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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15 – 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/12/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 2/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claimed products must be made by a process that involves 3d print. This is not found persuasive because the restriction on 2/12/2026 states “The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f))”. Applicant has not provided argument that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 – 4, 7 – 8 and 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of “3D Printed Repeating Slingbow/Crossbow Pistol” (from https://legolini.com, retrieved from Internet Wayback Machine on 1/8/2023, know herein as Legolini) in view of “The Rimfire Report: PG22 Maverick 22 Short 3D Printed Revolver” (from www.thefirearmblog.com, retrieved from Internet Wayback Machine on 2/1/2023, know herein as Firearmblog).
Re claims 1, 8:
Legolini teaches 1. A 3D printed training firearm (Legolini, pg. 7; pg. 1, “This toy is a lot of fun … build your own 3D printed slingbow pistol”), comprising:
a firearm body printed using a first material indicative of an inert training tool (Legolini, pg. 7 shows different parts with color), including:
a grip portion; a trigger portion (Legolini, pg. 7; pg. 38),
an upper surface (Legolini, pg. 88),
wherein the upper surface (Legolini, pg. 88) comprises
a rear sight having a second base portion positioned within the second groove (Legolini, pg. 81),
wherein the … rear sight are printed using a second material resembling components of a live firearm (Legolini, pg. 7 shows different part with different colors)
Legolini teaches 8. A 3D printed training firearm, the training firearm (Legolini, pg. 7; pg. 1, “This toy is a lot of fun … build your own 3D printed slingbow pistol”) comprising:
a firearm body printed using a first material of a first color indicative of an inert training firearm (Legolini, pg. 7 shows different parts with color), including:
a grip portion; a trigger portion (Legolini, pg. 7; pg. 38);
an upper surface (Legolini, pg. 88), wherein the upper surface comprises a first groove at the muzzle end and a second groove at the grip end (Legolini, pg. 81); and
a rear sight having a second base portion positioned within the second groove (Legolini, pg. 81),
wherein the … rear sight are printed using a second material of a second color substantially similar to a color of a live firearm (Legolini, pg. 7 shows different part with different colors).
Legolini does not explicitly disclose a firearm body printed … including … a barrel portion and the barrel portion having an upper surface; a front a front sight having a first base portion positioned within the first groove; and wherein the front and rear sight are printed using a second material resembling components of a live firearm.
Firearmblog teaches a firmware includes the 3D printed parts include the frame, grips, part of the cylinder, and trigger (Firearmblog, pg. 4). Firearmblog further teaches claim 1 … a firearm body printed … including … a barrel portion, the barrel portion having an upper surface, wherein the upper surface comprises a first groove at a muzzle end of the barrel portion and a second groove at a grip end of the barrel portion (Firearmblog, pg. 4, “6 barrels”; pg. 8; pg. 5 shows a muzzle end); a front a front sight having a first base portion positioned within the first groove (Firearmblog, pg. 5, “rear sights”, “an adjustable front sight”); and wherein the front and rear sight are printed using a second material resembling components of a live firearm (Firearmblog, pg. 6 shows a 3d printed gun with front sight (with grooves) and a rear sight with a groove with orange color). Claim 8 … and a barrel portion, the barrel portion having an upper surface extending from a muzzle end of the barrel portion to a grip end of the barrel portion, wherein the upper surface comprises a first groove at the muzzle end and a second groove at the grip end (Firearmblog, pg. 4, “6 barrels”; pg. 8; pg. 5 shows a muzzle end); and a front sight having a first base portion positioned within the first groove (Firearmblog, pg. 5, “rear sights”, “an adjustable front sight”); and wherein the front and rear sight are printed using a second material of a second color substantially similar to a color of a live firearm (Firearmblog, pg. 6 shows a 3d printed gun with front sight (with grooves) and a rear sight with a groove with orange color)
Therefore, in view of Firearmblog, 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 3d printed toy gun described in Legolini, by providing the barrel and front sight as taught by Firearmblog, in order to provide a realistic looking gun for a user (Firearmblog, pg. 1, “This week we are going to take a look at a 3D printedfirearm that was inspired by a real-world toy. Ross Peters is the designer of the PG22 Maverick 22 Short revolver. The PLA printed revolver has an interesting design and today we’ll be taking a look at this homebrewed 22 short pepperbox style revolver”).
