove (figures 1 and 2, shank groove 13).
In reference to claim 12-17, the modified Jones make obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the references to claims 2, 3, and 5-8, respectively.
In reference to claim 18, the modified Reynolds makes obvious the claimed invention, except for a spacer. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to provide a fastener, such as a bolt, with a spacer in the form of a washer, in order to prevent inadvertent loosening of the bolt. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each bolt of the modified Reynolds with a washer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent inadvertent loosening of the bolts.
In reference to claim 19, the modified Reynolds makes obvious the claimed invention, except for a keyed hole in a head of the bolt. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to provide a bolt with a keyed hole in a head thereof, in order to provide an additional interface for a tool, e.g., a tool to drive the bolt. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bolt of the modified Reynolds with a keyed hole in a head thereof, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an additional interface for a tool, e.g., a tool to drive the bolt.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Reynolds, as set forth above, further in view of Battaglia (2012/0304520).
The modified Reynolds makes obvious the claimed invention, except for wherein the rifle action is a semi-auto rifle action. However, Battaglia teaches that it is known to form a barreled rifle action, similar to that of Reynolds, as a semi-auto rifle action, in order to provide a semi-automatic firing capability (paragraph 26). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the barreled rifle action of the modified Reynolds as a semi-auto rifle action, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a semi-automatic firing capability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that none of Reynolds, Jones, Lawley, nor Yaniv disclose or suggest a "trigger guard included as part of the chassis and formed in the external portion of the chassis between the mounting holes.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As previously noted by the examiner in the Final Rejection mailed 22 August 2025, the claims do not preclude a chassis formed from an assembly of parts. Further, the examiner clearly maps the combination of elements 26’ and 90 to the claimed chassis. Further, elements 26’ and 90 are secured to one another once assembled (figure 4), and the assembly is mapped to the claimed chassis. Further, this combination of parts meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “chassis,” relative to the art. Further, it is clear that the chassis relied upon by the examiner includes a trigger guard (figure 4), the trigger guard taking shape in an external portion of the chassis. Thus, the examiner asserts that the trigger guard is included as part of the chassis and formed in the external portion of the chassis.
Applicant goes on to argue that the words “formed into” are not consistent with or descriptive of an attachable, connectable, or separable structure. Applicant seemingly argues that the words “formed into” obviate the examiner’s position, relative to Reynolds, that the trigger guard is included as part of the chassis and formed in the external portion of the chassis, since elements 26’ and 90 are separable. The examiner asserts that Applicant’s argument is flawed for a plurality of reasons, and respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position.
Notably, the words “formed into” are not recited in the claims. The limitation in question reads “the trigger guard included as part of the chassis and formed in the external portion of the chassis” (emphasis added). However, giving Applicant the benefit of the doubt, and applying the same argument to the words “formed in,” the examiner still finds the argument unpersuasive. The trigger guard of Reynolds is a portion of element 90, and the chassis is the assembled combination of elements 26’ and 90. When assembled, the trigger guard is clearly “formed in an exterior portion of the chassis” in a manner consistent with the plain meaning of the words “formed in.”
Specifically, the plain meaning of the verb “formed” is “to give shape to” (“given shape”) or “to take shape” (“taking shape”) (see attached Notice of References Cited, Reference U, definition of “form”). Further, the plain meaning of the term “in” is “at a place where there is” (see attached Notice of References Cited, Reference V, definition of “in”). Thus, the limitation is question can be considered as such: “the trigger guard included as part of the chassis and given shape at a place where there is the external portion of the chassis.” Clearly, this is the case with the trigger guard and chassis of Reynolds, as mapped by the examiner.
Even if one considers an alternative definition of the term “in” (e.g., “within the limits, bounds, or area of”; see Notice of References Cited, Reference W), the trigger guard of Reynolds would still meet the limitation in question. The trigger guard is clearly given shape within the limits, bounds, or area of the external portion of the chassis; the trigger guard defines a portion of the limits, bounds, or area of the chassis. Thus, it is clear that the chassis of Reynolds, as mapped by the examiner, meets the “trigger guard” limitation in question.
Regarding the portion of the above-noted limitation requiring the trigger guard to be situated between the mounting holes, it is noted the above-rejection clearly addresses said limitation, and Applicant does not present any argument specific thereto. Thus, the examiner asserts that the relied upon combination of references clearly renders obvious the limitation reading "the trigger guard included as part of the chassis and formed in the external portion of the chassis between the mounting holes,” as well as each and every other limitation of the claims.
Applicant also rehashes a previously raised argument regarding the claimed chassis relative to the Reynolds reference. Once again, the following is reiterated: Applicant seemingly argues that the handgrip 90 cannot be considered part of the chassis of Reynolds, and that the chassis can only be considered the mounting insert 26’, per se. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claims do not preclude a chassis formed from an assembly of parts.
Further, the examiner clearly maps the combination of elements 26’ and 90 to the claimed chassis. Further, elements 26’ and 90 are secured to one another once assembly (figure 4), and the assembly is mapped to the claimed chassis. Further, this combination of parts meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “chassis,” relative to the art. Further, it is within the knowledge-base of a person having ordinary skill in the art that rifle chassis often have removable handgrips. If Applicant intends to limit the chassis to a single, monolithic structure, or an assembly that is not separable, then Applicant needs to claim such. As it stands, the claims are NOT so specific as to preclude the examiner’s characterization of Reynolds, i.e., that the combination of elements 26’ and 90 is a chassis, as claimed. Thus, the examiner asserts that the modified Reynolds makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) 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 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 GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641