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 .
Examiner’s Note
The claims amendments, filed 06/19/26, are non-compliant for the following reason(s):
In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered) (see 37 CFR 1.121(c)). Accordingly, claims 11-14 should indicate “(New)” after the respective claim number.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the above-noted non-compliance is overlooked, and the pending claims are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
The previous objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in light of the amended drawings, filed 06/19/26. However, a new objection to the drawings has been presented below.
The claim objections have been withdrawn in part in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 06/19/26. However, the previous objection to claim 1 with respect to the recitation “at position” has been maintained, as presented below.
The rejections of claims 3-5 and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn or are moot in light of the amendments to claims 3, 5, and 8. However, the rejection of claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been maintained, as presented in detail below. Additionally, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been presented in light of the amendments to the claims, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Particularly, the cited prior art fails to disclose or teach all of the limitations of amended independent claims 1 and 10, as discussed in detail below. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 6, Applicant argues that Wright fails to disclose at least a sling mount, and McHale fails to teach the sling mount comprising a shoulder and inner cavity, as required by the claim (Remarks, filed 06/19/26, pp. 22-23). Examiner respectfully disagrees. McHale teaches a buttstock comprising multiple sling attachment points/sling mounts (see circled attachment points in below figure 6 of McHale), wherein the sling attachment points/mounts comprise a shoulder and inner cavity to obtain a small lip for a sling ball detent to pass thereby and lock thereto (see bottom/right circled sling mount in the figure 6 below depicting the shoulder and inner cavity creating a small lip, wherein said mount is on both sides of the stock; see further top/left circled sling mount with attached sling ball detent in the figure 6 below). While McHale teaches the claimed limitations, as previously discussed and shown in the figure 6 below, it is additionally noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the quick detach sling mount functions, that is, via a shoulder and inner cavity to obtain a small lip for a sling ball detent to pass thereby and lock thereto (see, e.g., Specification, [0090], “The sling mount 250 may be of a design such as the quick detach mount specifications which generally provides a small lip for a sling ball detent to pass thereby and lock thereto.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 (pictured above) taken from McHale, p. 8
Additionally, Applicant argues that the interior of the buttstock in McHale is a conventional circular or near-circular hollow, as opposed to a non-cylindrical or mushroom-shaped interior surface (Remarks, filed 06/19/26, p. 18-19). Examiner respectfully disagrees. McHale, Fig. 1, for example, shows a non-cylindrical or mushroom-shaped interior surface of the buttstock, as claimed (see below figure 1 of McHale, depicting an interior cavity comprising a generally circular upper section and downwardly extending slot-like section).
PNG
media_image2.png
623
807
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (pictured above) taken from McHale, p. 2
Accordingly, the respective claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as presented below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "96" and “98” have both been used to designate the picatinny rail (see Specification, [0082], “the longitudinally forward region 96 which in a preferred form is the picatinny rail 98, as shown in Figure 9.”) It is noted that “96” also appears to be pointing to the same component – the lateral extending cavity of the picatinny rail – as “98a” (see Fig. 9).
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “134” has been used to designate two separate components (see Fig. 6, #134 pointing to a component on the rifle chassis, and Fig. 9, #134 pointing to a component on the pistol).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 06/19/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Interior surface 29 of the buttstock region 28 (see Specification, [0096] & Fig. 3). It is noted that reference number “29” depicted in Fig. 3 appears to be pointed at the buttstock (see e.g., Figs. 2 & 12, buttstock 40, and Fig. 20, buttstock 240), as opposed to an interior surface of the buttstock region (see Figs. 2-3, buttstock region 28).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The Specification is further objected to because of the following informalities:
“rearward upper tang portion” recited in [0032] should likely read “rearward upper [[t]]hang portion”;
“plastic injection bass” recited in [0040], [0043], [0090], [0097], & [0100] should likely read “plastic injection bas[[s]]e”;
“mounted within the pistol mount region 30 as shown in Figure 7” recited in [0082] should likely read “mounted within the pistol mount region 30 as shown in Figure [[7]]6”;
“lock extension 170” recited in [0083] should likely read “lock extension [[170]]120”;
“surface 122 from (see figure 9) from the” recited in [0084] should likely read “surface 122
“rifle mount chassis 106” recited in [0086] should likely read “rifle 22”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “at position” recited in claim 1, ln. 10 should likely read “at a position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “the inert training pistol is rotatable about a longitudinal axis to a locked orientation”. However, the Specification does not support this limitation. Rather, the Specification discloses “As shown in Figure 1, the axis system 10 generally is comprised of a longitudinal axis 12 where the arrow of vector 12 axis is pointed in a forward direction otherwise referred to a longitudinally forward direction whereby the opposed general region is the longitudinally rearward region. The axis 14 is noted as a vertical axis or vector. And again, the arrow indicates an upward direction.” (Specification, [0072]; see further Fig. 1). Further, the Specification states that the inert training pistol is rotated upward and locked in position (Specification, [0032]; [0082]). Accordingly, the Specification appears to disclose rotation about a vertical axis, as opposed to a longitudinal axis as recited in the claim, and therefore, the disclosure lacks written description support for the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites in part “whereby when at least one fastener of a plurality of fasteners is loosened, the mount area is repositioned along a longitudinal area, effectively extending the visible area to turn the barrel length into a longer barrel.” This limitation is not disclosed in the Specification. That is, the Specification only discloses wherein “when the fasteners 90 are loosened, the mount area 88 is repositioned along a longitudinal area whereby effectively extending the visible area to turn a barrel length into a longer or shorter barrel” (see Specification, Fig. 13, #90; [0036] & [0093]). Thus, the Specification only appears to disclose when all of the fasteners are loosened the mount area is repositioned, as opposed to when at least one fastener is loosened, as claimed. Accordingly, the disclosure lacks written description support for the claimed limitation.
