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 . This action is in response to Application #18/829,620 and response filed on 20 February 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 20 February 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2010/0095833 to Gavage et al (Gavage).
Regarding Claims 1, 16, Gavage discloses a machine gun (Fig.1) with a trigger mechanism comprising:
a selector operable between a safe position, a semiautomatic position, and an automatic position (selector 6; see at least paragraph 39);
a trigger pivotable between a set position and a pulled position (5);
a disconnector pivotably connected to the trigger and pivotable via the selector between a working position in which the disconnector is in a path of the hammer, and a retracted position in which the disconnector is out of the path of the hammer (32, paragraphs 50-53);
a carrier sear pivotable between a disengaged position and an engaged position in which the carrier sear is arranged to engage the bolt carrier, the carrier sear biased toward the engaged position when the selector is in the automatic position and the trigger is not in the pulled position (36, paragraph 54, 56);
a sear arm pivotably connected to the carrier sear and movable by pulling the trigger when the selector is in the automatic position to pivot the carrier sear toward the disengaged position (37, paragraph 54, 58).
Regarding Claims 2-5, see at least paragraphs 50-53.
Regarding Claim 6, see at least paragraph 56, 92.
Regarding Claim 7, see paragraph 56-59.
Regarding Claim 8, see paragraphs 53-54.
Regarding Claim 9, see fig.10, 6, control from safe to automatic or to semi-automatic.
Regarding Claim 10, see paragraph 53.
Regarding Claim 13, see paragraph 54.
Regarding Claim 14, see paragraphs 54-59.
Regarding Claim 15, see fig. 4 for housing, see figures 2-3 for selector 6 on each side of the firearm.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2010/0095833 to Gavage et al (Gavage).
Regarding Claim 12, Gavage discloses claim 1 but does not specifically disclose the bolt carrier can be moved from an in-battery position to an open position when: the selector is in the safe position. However, this capability is old and well-known in the art and would have been an obvious design feature of Gavage for the advantage of loading or unloading cartridges while the firearm selector is in the safe position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for pertinent art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D COOPER whose telephone number is (571)270-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 - 4:30 MST.
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.
/JOHN COOPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights