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 .
Response to Amendment
Pursuant to the applicant’s response filed 17 February 2026, the amendments to the claims have been entered into the application. By this amendment, claims 8 & 10-11 are cancelled, claims 21-23 are new, and claims 1-7, 9, & 12-23 are currently pending in the application with claims 2-3, 7, 9, & 12-14 are withdrawn by the applicant as being directed to non-elected inventions and/or species. This action has been updated in response to the new limitations.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 18 as amended is directed to a species that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The amendments to the claim have changed the scope of the claim and appears to be directed to features that are not illustrated in the elected species shown in Figures 1-4.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 18 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0282950 by Aldstadt (Aldstadt).
Regarding claim 1, Aldstadt discloses a firearm lower receiver (See at least Figures 8A-8F, clearly illustrated) comprising: a magazine well (See at least Figures 8A-8F, clearly illustrated); and an extension mount (See at least Figures 8A-8F, clearly illustrated) positioned at least partially forward of the magazine well relative to a shooting orientation (See at least Figure 10, clearly illustrated), wherein the extension mount is configured to couple to a firearm handguard to form a rigid connection between the firearm lower receiver and the firearm handguard (See Figures, clearly illustrated, and at least Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 4, Aldstadt further discloses wherein the extension mount comprises one or more holes configured to receive a fastener (See at least Figures 10 and 18A-18B, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 5, Aldstadt further discloses an assembly comprising the firearm lower receiver of claim 1 rigidly coupled to the firearm handguard (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 6, Aldstadt further discloses wherein the firearm handguard comprises an attachment mount at or proximate to a downward aft end of an elongated body of the firearm handguard, wherein the extension mount of the firearm lower receiver is coupled to the attachment mount of the firearm handguard (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 15, Aldstadt discloses a firearm (See Figures, clearly illustrated) comprising: an upper receiver (See at least Figures 7A-7C); a barrel configured to be coupled to the upper receiver (See at least Figures 9-10 and 18A-18B); the firearm lower receiver of claim 1 coupled to the upper receiver (See Figures, clearly illustrated); and the firearm handguard (See Figures 10A-10E, clearly illustrated), wherein the firearm handguard comprises an elongated body and an attachment mount, the attachment mount configured to couple to the extension mount of the firearm lower receiver to rigidly connect the firearm handguard and the firearm lower receiver (See Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 16, Aldstadt further discloses wherein the firearm handguard is only coupled to the upper receiver through the firearm lower receiver (See at least Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 17, Aldstadt further discloses wherein the firearm handguard abuts the upper receiver (See Figures, clearly illustrated, Note: The term abut is broadly interpreted to mean “to border upon, be next to, or be adjacent to”. Based on this definition, the figures clearly show that the firearm handguard abuts the upper receiver).
Regarding claim 20, Aldstadt further discloses a firearm comprising: an upper receiver; a barrel coupled to the upper receiver; a barrel nut configured to couple the barrel to the upper receiver; a lower receiver coupled to the upper receiver, the lower receiver comprising: a magazine well; and an extension mount positioned forward of the magazine well; a handguard; and a means for coupling the handguard to the extension mount of the lower receiver such that the handguard does not contact the barrel nut (See Figures, especially Figures 16B, all aspects clearly illustrated, and limitations previously addressed).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldstadt.
Regarding claim 19, Aldstadt further discloses wherein the firearm further comprises a barrel nut configured to couple the barrel to the upper receiver, wherein a second gap is defined between portions of the firearm handguard that circumferentially surround the barrel nut and the barrel nut (See at least Figures 16 and 16B, clearly illustrated).
Aldstadt discloses the claimed invention except for the measured dimension of the gap being at least 0.01 inch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second gap be at least 0.01 inch, 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. Further, the applicant has not stated that the gap measurement solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a wide variety of gap dimensions.
Regarding claim 21, Aldstadt disclose wherein the attachment mount comprises one or more threaded holes configured to receive a threaded fastener (See at least Figures 11A-11F, all aspects clearly illustrated).
Aldstadt discloses the claimed invention except for making the attachment mount integral with the firearm handguard. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the attachment mount of the firearm handguard be monolithic with the elongated body of the firearm handguard, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Regarding claim 22, Aldstadt discloses the claimed invention except for a pad that extends downward, and wherein the pad is monolithic with the elongated body of the firearm handguard. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the attachment mount of the firearm handguard have a pad that extends downward, and wherein the pad is monolithic with the elongated body of the firearm handguard, since applicant has not disclosed that the pad or its features solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with no monolithic pad extending downward.
Regarding claim 23, Aldstadt discloses the claimed invention except for locating the one or more threaded holes configured to receive a threaded fastener in the pad. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the threaded holes to the monolithic pad, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18, the examiner offers the following: As noted above, the claim appears to contain features that are not shown in the elected embodiment; therefore, the claim was withdrawn from further consideration and the arguments are moot.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Aldstadt does not show a circumferential gap between the handguard and the barrel nut, the examiner offers the following: Figures 16 and 16B clearly show a gap between the barrel nut and the handguard, the elements are not labeled, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the noted parts and see that there is clearly a circumferential gap between the barrel nut and the handguard. In addition, the examiner utilized the Pre-Grant Publication to Alstadt and the Patent was not used in the rejection.
No other arguments have been presented by the applicant based on prior rejections.
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 JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641