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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the obviousness rejections were not sufficiently articulated is not persuasive. The rejections include clear notice of the grounds and art being applied and sometimes numerous paragraphs of the prior art is required in order to correlate the prior art to that of the claims, however the examiner DID NOT cite numerous paragraphs of the prior art. Further, additional explanation of case law, motivation and rationale is given above and beyond the minimum requirements. Furthermore, note the following:
• See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) which states “There has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on-the-record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie rejection. This court declines to create such a burdensome and unnecessary requirement… Section 132 merely ensures that an applicant at least be informed of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of his claims, so that he may determine what the issues are on which he can or should produce evidence." Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578 (internal citation omitted). As discussed above, all that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon…” (emphasis added).
• Just as applicant’s claims are not so complex as to require applicant to provide reference characters in the claim that map each claimed element to applicant's figures, nor are they so complex as to require such mapping to the art. Even though --claim mapping-- can be helpful when making overly complex rejections, with overly complex art, there is no actual requirement for --claim mapping-- in such cases, nor is the current case so overly complex to warrant such --claim mapping-- if there were such a requirement. Even when using overly complex art that sets forth multiple inventions other than that claimed by applicant (not the case here), all that would be required is designating the particular part(s) relied on as nearly as practicable. See 37 CFR 1.104 (c)(2).
• The rejections include clear notice of the grounds of rejection (i.e., the statutory basis and art being applied), thereby meeting the minimum requirements for a prima facie rejection and thereby transferring burden to applicant to produce conflicting evidence, convincing argument and/or amendment to overcome the rejections.
Applicant further contends that element 250 of Acarreta et al. is a “multi-part ‘device’” and not a “safety element”. However, Acarretta et al. expressly discloses that element 250 “acts as an additional safety” (col. 8, line 41). Further, the safety element 250 determines the state of the weapon between at least one firing state and a safe state. The safety element 250 is disclosed by Acarretta et al. as containing “a secondary safety surface that operably engaging the sear to maintain the sear in a [restraining] [sic] position” (col. 8, lines 51 through col. 9, lines 7 shows the operation of the pistol). Figs. 3A-D further show the operation of the safety device of the pistol. In response to applicant’s contention that element 250 of Acarreta et al. “lacks the features of the claimed sleeve in conjunction with other elements” it is not clear what applicant is referring to since a sleeve is not recited in the claims.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delgado Acarreta et al. (US Patent 12,078,434). Delgado Acarreta et al. discloses a pistol (col. 1, line 24) comprising: a frame (110); a striker (121) connected to the frame and movable between a rearward energized position and a forwarded striking position; a trigger (200); a sear (col. 2, lines 3-6) responsive to the trigger and operable to restrain the striker in the rearward position and release the striker to the forward position; a safety element (250) movable between a live condition in which trigger motion to release of the striker is enabled and a safe condition in which trigger motion to release of the striker is disabled; and the safety element including a secondary safety surface operably engaging the sear to maintain the sear in a retraining position when the safety element is in the safe condition. (col. 8, lines 51 through col. 9, lines 7 shows the operation of the pistol and Figs. 3A-D further show the operation of the safety device of the pistol)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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