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 #18/891,404 and RCE filed on 10 March 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 March 2026 has been entered.
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 1-19 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…allowing the claw portion to move over a rim of a cartridge of the firearm while still allowing the claw portion to remain fixedly engaged with the rim of the cartridge.” However, the Specification does not allow for the claw portion to move over a rim while allowing the claw portion to remain fixedly engaged. The Specification appears to allow for the extractor to move over the rim of the cartridge and then the claw portion engages the rim and remains fixedly engaged with the rim of the cartridge until the bolt assembly is withdrawn from the breech of the firing chamber (paragraph 36). Clarification is required, and the claim will be examined based on the understanding of the Specification.
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) 1-2, 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2022/0290937 to Geissele et al (Geissele).
Regarding Claim 1, Geissele discloses an extractor for a direct gas operated firearm (See gas tube 32 for direct impingement operation) comprising:
an extractor wherein the extractor has at least an upper surface (fig.3, at 300),
an elongate body having a first end and a second end (fig.6, 304/306);
a claw portion comprising the first end configured to grip a rim of an ammunition cartridge (fig.10, 314, paragraph 65);
a biased portion comprising the second end configured to ensure that the rim remains within the claw portion (fig.7 end 306 biased via springs fig.3 at 303); and
a pivot portion (fig.10, 310) disposed between the first end and the second end wherein the pivot portion serves to press the claw portion into a forward recess (recess fig.3, 23) and further wherein pivot portion includes an extractor pin (301) that causes the extractor to move in a seesaw manner during engaging an unfired ammunition cartridge (at least paragraphs 59, 64);
the pivot portion supported by a plurality of springs (see at least fig.3, detailing an extractor spring and insert. The insert for the AR15/M16 rifle as disclosed is covered under Mil-Spec: MIL-PRF-6855-REV G, and is a specification for rubber neoprene the inserts are made from. Inherently, rubber will act as a spring material, and is considered a second spring.) allowing the claw portion to move over a rim of a cartridge of the firearm while still allowing the claw portion to remain fixedly engaged with the rim of the cartridge (at least paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 2, see fig.6.
Regarding Claim 6, see at least paragraph 65.
Regarding Claim 7, see figs. 6-7.
Regarding Claim 8, see fig.10.
Regarding Claim 9, see at least paragraph 66.
Regarding Claims 10-11, see at least paragraphs 65-67 and figs. 6-7.
Regarding Claim 12, see at least paragraph 59.
Regarding Claim 13, see at least fig.3, detailing an extractor spring and insert. The insert for the AR15/M16 rifle as disclosed is covered under Mil-Spec: MIL-PRF-6855-REV G, and is a specification for rubber neoprene the inserts are made from. Inherently, rubber will act as a spring material, and is considered the secondary spring.
Regarding Claims 14-15, see fig.7 at end 306, retaining springs shown in fig.3.
Regarding Claim 16, see at least paragraph 59.
Regarding Claims 17-18, see figs.3 and 7, 310 for the pivot portion as claimed and paragraph 59.
Regarding Claim 19, see fig.3, pin 301.
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(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissele in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0005383 to Kramer.
Regarding Claim 3, Geissele discloses the extractor of claim 2, but does not specifically disclose extractor includes a lug and: an elongated rib that extend above the upper surface of the claw portion. Geissele discloses the lug 316 and it contains a rear sloped portion but not an elongated rib. However, Kramer teaches such an extractor for a similar firearm with a lug and elongated rib (see fig.4A), and would have been an obvious modification for the firearm of Geissele as an obvious engineering design choice to modify the lug to one with greater structural integrity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 4-5, see Kramer fig.4a.
IN ADDITION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2011/0005383 to Kramer.
