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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claim 1 in the reply filed on 1 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a drill guide" in line 12. However, there is already antecedent basis for “one or more indexable drill guides” in line 5 of the claim, making it unclear whether “a drill guide” refers to one of the “one or more indexable drill guides” or to a different drill guide. For the purposes of examination, it has been assumed that “a drill guide” refers to one of the “one or more indexable drill guides”.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton (US 2024/0207949 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Middleton discloses a modular jig 100 for converting a pistol frame blank into a finished pistol frame, comprising: a passenger side wall (opposite side of body 104 in figure 1); a driver side wall (visible side of body 104 in figure 1) opposite the passenger side wall; one or more indexable drill guides 200a/b/c coupled to at least one of the passenger side wall and the driver side wall; a trigger guard insert 500 coupled to each of the passenger side wall and the driver side wall (although insert 500 is named a rail insert, as it is located to abut the trigger guard (see figure 9) it may also be considered to be a trigger guard insert); wherein the trigger guard insert is configured to locate the pistol frame blank to a drill guide 200c.
Middleton does not disclose and one or more magazine catch inserts coupled to an interior side of at least one of the passenger side wall and the driver side wall, or wherein the one or more magazine inserts are configured to locate the pistol frame blank to a drill guide. Middleton does disclose a rail insert 500 that is used to prevent movement of the blank frame within the jig, teaching that it is beneficial to have more than one insert to provide adequate positioning of the pistol frame blank within the jig prior to drilling holes through the drill guides. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have added a magazine catch insert for the purpose of providing additional support and proper positioning for the pistol frame blank within the jig, because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, involves only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Borges et al. (US 10,612,870) discloses a jig for a pistol frame blank.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 5 August 2026
Prosecution Insights