DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 AUG 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, see all relevant previous responses to arguments. The examiner will not reproduce responses to arguments previously presented and fully addressed. Should Applicant have a particular feature in mind, kindly limit the response to such.
Next, while citations to MPEP and case law therein are beneficial in supporting an argument, Applicant has not supplied any examples of how the rejections included conclusory statements or which words were not considered in the previous office action.
Rather, “Applicant has decided to amend independent claims to further particularly point out features of the presently claimed invention.” But such amendments simply point out such “features” from rejected dependent claims by placing them into rejected independent claims. This does not render a patentable claim
The rejection(s) stand as modified to address amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent on canceled claim 2. Such will be further treated on the merits as though dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0100712 to Tompkins in view of US 2009/0071053 to Thomele.
Re: claim 1, note that because dependent claim 2 was amended into claim 1, such will be addressed below the original presentation for the rejection of claim 1 as previously presented.
Tompkins discloses the claimed invention including a modified assembly for a propelling an object, inter alia, 100, e.g., Figs. 1A-1B, comprising: a firing control unit ("FCU") 110 fabricated for a handgun, “configured for use as part of a pistol,” ¶ [0020], and having a serialized trigger mechanism (inter alia, 105, e.g., ¶ [0029]), for launching a directional object when a trigger 120 of the FCU is pulled, e.g., ¶¶ [0021], [0023]; and a module structured to have a shape resembling a lower receiver of a submachine gun, e.g., ¶ [0020], and configured to contain a hand grip (not particularly called out but clearly shown as part of frame 140), a magazine (reasonably inferred from magazine well 144), an FCU housing 140, and a rear stabilizing connector (not particularly called out but clearly shown as part of frame 140), wherein the FCU housing is configured to house the FCU disassembled from the handgun for a firing mechanism of the module (see “and” of “and/or,” ¶ [0020]; such clearly conveys contemplation of use of the unit with a pistol, a rifle, a submachine gun, and a belt-fed weapon system), except for explicitly disclosing wherein the hand grip is configured to be hollow for receipt of the magazine which is a receptacle for housing ammunition (this last portion is the definition of magazine in the art and, thus, inherent or reasonably inferred by any such disclosure thereof).
Tompkins’ disclosure: while the term “pistols” as used by Tompkins does not exclude use with revolvers or any other type of handgun wherein a magazine is not disposed within a handgrip thereof, e.g., single-shot firearms, given the ubiquity of the type of pistols relying on a magazine within the handgrip, e.g., virtually every semiautomatic handgun such as those made by Beretta, Colt, Glock, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson, and Springfield Armory, to name but a few, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to try the FCU in such a firearm, particularly in view of Tompkins’ disclosure that “the modular receiver system 100 may be configured for use as part of a pistol, a rifle, a submachine gun, and/or a belt-fed weapon system,” id. Rationale: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S.Ct. 1742 (2007). That is, while an attempt could be made to use the disclosed FCU in a revolver or single-shot firearm, it would make at least as much sense to try it in a firearm having a magazine like those noted, above.
Thomele’s disclosure: Thomele teaches a firearm 10, e.g., Fig. 1, including a handgrip assembly C, a magazine D, e.g., Fig. 2, “removably received within an interior compartment defined by a generally hollow handgrip portion 228 of the handgrip assembly C,” ¶ [0014], a receiver assembly B including components, inter alia, 148, 150, 164, e.g., Fig. 4, for firing the the firearm, e.g., ¶¶ [0019]-[0032], the receiver assembly B also being serialized, ¶ [0039], a serial number thereof being visible through “a window or aperture 284,” id., and, the components being interchangeable, e.g., Fig. 7, ¶ [0042], in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of “provid[ing] for variability of firearm size, handgrip circumference, and caliber,” ¶ [0045]. Thomele further teaches that the term “pistol,” ¶ [0002], includes those firearms discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tompkins as taught by Thomele in order to provide for variability of firearm size, handgrip circumference, and caliber with a reasonable expectation of success because Thomele discloses allowing “for multiple modular firearm configurations, thereby providing significant customizability of the firearm by the user,” ¶ [0003].
Further rationales: All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made; and/or, “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (citing U.S. v. Adams, 383 US 36, 50-51 (1966)).
Re: the inclusion of claim 2 into claim 1, Tompkins further discloses further comprising an internal component (disclosure of use “with an upper receiver group for an AR-15® or AR-15 type rifle,” ¶ [0019], suffices because such can be shown to include an internal component, such as a charging handle, bolt assist, etc.), including a slide assembly (a bolt carriage assembly), configured to [sic—be] situated on top of the FCU when the FCU is inserted in the FCU housing (as would normally be the case: see relevant drawing figures, i.e., the FCU is positioned beneath the upper receiver and its components, which suffices).