Regarding Claim 1, Kramer discloses an extractor comprising:
an extractor wherein the extractor has at least an upper surface (fig.4a),
an elongate body having a first end and a second end (fig.4a-4d);
a claw portion comprising the first end configured to grip a rim of an ammunition cartridge (fig.4d shown at G);
a biased portion comprising the second end (fig.2 at 206) configured to ensure that the rim remains within the claw portion (via springs shown in fig.9); and
a pivot portion disposed between the first end and the second end wherein the pivot portion serves to press the claw portion into a forward recess (recess clearly shown in fig.3a) and further wherein pivot portion includes an extractor pin that causes the extractor to move in a seesaw manner during engaging an unfired ammunition cartridge (see fig.9, understood to be how the device inherently functions, well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art);
the pivot portion supported by a plurality of springs (see at least fig.9, detailing an extractor spring and insert. The insert for the AR15/M16 rifle as disclosed is covered under Mil-Spec: MIL-PRF-6855-REV G, and is a specification for rubber neoprene the inserts are made from. Inherently, rubber will act as a spring material, and is considered a second spring.) allowing the claw portion to move over a rim of a cartridge of the firearm while still allowing the claw portion to remain fixedly engaged with the rim of the cartridge (understood to be how the device inherently functions well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Kramer does not specify the extractor is for a direct gas operated firearm. However, as it is old and well-known in the art, the bolt head assemblies for a direct impingement firearm may be identical to the bolt head assemblies of gas-piston operated firearms, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to incorporate the bolt head design of Kramer into a bolt carrier assembly of a direct impingement firearm since the bolt heads are identical.
Regarding Claim 2, see at least fig.2.
Regarding Claims 3, 5, see at least fig.4a, showing the lug with the rib to the rear of the lug and connected to the lug to reinforce the claw portion.
Regarding Claim 4, see at least fig.4c.
Regarding Claim 6, see at least the Abstract.
Regarding Claim 7, see at least figs 4b-4d.
Regarding Claim 8, see at least figs 4b-4d.
Regarding Claim 9, see figs 4a-4d and paragraph 14.
Regarding Claims 10-11, see figs 1A and 1B, rim and extractor groove “D”, figures 4a-4d.
Regarding Claim 12, via extractor spring shown in at least fig.9.
Regarding Claim 13, see at least fig.9, detailing an extractor spring and insert. The insert for the AR15/M16 rifle as disclosed is covered under Mil-Spec: MIL-PRF-6855-REV G, and is a specification for rubber neoprene the inserts are made from. Inherently, rubber will act as a spring material, and is considered the secondary spring.
Regarding Claim 17, see fig.9 for location of the springs.
Regarding Claims 18-19, see figs. 2,4a-4d, 9 for parallel prongs with a transverse hole and the extractor pin.
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0290937 to Geissele et al (Geissele).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Kramer discloses the extractor of claim 13, but does not specifically disclose the biased portion includes a primary counterbore and a secondary counterbore that are concentrically disposed.
However, Geissele teaches a similar extractor with concentric counterbores (see fig.7 at end 306) in a lower surface of the extractor to contain the primary and secondary springs (see fig.3, 303 for spring and insert, discussed in the rejection of claim 13 above as the second spring) for the advantage of centrally locating the springs and holding both in the correct position. It would have been an obvious engineering design choice to modify the extractor of Kramer with the concentric counterbores of Geissele in order to better center and maintain the position of the springs.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kramer and Geissele disclose the springs are configured to provide a cooperative spring force that ensures the notch reliably engages with the rim (inherent in the function of the components).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The rejections above appear to anticipate the claim limitation that Applicant argues. Applicant argues Geissele and Kramer do not teach or disclose “…a pivot portion between the first and second ends wherein the pivot portion serves to press the claw portion into a forward recess and further wherein pivot portion includes an extractor pin that causes the extractor to move in a seesaw manner during engaging an unfired ammunition cartridge and that the pivot portion supported by a plurality of springs allowing the claw portion to move over a rim of a cartridge of the firearm while still allowing the claw portion to remain fixedly engaged with the rim of the cartridge.” However, the references and rejections above appear to clearly disclose or teach the claimed limitation.
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