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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: all claims must end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9-11, 13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelso (US 4,835,893). Kelso discloses a firearm trigger spacing device comprising: a band comprising an outer circumference, a through-cavity, a first lobe (A, B), and a ridge; wherein said through-cavity is substantially circular; wherein said first lobe extends radially from the outer circumference; wherein said ridge is disposed about a portion of the outer circumference, and the ridge having a width smaller the width of the outer circumference. (see annotated Figure)
PNG
media_image1.png
312
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
3. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 1, further comprises a second lobe that extends radially from the outer circumference.
4. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 3, wherein the second lobe extends substantially opposite the outer circumference from the first lobe.
9. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 1, wherein the first lobe has a rounded exterior surface.
10. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 1 wherein the first lobe has substantially squared edges. (in as much as applicant shows straight edges but not squared (i.e. 90o) edges).
11. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 1, wherein a distal end of the first lobe tapers, narrowing the distal end of the first lobe.
13. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 1, wherein a distal end’s surface of the first lobe concavely curves towards the band.
15. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 3, wherein the second lobe has dimensions different from the first lobe.
16. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 3, wherein the first lobe and second lobe have a rounded exterior surface.
17. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 3, wherein the first lobe and second lobe have substantially squared edges. (in as much as applicant shows straight edges but not squared (i.e. 90o) edges).
18. The firearm trigger spacing device of claim 3, wherein a distal end of the second lobe tapers, narrowing the distal end of the first lobe.
20. A system, comprising: the firearm trigger spacing device of claim 1; and a firearm apparatus having a frame (10) and a trigger (14).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-8, 12, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelso as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ortiz (US 10,473,423). Kelso discloses the claimed invention but does not expressly disclose the band made from an elastomeric material, however Ortiz does. Ortiz teaches a firearm trigger spacing device comprising a band made from silicone. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has a 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 and selecting a known material for its benefits and intended use or implementation on a shooter’s finger, as taught by Ortiz (col. 3, lines 38-57). Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps; “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964. Regarding the process for making the claimed band or the Product by Process Claims, applicant is direct to MPEP § 2113 cited in the prior office action. Therefore, the band being produced by an injection-molding process is not pertinent in this instance to the patentability of this product claim.
Kelso and Ortiz disclose the claimed invention but do not expressly disclose the exact material having the specific Shore A value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a specific silicone having the specific Shore A value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Kelso and Ortiz disclose the claimed invention except for the specific length, narrowing, and curvature of the lobe. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the lobe with the specific dimensions, since applicant has not disclosed that the specific dimensions solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any dimensions that would interact properly with known firearms. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
than the width of the outer circumference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE CLEMENT whose telephone number is (571)272-6884. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/MICHELLE CLEMENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641