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 response filed on 26 August 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of the same limitation in claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1-3, 6-19 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 Claims 1, 3, 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);
wherein the pivot portion is supported by a plurality of concentric 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 and then the claw portion engages the rim and remains fixedly engaged with the rim of the cartridge during extraction of the cartridge; and (at least paragraph 59).
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 Claim 2, see Geissele fig.6.
Regarding Claim 6, see Geissele at least paragraph 65.
Regarding Claim 7, see Geissele figs. 6-7.
Regarding Claim 8, see Geissele fig.10.
Regarding Claim 9, see Geissele at least paragraph 66.
Regarding Claims 10-11, see Geissele at least paragraphs 65-67 and figs. 6-7.
Regarding Claim 12, see Geissele at least paragraph 59.
Regarding Claim 13, see Geissele 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 Geissele fig.7 at end 306, retaining springs shown in fig.3.
Regarding Claim 16, see Geissele at least paragraph 59.
Regarding Claims 17-18, see Geissele figs.3 and 7, 310 for the pivot portion as claimed and paragraph 59.
Regarding Claim 19, see Geissele fig.3, pin 301.
IN ADDITION
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2011/0005383 to Kramer.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 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);
wherein the pivot portion is supported by a plurality of concentric 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 and then the claw portion engages the rim and remains fixedly engaged with the rim of the cartridge during extraction of the cartridge; and (understood to be how the device inherently functions well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art);
wherein the extractor includes a lug and an elongated rib that extends above an upper surface above the claw portion and are configured to cooperatively reinforce the claw portion (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.).
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 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 26 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Geissele in view of Kramer fail to disclose concentric springs as well as the motivation to combine to arrive at a lug and an elongated rib that extend above an upper surface above the claw portion and are cooperatively configured to reinforce the claw portion. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Concentric springs are clearly illustrated in Geissele figure 3 as well as Kramer figure 9, with concentric meaning “having a common center”.
It is noted the Applicant does not argue the rejection of Kramer alone disclosing the lug and elongated rib. This rejection stands as proper, please see above.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no motivation to combine Kramer with Geissele to modify Geissele and add the elongated rib to the lug, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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.
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 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