Claim 12 recites in part “wherein the rearward lock member further comprises a disengagement surface”. However, the Specification does not support this limitation. Rather, the Specification recites wherein the pistol comprises the disengagement surface 134 (see Fig. 9; see further Specification, [0084], “To remove the pistol from the rifle chassis 22, the disengagement surface 134 is pressed longitudinally forward thereby disengaging the locking surface 122 from (see figure 9) from the locking surface 124 of the first frame member 70 (now referred to figure 1) whereby allowing the rearward locking member 102 to reposition downwardly along with the inert training pistol 32.”). Accordingly, the disclosure lacks written description support for the claimed limitation.
Claim 14 recites “The assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the left pistol mount chassis component and the right pistol mount chassis component each comprise a picatinny rail receiving section configured to receive a longitudinally forward picatinny rail of the inert training pistol upon insertion of the inert training pistol into the pistol-receiving cavity, wherein the picatinny rail receiving section of at least one of the left pistol mount chassis component or the right pistol mount chassis component has a lateral extension configured to engage a lateral extending cavity of the picatinny rail of the inert training pistol.” However, the Specification does not disclose this limitation. That is, the Specification does not disclose wherein the left and right pistol mount chassis components each comprise a picatinny rail receiving section, and wherein one of the components has a lateral extension configured to engage a lateral extending cavity of the picatinny rail of the inert training pistol (see Specification, Fig. 9 & [0082], “the picatinny rail 98 is operably configured to mount to the pistol mount region and lock therein by way of the picatinny rail 98. […] the picatinny rail receiving section 100 has a slight extension to fit into the lateral extending cavity 98a of the picatinny rail 98.”). The left and right pistol mount chassis components 108 and 110, respectively, (see fig. 1) are not disclosed to each comprise a picatinny rail receiving section as required by the claim. Thus, the disclosure lacks written description support for the claimed limitation.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10-13 are 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 in part “wherein the pistol mount chassis is rotationally mounted at position at the central portion” (ln. 9-10), and further, “wherein the pistol mount chassis is rotationally mounted at a pivot position at the central portion” (ln. 16-17). It is indefinite as to whether, and if so, how, the position at the central portion and the pivot position at the central portion differ.
Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “The assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the buttstock region comprises an interior surface defining a non-cylindrical shape or a mushroom shape.” It is indefinite as to how the interior surface of the buttstock region differs from that of the buttstock previously recited in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, and the Specification does not offer further guidance (see Specification, Figs. 3 & 18-20, [0090], & [0096]).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 10 recites in part “the rifle chassis assembly” in ln. 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 10.
Claim 11 recites in part “the rifle chassis” in ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 11.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (U.S. 10,551,142 B1) in view of McHale, T., “Replacing the Buttstock on your AR-15: The Blackhawk! Adjustable Carbine Rifle Buttstock”, My Gun Culture, pp. 1-11 (Aug. 1, 2013) (hereinafter “McHale”).
Regarding claim 6, Wright discloses a buttstock region for a rifle pistol [] assembly (Figs. 1 & 5-8; Col. 2, ln. 38-49, rear end), [] the buttstock region comprising: a buttstock operably configured to be mounted thereto (Figs. 1 & 5-8; Col. 2, ln. 38-49).
Wright may not explicitly disclose the rifle pistol assembly comprising a training assembly configured to allow a user to train with either a rifle or a pistol with inert firearm training tools, wherein the rifle is a training rifle. However, these limitations recite an intended use, and as such, do not impose any limits on the interpretation of the claim. It is noted that Wright discloses wherein the assembly can be used to fire a rifle, and further, where the pistol can be removed and separately fired on its own (Col. 1, ln. 15-22). Moreover, it is noted that Wright discloses wherein the weapon (e.g., rifle) can include a magazine having ammunition, but similarly does not have to include the magazine (Col. 2, ln. 50-52). The assembly of Wright is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired.
Wright further may not explicitly disclose wherein the buttstock comprises an interior surface having a base area and an upper semi cylindrical surface to allow the buttstock to be dedicated and fit to the training rifle. However, McHale teaches this limitation (Figs. 1-2 & 4, depicted on pp. 2-3 & 6, respectively). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a buttstock comprising an interior surface having a shape, such as a base area and an upper semi cylindrical surface, which allows the buttstock to be dedicated and fit to the training rifle, as taught by McHale, to provide for attachment and proper fitment of the buttstock to the buffer tube of the rifle (McHale, p. 4).
Additionally, Wright may not further explicitly disclose wherein the buttstock region comprises a sling mount of aluminum overmolded within a plastic injection base, and wherein the sling mount comprises a shoulder and an inner cavity to obtain a small lip for a sling ball detent to pass thereby and lock thereto. However, McHale teaches these limitations (Figs. 1-2 and 5-6, depicted on pp. 2-3 and 7-8, respectively, wherein fig. 6, for example, shows a bottom/right sling mount depicting a shoulder and inner cavity creating a small lip, wherein said mount is on both sides of the stock, and a top/left sling mount with an attached sling ball detent). While McHale may not explicitly teach the sling mount comprising aluminum overmolded within a plastic injection base, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Applicant has not disclosed that aluminum overmolded within a plastic injection base provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify McHale to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wright to include the sling mount taught by McHale in order to provide a quick attachment/detachment point for a carrying strap (sling) to the firearm for easy transport and/or stability while shooting (McHale, p. 8, “quick detach” sling point).
Regarding claim 7, Wright may not further explicitly disclose, however, McHale teaches – as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above – wherein the buttstock region comprises an interior surface defining a non-cylindrical shape or a mushroom shape (Figs. 1-2 & 4, depicted on pp. 2-3 & 6, respectively). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a buttstock comprising an interior surface having a shape, such as a base area and an upper semi cylindrical surface, which allows the buttstock to be dedicated and fit to the training rifle, and further a corresponding buttstock region to which the buttstock is mounted also comprising an interior surface defining a non-cylindrical shape or a mushroom shape, similar to that of the buttstock, as taught by McHale, to provide for attachment and proper fitment of the buttstock and buttstock region to the rifle (McHale, p. 4).
Acknowledgments
No prior art is applied to claims 1-5 and 10-14. As presented, the combination of all the elements of independent claims 1 and 10 do not appear in a single reference of prior art. Additionally, based on the art of record, it does not appear that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine various pieces of the cited prior art to obtain each and every limitation as currently required by the independent claims. Specifically, claims 1 and 10 require the pistol mount chassis to be rotationally mounted at a pivot position at the central portion, wherein the pistol mount chassis components form a pistol-receiving cavity positioned above and behind a mag receiving cavity of the rifle chassis. The relevant, cited prior art fail to disclose or teach these limitations. Wright (U.S. 10,551,142 B1) and Faifer (U.S. Pub. 2021/0116209 A1) both teach wherein a pistol is rotated upwards into a chassis (Wright, Col. 6, ln. 17-52; Faifer, Fig. 2; [0036]; [0052-0053]). Wright further discloses wherein other types of rifles aside from a bullpup rifle can be used (Col. 7, ln. 62-64). However, the references fail to cure the above-described deficiencies. Additional, relevant prior art also fail to cute the above-described deficiencies (see U.S. Pub. 2013/0014418 A1, which teaches a pivoting detachable chassis, particularly for trigger maintenance, however, failing to teach the chassis comprising left and right components forming a pistol-receiving cavity to receive an inert training pistol positioned above and behind a mag receiving cavity, as required by claims 1 and 10; see further U.S. Pub. 2011/0088305 A1, teaching a handgun converter having an open state for inserting and removing a handgun which may be carried out by pivotally closing a hinged side of the housing and securing the hinged side onto a body side of the housing, however, wherein such a mounting of the handgun differs from that claimed, and further, failing to teach the pistol mount chassis components forming a pistol-receiving cavity positioned above and behind a mag receiving cavity of a rifle chassis).
Nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, as presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights