DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ arguments that none of Faxon, Ruger, or Howard disclose each and every element of the claims as arranged therein the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicants’ arguments that:
“Faxon does not disclose this element. In contrast, Faxon discloses that an "upper receiver assembly 12 includes a unitary body 26 which may be billet milled or otherwise formed of a suitable material, such as an aluminum [SIC] alloy. Alternatively, an extrusion of a suitable material may also be formed and milled to final specifications or could be molded [SIC] from a suitable polymer material" Stated differently, only the upper receiver assembly 12, and not the entire receiver of Faxon, may be moulded from a polymer material. Faxon expressly states that the "lower receiver 14 may be that of a standard AR15/M16 rifle," e.g., a lower receiver made of metal. Faxon does not disclose the lower receiver being anything other than a "standard AR15/M16 rifle" lower receiver, and thus does not teach a "receiver," as that term is used in claim 1, being made out of a polymer material.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Faxon discloses A portable weapon assembly comprising a receiver 12 (Fig. 2; Par. 0044); said receiver being made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element (Par. 0044: “the upper receiver assembly 12 includes a unitary upper receiver body 26 which may be billet milled or otherwise formed of a suitable material, such as an aluminum alloy. Alternatively…could be molded from a suitable polymer material”); said assembly having an inner cavity (Not labelled but shown; Fig. 2). Applicant should note that all inner working components are separate from receiver body (as shown in Fig. 4). The upper receiver of Faxon reads on “a receiver” as claimed by the applicant. Applicants’ arguments are to narrow given the broad limitations of the claimed invention. Applicant has failed to claim a “complete receiver”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a complete receiver”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicants arguments that:
“Ruger also fails to disclose a receiver that is made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element, as required by claim 1. In contrast, Ruger discloses a stock 8 that is formed by injection moulding or other fabrication technique from nylon or nylon-based materials. Ruger, . Element 11, cited in the Action as allegedly being equivalent to the disclosed receiver, is expressly disclosed in Ruger as a "mid-stock section." Ruger does not include a receiver, as Ruger is directed to a rifle stock that may be used with various rifles, i.e., may be coupled to receivers.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ruger discloses a portable weapon assembly comprising a receiver 8, said receiver being made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element (Fig. 8, Col. 2, lines 50-66: “Stock 8 is integrally formed by injection molding or other fabrication technique…The preferred materials are nylon, nylon-based materials;) said assembly having an inner cavity (shown in Fig. 8). The stock of Ruger can be reasonably and broadly construed as a lower receiver. Applicants’ arguments are to narrow given the broad limitations of the claimed invention. Applicant has failed to claim a “complete receiver”.
In response to applicants arguments that:
“Howard similarly fails to disclose a receiver that is made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element, as required by claim 1. In contrast to claim 1, Howard expressly discloses that the top receiver 92 is made of machined steel. See Howard, 5:49-51 ("The top receiver 92 preferably still is machined steel to assist with proper operation of the action assembly 90, as known in the art.") Howard does not disclose that the top receiver 92 can be formed of a polymer material, and therefore fails to disclose a receiver that is made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Howard discloses a portable weapon assembly 10 (comprising a receiver 16 (Fig. 1 and 5; Col. 4 lines 27-28: “The undercarriage 10 has a stock 14, a bottom receiver 16, and a forearm 18”), said receiver being made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element (Col. 3 lines 45-50: “the one-piece undercarriage is preferably injection molded. Injection molding of thermoplastics as is known in the art, generally involves melting the thermoplastic, pushing the molten thermoplastic into a mold cavity, cooling the thermoplastic to a solid, and opening the mold in such a way as to be able to extract an undamaged finished form”); said assembly having an inner cavity (Fig. 5). Applicants’ arguments are to narrow given the broad limitations of the claimed invention. Applicant has failed to claim a “complete receiver”.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faxon (US 2014/0224114).
Regarding claim 1, Faxon discloses A portable weapon assembly comprising a receiver 12 (Fig. 2; Par. 0044); said receiver being made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element (Par. 0044: “the upper receiver assembly 12 includes a unitary upper receiver body 26 which may be billet milled or otherwise formed of a suitable material, such as an aluminum alloy. Alternatively…could be molded from a suitable polymer material”); said assembly having an inner cavity (Not labelled but shown; Fig. 2). Applicant should note that all inner working components are separate from receiver body (as shown in Fig. 4).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruger et al (US 4,674,216) [hereinafter Ruger].
Regarding claim 1, Ruger discloses a portable weapon assembly 8 comprising a receiver 11, said receiver being made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element (Fig. 8, Col. 2, lines 50-66: “Stock 8 is integrally formed by injection molding or other fabrication technique…The preferred materials are nylon, nylon-based materials;) said assembly having an inner cavity (shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Ruger further discloses a stock 12 made in one piece with said receiver (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Ruger further discloses comprising a hollow grip (Fig. 8, 30).
Regarding claim 4, Ruger further discloses wherein said hollow grip is closed by a plug 113 (Fig. 30).
Regarding claim 5, Ruger further discloses wherein said plug comprises hook members for a snap connection of said plug into said grip (not labelled; Shown in Fig. 30).
Regarding claim 7, Ruger further discloses an interchangeable grip 102r 106l (Fig. 30).