Re claims 2 – 3:
2. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, wherein grip portion, trigger portion, and barrel portion are integral with the body (Legolini, pg. 88; Firearmblog, pgs. 5 - 6).
3. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, wherein the firearm body is sized and shaped to resemble a make and a model of a live firearm (Firearmblog, pg. 1, “PG22 Maverick 22Short”).
Re claim 4:
4. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, the rear sight comprising a dovetail having first and second posts (Legolini, pg. 7).
Re claim 7:
7. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second groove define a recess and a retention lip (Legolini, pg. 81). ‘
Re claim 12:
12. The training firearm of claim 8, wherein the first color is blue, orange, or red (Legolini, pg. 7).
Re claim 13:
13. The training firearm of claim 8, wherein the second color is black, grey, or metallic in appearance (Legolini, pg. 7).
Claims 5 – 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legolini and Firearmblog as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bubits (US 2004/0010956 A1)
Re claims 5 – 6, 14:
Legolini does not explicitly disclose a blade and sight dots. Bubits teaches an aiming device for pistols comprises a rear sight (2) and front sight having a luminous dot on the side facing the eye (rear sight). The rear sight has a luminous mark and a recess which accommodates the contour of the front sight. The recess comprises a base line or bottom wall and two side lines or side walls. For aiming in poor visibility, the rear sight has a trapezoidal external contour, with the inclined trapezoid sides forming an acute angle at their upper ends with the side lines of the recess, and the rear sight has a second luminous dot centrally under the recess which is located precisely under the first luminous dot on the front sight when the pistol is being aimed. Bubits teaches 5. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 4, the front sight comprising a blade, wherein each of the blade, the first post, and the second post include a sight dot (Bubits, Abstract; [0001] – [0007]). 6. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 4, wherein each sight dot comprises a phosphorescent element (Bubits, [00016], “formed by a phosphorescent paint”). 14. The training firearm of claim 8, wherein the front sight comprises a blade having a first sight dot, and the rear sight comprises a first and second post having a second and third sight dot, respectively (Bubits, Abstract; [0001] – [0007]). Therefore, in view of Bubits, 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 firearm described in Legolini, by providing illuminating dots as taught by Bubits, since it was known in the art to use dots to improve aiming in poor visibility, both with regard to target acquisition and with regard to aiming the weapon at the target (Bubits, [0006]).
Claims 9 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legolini and Firearmblog as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Santiago (US 4993158 A)
Re claims 9 – 11:
Legolini teaches 9. The training firearm of claim 8, the second groove defining a second recess and a second retention lip (Legolini, pg. 81). Legolini does not explicitly disclose a first recesses and retention lip.
Santiago teaches an invention generally relates to gunsights (Santiago, Abstract). Santiago teaches 9. The training firearm of claim 8, the first groove defining a first recess and a first retention lip. 10. The training firearm of claim 9, the first base portion of the front sight is configured for placement within the first recess and the first retention lip overlaps a portion of the first base portion. 11. The training firearm of claim 9, the second base portion of the rear sight is configured for placement within the second recess and the second retention lip overlaps a portion of the second base portion (Santiago, fig. 23; figs. 30 – 31; col. 5, lines 12 – 24; col. 4, lines 1 - 18). Therefore, in view of Santiago, 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 firearm described in Legolini, by providing the first / second recess and retention lips as taught by Santiago, in order to mechanism to mount the front and rear sight to a firearm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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 at (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.
/JACK YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights