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 .
The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 12/8/2025. Claim 1 has been amended. Therefore claims 1-11 are pending and addressed below.
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.
Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porat et al., US 11,592,262 B2 (“Porat ’262”).
Porat ’262 discloses a pistol brace assembly including:
Forward fastening flanges that extend in front of the trigger guard of a handgun, thereby increasing the effective length of the trigger guard in the firing direction (col. 4, lines 30–40; Figs. 3–5). (Claim 1)
The flanges are shaped to complement the forward surface of the trigger guard (claim 2) and are outwardly curved (claim 3).
The flanges are spaced to capture the thickness of the trigger guard (col. 5, lines 10–20) (claim 5).
The brace is constructed of left and right halves (col. 3, lines 55–65) (claim 6).
A receiver support shelf and associated upward receiver portion are disclosed (col. 5, lines 35–45) (claim 7).
A handgun mounting structure comprising a receiver support shelf and a trigger guard abutment member against which the trigger guard rests (Figs. 2A–2B) (claim 10).
Accordingly, Porat ’262 expressly discloses each limitation of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
In the alternative, rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Porat, US 11,592,262 B2 (“Porat ’262”) in view of Glock, US 8,156,677 B2 (“Glock”).
Alternatively (see response to arguments below), even if Porat ’262 were interpreted as including portions extending rearward of the trigger, it would have been obvious to modify the forward fastening structure to exclude rearward extension as a matter of design choice to reduce interference and improve compatibility, resulting in the claimed configuration.
Rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Porat, US 11,592,262 B2 (“Porat ’262”) in view of Glock, US 8,156,677 B2 (“Glock”).
Porat ’262 discloses forward flanges extending beyond the trigger guard but does not expressly show a rearwardly facing tab that snaps over the guard. Glock discloses a firearm backstrap assembly employing snap-fit coupling tabs to secure an adaptor to the receiver (col. 4, lines 15–25).
It would have been obvious to incorporate a rearwardly facing snap tab into the forward flange of Porat ’262 to improve securement of the adaptor to the trigger guard, a predictable modification using known snap-fit fastening means.
Rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Porat, US 11,592,262 B2 (“Porat ’262”) in view of Hogue, US 10,180,301 B2 (“Hogue”) and Glock backstraps (NPL).
Porat ’262 discloses the brace assembly but not a separate rear adaptor. Hogue discloses a beavertail grip sleeve configured to attach at the rear of the receiver, providing sidewalls, a rear wall, and a rearward projection (Figs. 1–2). Glock OEM backstraps, in widespread public use prior to 2014, disclose interchangeable rear beavertail adaptors pin-mounted to the rear of the handgun frame.
It would have been obvious to combine a known rear beavertail adaptor (Hogue/Glock backstraps) with the Porat ’262 brace system to adapt small handguns for secure mounting, a predictable combination yielding improved stability.
Rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Hogue, US 10,180,301 B2 (“Hogue”).
Hogue discloses a grip sleeve comprising sidewalls (30, 32), a rear wall (34), and an upper guard element that extends rearward as a beavertail. This meets the limitations of claim 9. At minimum, claim 9 is obvious in view of Hogue alone; anticipation may also apply.
Rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Porat, US 11,592,262 B2 (“Porat ’262”) in view of Faifer, US 8,448,366 B2 (“Faifer”) and Hogue, US 10,180,301 B2 (“Hogue”).
Porat ’262 discloses a brace assembly with receiver support shelf and trigger guard abutment. Faifer discloses a pistol chassis/brace including a rear engagement member with a groove for receiving the handgun’s rear protrusion/beavertail (col. 7, lines 10–25). Hogue discloses a rear beavertail adaptor.
It would have been obvious to modify Porat ’262 by providing a groove as taught by Faifer, sized to receive the beavertail adaptor of Hogue, thereby securing different handguns in the brace. This is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (KSR).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 reciting “wherein no part integral with said trigger guard adaptor extends rearward of a trigger of the handgun” has been considered but is not persuasive.
In Porat ’262, the structure corresponding to the claimed “trigger guard adaptor” is the forward fastening flanges positioned in front of the trigger guard. These flanges do not extend rearward of the trigger, and therefore meet the amended limitation. The fact that other portions of the brace assembly extend rearward is not relevant to the claimed trigger guard adaptor. Accordingly, Porat ’262 continues to anticipate claim 1.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-3737 and whose email address is michael.david@uspto.gov*. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
*Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Applicant is welcome to file an electronic communication authorization (sb439) form at any time if he/she would like to communicate via e-mail:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdfWithout a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641