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
In response to the amendment filed 6/29/2026; claims 1 – 20 are pending; claims 15 – 20 have been withdrawn.
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 1,2-3,5,7-10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevor, Jr. (US 4,930,399) in view of Parra (US 2021/0114174 A1).
Re claims 1, 8:
Trevor, Jr. (US 4,930,399) teaches
1. A training firearm (Trevor, Abstract), comprising:
a plurality of components each having a central bore, each of the plurality of components corresponding to a respective portion of a live firearm (Trevor, fig. 6, 28, 177, 175, 174; col. 7, lines 5 – 25, “Internally threaded end 171 of the guide rod is fastened to a back plate 175 and a rubber butt plate 177 by means of screw 179 …”); and
a core rod configured to pass at least partially through the central bore of each of the plurality of components (Trevor, fig. 6, 28, 177, 175, 174; col. 7, lines 5 – 25, “Internally threaded end 171 of the guide rod is fastened to a back plate 175 and a rubber butt plate 177 by means of screw 179 …”).
Parra teaches 8. A training firearm (Trevor, Abstract), the training firearm comprising:
a core rod (Trevor, fig. 6, 28);
a plurality of components, the plurality of components having a central bore for receiving a portion of the core rod, each of the plurality of components resembling a portion of a live firearm (Trevor, fig. 6, 28, 177, 175, 174; col. 7, lines 5 – 25, “Internally threaded end 171 of the guide rod is fastened to a back plate 175 and a rubber butt plate 177 by means of screw 179 …”),
wherein one or more of the plurality of components comprises a portion suitable for attaching at least one functional component suitable for use with a live firearm (Trevor, fig. 6, 28, 177, 175, 174; col. 7, lines 5 – 25, “Internally threaded end 171 of the guide rod is fastened to a back plate 175 and a rubber butt plate 177 by means of screw 179 …”).
Trevor does not explicitly disclose 3D printed components of a firearm.
Parra teaches an armorer tool system for distributing the applied torque over a very wide surface, associated with assembling and disassembling primarily the barrel and the lower receiver extension of an AR platform firearms (Parra, Abstrat). Parra teaches 1. A 3D printed training firearm (Parra, Abstract; [0024]), comprising: a plurality of 3D printed components each having a central bore, each of the plurality of 3D printed components corresponding to a respective portion of a live firearm (Parra, [0059]; [0076]); and … central bore of each of the plurality of 3D printed components (Parra, figs. 6 – 10 show multiple parts can be attached coupled together; [0010]). Parra teaches 8. A 3D printed training firearm (Parra, Abstract; [0024]), the training firearm comprising: a plurality of 3D printed components, the plurality of 3D printed components (Parra, [0059]; [0076]) having a central bore, each of the plurality of 3D printed components resembling a portion of a live firearm, wherein one or more of the plurality of 3D printed components comprises a portion suitable for attaching at least one functional component suitable for use with a live firearm (Parra, figs. 6 – 10 show multiple parts can be attached coupled together; [0010]).
Therefore, in view of Parra, 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 Trevor, by manufacturing firearm using 3D printed method as taught by Parra, since it was known in the art to 3d printer enable faster development, manufacturing without specificality machines and relatively lightweight.
Re claims 2 - 3:
2. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, wherein the plurality of 3D printed components include two or more of a receiver portion, a handguard portion, a stock coupler portion, and a suppressor portion (Trevor, fig. 1; fig. 6; Parra, figs. 6 -10).
3. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 2, further comprising an accessory rail portion configured for coupling to an upper surface of the receiver portion or the handguard portion (Trevor, fig. 4, 120; col. 3, lines 55 – 68; Parra, fig. 6, 7; [0009]).
Re claim 5:
5. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, wherein at least two of the plurality of 3D printed components are mounted on the core rod and coupled to one another such that the at least two of the plurality of 3D components cannot rotate about the axis of the core rod with respect to one another (Trevor, col. 4, lines 1 – 23; col. 7, lines 5 – 25; Parra, [0011], “the barrel extension is tightened and pinned against the barrel itself”; [0026], “they are the tightening of the barrel nut (4) and the castle nut (17)”; [0054], “match the AR-15 upper receiver bolt carrier group (BCG) well (19) and one perpendicular threaded hole (35) to attach a threaded pin to secure the upper receiver to the tool (34)”; [0075]).
Re claims 9 – 10:
9. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 8, further comprising a 3D printed accessory rail configured for mounting to a surface of another of the plurality of 3D printed components (Trevor, fig. 4, 120; col. 3, lines 55 – 68; Parra, fig. 6, 7; [0009]).
10. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 9, wherein the 3D printed accessory rail is configured for coupling to a functional telescopic sight (Trevor, fig. 4, 120; col. 3, lines 55 – 68; Parra, [0009]).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevor, Jr. (US 4,930,399) in view of Parra (US 2021/0114174 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klein (US 2022/0107154 A1).
Re claims 7 and 11:
Trevor does not teach 7. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, further comprising one or more functional components otherwise suitable for use in connection with a live firearm, the functional components configured for coupling to at least one of the plurality of 3D printed components. 11. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 8, wherein at least one of the plurality of 3D printed components is configured for coupling to a functional stock.
Klein (US 2022/0107154 A1) teaches an invention related to conversion devices and methods for converting a chassis style rifle to function (Klein, Abstract). Klein disclose a mix of functional components and 3D printed components or 7. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, further comprising one or more functional components otherwise suitable for use in connection with a live firearm, the functional components configured for coupling to at least one of the plurality of 3D printed components. 11. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 8, wherein at least one of the plurality of 3D printed components is configured for coupling to a functional stock (Klein, [0110], “The conversion components, such as the mount and mount body pieces comprising the mount … The devices, such as the conversion components … the material may comprise a plastic material or material that may be extruded, injection molded, 3D printed, or other forming process or procedure. Plastic and alterative materials may be used to reduce the weight of the conversion components such as the mount pieces, as well as of the accessories, such as a forearm piece, cover, or other connectable accessory”). Therefore, in view of Klein, 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 Trevor, by mixing functional components and 3D printed components as taught by Klein, since the devices, such as the conversion components (3D printed components), such as for example, the mount pieces, as well as the forearm, may be constructed from a suitable material, such as metal or other suitable material, and preferably a material that is resistant to corrosion, water, and can withstand weather elements and conditions (Klein, [0110]).
Claims 4, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevor, Jr. (US 4,930,399) in view of Parra (US 2021/0114174 A1) as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0129638 A1).
Re claims 4, 12 and 14:
Trevor does not teach one or more 3d-printed parts; nor color 3d printed components. Bostick teaches methods and apparatuses for repairing a broken object (Bostick, Abstract). Bostick further teaches 4. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, the plurality of 3D printed components comprising a material having a color indicative of an inert or non-functional … 12. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 8, wherein a first of the plurality of 3D printed components is comprised of a material having a color indicative of an inert or non-functional training firearm. 14. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 8, wherein a second of the plurality of 3D printed components is comprised of a second material having a color resembling the color of components of the live firearm. (Bostick, [0029], “edits received from the user include color of the replacement part model. Repair program 114 determines a color for the replacement part model based an image and/or video data stored in object data 112 of the intact object for the portion determined to be missing from the broken object”; [0030], “3D printer 116 creates a replacement part based on the replacement part model”). Therefore, in view of Bostick, 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 Trevor, by providing color selection for the 3d printed replacement part as taught by Bostick, in order to allow a user to customize the 3d printed replacement part based on personal preference and ecstatic.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevor, Jr. (US 4,930,399) in view of Parra (US 2021/0114174 A1) and Bostick et al. (US 2016/0129638 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 2016/0225193 A1).
Re claim 13:
Trevor does not disclose the color is blue, red, orange, or chartreuse. Guo teaches a method and system for communicating product development information (Guo, Abstract). 13. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 12, wherein the color is blue, red, orange, or chartreuse (Guo, [0054], “the printers listed in the printer selection control 655 may be limited to those that are able to 3D print the 3D image in red colored plastic, and at a size that is two times the size of the 3D image”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a specific color (blue, red, orange … ) because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific color provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to allow a user to a color based on personal preference and ecstatic.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trevor, Jr. (US 4,930,399) in view of Parra (US 2021/0114174 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amba et al. (US 2018/0009172 A1).
Re claim 6:
Trevor does not one or more 3D printed component and 6. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, the plurality of 3D printed components are secured to the core rod by applying an epoxy to the core rod or melt bonding each of the plurality of 3D printed components to the core rod. However, Trevor does not explicitly disclose applying epoxy for bonding each component. Amba teaches a method for 3D printing of a new structure (Amba, Abstract). Amba 6. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, the plurality of 3D printed components are secured to the core rod by applying an epoxy to the core rod or melt bonding each of the plurality of 3D printed components to the core rod … (Amba, [0016]; [0071]). Therefore, in view of Amba, 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 firearm described in Trevor, by providing the epoxy as taught by Amba, since it’s known in the art to use epoxy is a liquid adhesive can be molded and harden to shapes to be bonded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