Re: claim 3, Tompkins fairly discloses further comprising an upper receiver (noted above) configured to couple to the module for enclosing the FCU (as would be the normal state of the combination of elements shown and upper receiver).
Re: claim 4, Tompkins further discloses further comprising an internal component which includes a return spring (either of 117, 121 e.g., Fig. 3B) configured to be situated in vicinity of the FCU for facilitating object launching process, e.g., ¶¶ [0021]-[0022].
Re: claim 5, Tompkins fairly discloses further comprising a rear attachment configured to facilitate stability of the modified assembly during a process of launching the object. This is asserted because the AR-15 type platform includes the threaded connecting point shown at the rear of the lower receiver above the handgrip, which point normally connects to some configuration of either a buttstock or arm-brace for stability in use.
Re: claim 7, Tompkins further discloses wherein the FCU contains an original serial number for identification purposes, ¶ [0029]; and wherein the module is a grip module (reasonably demonstrated as lower frame or receiver group shown) containing a serial number window 149 which is located in such a way that when the FCU is inserted in the FCU housing of the grip module, the original serial number shows through the serial number window, ¶ [0036].
Re: claim 8, whether so disclosed by Tompkins, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. Here, at least aluminum meets the known material based on suitability, since most AR-15 type lower receivers are made of such (evidence provided upon request).
Re: claim 9, because Tompkins fairly discloses the genus “pistols,” such anticipates or obviates wherein the FCU is configured to be used in a carbine pistol facilitating firing operation, i.e., a particular type of pistol. See MPEP § 2144.08.
Re: claim 10, Thomele further teaches wherein the internal component further includes a barrel 20, e.g., Fig. 2, and return spring 28 configured to be situated in vicinity of the FCU for facilitating object launching process (shown and/or inherent in combination).
Re: claim 11, in view of claim 5 above, a buttstock would be the normal rear attachment in use with an AR-15 type rifle (evidence provided upon request) or at least so ubiquitous as to be an obvious choice of rear attachments to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the term rifle, used by Tompkins, normally conveys, among other things, a buttstock which one tucks into a shoulder prior to aiming and firing.
Re: claim 14, Tompkins, alone or in view of Thomele, fairly discloses a firearm.
Re: claim 15, Tompkins fairly discloses an apparatus capable of firing projectiles, above.
Re: claims 16 and 18-19, see relevant claims, above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tompkins in view of Thomele, further in view of US 7,841,121 to Barrett.
Tompkins/Thomele discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the upper receiver includes scope latches capable of receiving a scope for target aiming.
Barrett teaches an upper receiver 104, e.g., Fig. 1, including scope latches (shown: connected to scope mount 112) capable of receiving a scope in the same field of endeavor for the presumed purpose of improved target aiming.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tompkins as taught by Barrett in order to improve aiming with a reasonable expectation of success because scopes on rifles are known to increase the distance at which a target can be engaged (evidence provided upon request). See, also, further rationale(s) provided above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tompkins in view of Thomele, further in view of US 2020/0263954 to Reavis, III.
Tompkins discloses the claimed invention as applied above including a rear attachment except for such being an arm brace.
Reavis, III, teaches a firearm sufficiently similar to Tompkins (see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 11-12) including a rear attachment embodied as an arm brace 10 in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of using such a firearm as a handgun, Title, Abstract, ¶ [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tompkins as taught by Reavis, III, in order to use the firearm as a handgun with a reasonable expectation of success because Reavis, III, further discloses stability and user body adaptation, ¶ [0013], as reasons therefor. See also further rationale(s) provided above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tompkins in view of Thomele, further in view of US 2006/0048424 to Weir.
Tompkins discloses the claimed invention as applied above including a cheek rest (the upper portion of a buttstock normally serves as such during operation of an AR-15 type rifle) except for a magazine holster.
Weir teaches a buttstock 6, e.g., Fig. 1, including a cheek rest (near callout 30) and a magazine holster (where magazine is shown) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of shortening a weapon, ¶ [0001].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tompkins as taught by Weir in order to shorten a weapon with a reasonable expectation of success because Weir further discloses such “allow[s] the weapon to be more compact and easier to handle and hold on target,” id. See also further rationale(s) provided above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
15-Sep-25
Prosecution Insights