/JDETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ arguments that: “Claim 7 recites, in relevant part, "the switch mount being resiliently deformable to permit connection of the switch mount with the switch assembly by resilient deformation of the switch mount." (emphasis added). The resilient deformation of the switch mount is what permits-i.e., enables-the connection between the switch mount and switch assembly to occur. Neither Cahill nor Teetzel discloses this feature.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicants’ arguments are to narrow given the broad limitation of the claims.
Cahill clear discloses a switch mount 10 configured to mount on the firearm (as shown in Fig. 1), the switch mount being resiliently deformable (via using the resilient tab 10j to secure the inserts 12) to permit connection of the switch mount 10 with the switch assembly 12 by resilient deformation of the switch mount (Fig. 1-3; 12b; Col. 2, 52-65: “At the edge of the depression 10g is a rectangular hole 10i that will engage, in one embodiment, rectangular in cross section locking projection 12b, 14b on the bottom surface of the insert 12, 14. In one embodiment, the thickness of the material at resilient tab 10j between the smooth surface of the panel and the side that touches the rail is thin and resilient to allow the bottom of the depression 10g to act as a flexible tab”). The examiner agrees that part of the connection in Cahill is made by sliding the insert into dovetail engagement. Applicant should note that the switch mount of Cahill is not fully connected to the switch assembly until the resilient tab secures inserts 12, 14.
Teetzel clearly discloses a switch mount 140 configured to mount on the firearm (Fig. 7), the switch mount being resiliently deformable (via detents 142; Fig. 3 and 5) to permit connection of the switch mount with the switch assembly by resilient deformation of the switch mount (Col. 5, lines 4-20: “The interfacing surface of the mounting receptacle 156 includes one or more detent bumps 142 which engage one or more complementary detent recesses 143 aligned and facing the interface surface of the mounting member 154 of the sliding the pressure pad portion 152a…The detent bumps 142 are resiliently biased into engagement with the detent recesses 143 to secure the pressure pad portion 152a to the pressure pad interface rail 140 at the appropriate position and to prevent inadvertent movement of the upper pressure pad portion 152a by increasing the sliding forced needed to disengage the detent member 142 from the detent recess 143”). Applicant further argues that “Claim 7 states "the switch mount being resiliently deformable to permit connection"- meaning the resilient deformation enables the connection to occur. (emphasis added). Teetzel's detent bumps 142 do not permit connection, they merely secure or lock the components after a sliding connection has already been made.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The detent bumps of Teetzel are the final steps that permit connection. The device is not fully connected until the components are secured or locked in place.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7, 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cahill (US 7,845,105).
Regarding claim 7, Cahill discloses a remote switch 3 for use with a firearm accessory on a firearm, the remote switch comprising:
a switch assembly 12 including a switch housing 12c (Fig. 3; “a rectangular hole 12c in it where the dimension is slightly under the overall dimension of a pressure switch”) and a switch supported by the switch housing (Fig. 1-2); and
a switch mount 10 configured to mount on the firearm (as shown in Fig. 1), the switch mount being resiliently deformable (via using the resilient tab 10j to secure the inserts 12) to permit connection of the switch mount 10 with the switch assembly 12 by resilient deformation of the switch mount (Fig. 1-3; 12b; Col. 2, 52-65: “At the edge of the depression 10g is a rectangular hole 10i that will engage, in one embodiment, rectangular in cross section locking projection 12b, 14b on the bottom surface of the insert 12, 14. In one embodiment, the thickness of the material at resilient tab 10j between the smooth surface of the panel and the side that touches the rail is thin and resilient to allow the bottom of the depression 10g to act as a flexible tab”)
Regarding claim 17, Cahill further discloses wherein the switch mount 10 is formed separately from the switch assembly 12 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Cahill further discloses wherein the switch assembly includes a switch actuator (pressure switch), and wherein switch mount 10 includes a switch receiver 10c configured to receive the switch assembly 12 , the switch receiver including: a switch assembly receiving recess 10H sized and shaped to receive the switch assembly (Fig. 2 and 3); and a top opening 10g (u-shaped with top open) which the switch actuator is accessible for receiving user input when the switch assembly is received by the switch receiver (“In an embodiment, this U shaped depression 10g has a smooth surface on the bottom and dovetail overhangs 10h on the sides to engage similar projections on the sides 12a, 14a of inserts 12, 14”).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Teetzel et al (US 12,031,797) [hereinafter Teetzel].
Regarding claim 7, Teetzel discloses a remote switch 150a for use with a firearm accessory on a firearm (Fig. 5-6), the remote switch comprising:
a switch assembly including a switch housing 152a and a switch supported by the switch housing 160a, 162a, 164a (Fig. 3); and
a switch mount 140 configured to mount on the firearm (Fig. 7), the switch mount being resiliently deformable (via detents 142; Fig. 3 and 5) to permit connection of the switch mount with the switch assembly by resilient deformation of the switch mount (Col. 5, lines 4-20: “The interfacing surface of the mounting receptacle 156 includes one or more detent bumps 142 which engage one or more complementary detent recesses 143 aligned and facing the interface surface of the mounting member 154 of the sliding the pressure pad portion 152a…The detent bumps 142 are resiliently biased into engagement with the detent recesses 143 to secure the pressure pad portion 152a to the pressure pad interface rail 140 at the appropriate position and to prevent inadvertent movement of the upper pressure pad portion 152a by increasing the sliding forced needed to disengage the detent member 142 from the detent recess 143”).
Regarding claim 17, Teetzel further discloses wherein the switch mount is formed separately from the switch assembly (Fig. 5).
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teetzel in view of McCauley et al (US 10,514,235) [hereinafter McCauley].
Regarding claim 18, Teetzel further discloses wherein the switch assembly includes a tether 182 for operatively connecting the switch assembly with the firearm accessory (Fig. 3).
Teetzel fails to disclose wherein the switch mount includes a passage configured to permit the tether to pass to the firearm accessory when the switch assembly is connected to the switch mount.
McCauley teaches that it is known in the art of switch mounts to provide a passage 30 configured to permit the tether 25 to pass to the firearm accessory when the switch assembly is connected to the switch mount (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Teetzel such that wherein the switch mount includes a passage configured to permit the tether to pass to the firearm accessory, in view of McCauley, to obtain the desired result of containing and managing the tether.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-26 and 28 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1 and 9-16 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JOSHUA E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4269. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM MST M-F.
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.
/JOSHUA E FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641