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 .
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Claims 15 – 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 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.
Claims 1,2-3,5,7-10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parra (US 2021/0114174 A1).
Re claims 1, 8:
Parra teaches 1. A 3D printed training firearm (Parra, Abstract; [0059], “3D-Printing”; [0024]), comprising:
one or more 3D printed components each having a central bore, each 3D printed component corresponding to a portion of a live firearm (Parra, fig. 6, 15; fig. 7, 19; fig. 8, 14, 15);
a core rod configured to pass at least partially through the central bore of each 3D printed component (Parra, figs 6 – 8 and fig. 10);
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 3D printed components (Parra, figs. 6 – 10 show multiple parts can be attached coupled together; [0010]).
Parra teaches 8. A 3D printed training firearm, the training firearm (Parra, Abstract; [0059], “3D-Printing”; [0024]) comprising:
a core rod (Parra, fig. 6, 3; fig. 3, 3 – 4; fig. 8, 14);
a plurality of 3D printed components, one or more of the plurality of 3D printed components having a central bore for receiving a portion of the core rod, each 3D printed component resembling a portion of a live firearm (Parra, figs 6 – 8 and fig. 10),
wherein one or more of the 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]).
Re claims 2 - 3:
2. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, wherein the 3D printed components include two or more of a receiver portion, a handguard portion, a stock coupler portion, and a suppressor portion (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 (Parra, fig. 6, 7; [0009]).
Re claim 5:
5. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, wherein at least two of the 3D printed components are mounted on the core rod and coupled to one another such that the at least two 3D components cannot rotate about the axis of the core rod with respect to one another (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 claim 7:
7. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, wherein the one or more functional components comprise a stock or a telescopic sight (Parra, [0009]).
Re claims 9 – 10:
9. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 8, wherein the plurality of 3D printed components comprise a 3D printed accessory rail for mounting to a surface of another of the plurality of 3D printed components (Parra, fig. 6, 7; [0009]).
10. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 9, wherein the accessory rail is configured for coupling to a functional telescopic sight (Parra, [0009]).
Re claim 11:
11. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 8, wherein one of the 3D printed components is configured for coupling to a functional stock (Parra, figs. 6 – 10 show multiple parts can be attached coupled together; [0010]).
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 4, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parra (US 2021/0114174 A1) in view of Bostick et al. (US 2016/0129638 A1).
Re claims 4, 12 and 14:
Parra teaches one or more 3d-printed parts (Parra, [0059]). Parra does not explicitly disclose 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 one or more 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 Parra, 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 Parra (US 2021/0114174 A1) in view of 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:
Bostick does not explicitly 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 Parra (US 2021/0114174 A1) in view of Amba et al. (US 2018/0009172 A1).
Re claim 6:
Parra teaches one or more 3D printed component (Parra, [0059]) and 6. The 3D printed training firearm of claim 1, wherein the one or more 3D printed components are secured to the core rod … each of the 3D printed components to the core rod. However, Para 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, wherein the one or more 3D printed components applying an epoxy to the core rod or melt bonding each of the 3D printed components… (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 Parra, 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.
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