Regarding claim 9, The assembly, according to claim 1, comprising a set of holes 28, 27 formed in the top of said receiver and configured to receive metallic inserts (Fig. 1, 4 and 8; holes are configured to receive metallic inserts such as screws; bolts).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard et al (US 6,256,921) [hereinafter Howard].
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses a portable weapon assembly 10 (comprising a receiver 16 (Fig. 1 and 5; Col. 4 lines 27-28: “The undercarriage 10 has a stock 14, a bottom receiver 16, and a forearm 18”), said receiver being made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element (Col. 3 lines 45-50: “the one-piece undercarriage is preferably injection molded. Injection molding of thermoplastics as is known in the art, generally involves melting the thermoplastic, pushing the molten thermoplastic into a mold cavity, cooling the thermoplastic to a solid, and opening the mold in such a way as to be able to extract an undamaged finished form”);
said assembly having an inner cavity (Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 2, Howard further discloses a stock 14 made in one piece with said receiver 16 (Fig. 2-5; Col. 4, lines 25-32: “As shown in FIGS. 2-5, the undercarriage 10 replaces three major components of traditional multiple component shotgun assemblies. The undercarriage 10 has a stock 14, a bottom receiver 16, and a forearm 18. The current state of technology is synthetic stocks that do not include a receiver. Integration of the butt stock 14, the bottom receiver 16, and the forearm support 18 into a single unit 10 will represent significant cost savings for the consumer.”)
Regarding claim 3, Howard further discloses a hollow grip (clearly shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Howard further discloses wherein said hollow grip is closed by a plug 70 (Fig. 6; Col. 6, line 44: “Grip cap 70”)
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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Moretti (US 2020/0386510).
Regarding claim 5, Howard fails to disclose wherein said plug comprises hook members for a snap connection of said plug into said grip.
Moretti teaches that it known in the art of portable weapon assemblies to provide a hollow grip closed by a plug wherein said plug comprises hook members for a snap connection of said plug into said grip (not labelled; clearly seen in Fig. 1 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Howard such the hollow grip was formed for snap connection to receive a plug with hook members, in view of Moretti, to obtain the desired of a more secure connection between the plug and hollow grip.
Regarding claim 7, Howard fails to disclose an interchangeable grip.
Moretti teaches that it is known in the art of portable weapon assemblies to provide an interchangeable grip (Fig. 35-48; Par. 0121: “In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 35-48, a removable insert 24 is constituted by a contoured body that can be engaged with a contoured portion 222 of the grip 22”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Howard such that there was an interchangeable grip, in view of Moretti, to offer the user the possibility to vary the dimensions and tactile perception of the grip according to tastes and requirements (Moretti: Par. 0123).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard in view of Romer et al (US 2018/0356183) [hereinafter Romer].
Regarding claim 6, Howard further discloses wherein said stock comprises a fastening system of a recoil pad (Fig. 5-6; Col. 6, lines 49-46: “The stock may be formed to receive a removable recoil pad 64. The stock 14 should be formed with insert 54 for pin 68 attachment of the recoil pad 64. The upper, inner surface of the stock 14 can be formed with notch 58 to receive the pinion 66 of a removable recoil pad.”).
Howard fails to disclose wherein said fastening system comprising a polymer cage that is snapped-in into said stock.
Romer teaches that it is known in the art of portable weapon assemblies to provide a stock with a fastening system 6 of a recoil pad 7, said fastening system comprising a polymer cage 6 (Fig. 1-2; Par. 0018: “a holding part 6, e.g., consisting of a hard plastic material, for mounting on the gun stock 1 and a damping part 7 disposed on the holding part 6 and consisting of a softer material to facilitate recoil damping. The damping part 7 can consist, e.g., of a solid expanded plastic material, an elastomer or another suitable plastic material and can …snapped onto…the holding part 6 or attached by another suitable method to the holding part 6”)
that is snapped-in into said stock (Par. 0019: “Disposed on the outside surface of each of the two arch-like retention members 10 is a laterally projecting lug element 11 for locking engagement in the through-openings 5 on the gun stock 1”).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Howard such that said fastening system comprising a polymer cage that is snapped-in into said stock, in view of Romer, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The replacement would be expected to yield a stock with an inner surface formed to receive a fastening system of a removable recoil pad.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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 12-22 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a portable weapon assembly made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element in combination with a breech resting system comprising metallic pins 61, said metallic pins being disposed on the front 60 of said receiver 3 and being fastened to said receiver and being in contact with a breech 62 (Applicants Fig. 17 and 23). The claimed invention providing a modular, all-polymer stock/receiver for firearms such as shotguns with additional components that allow for a more appropriate distribution of pressures during firing: the breech resting on metal pins or the breech resting on a molded plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a portable weapon assembly made in a single polymer body without any inner metallic structural element, specifically in combination with a rib 31 inserted into a longitudinal seat 32 made in said receiver where the rib 31 has threaded holes corresponding to holes 34 formed in said receiver (Applicants Fig. 12-13, 16). The claimed invention providing a modular, all-polymer stock/receiver for firearms such as shotguns with a rib configuration system allows advantageous mounting of rails and optics accessories.
PNG
media_image2.png
398
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 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