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 .
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 3, 6, and 19 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.
In claim 3, “surfaces is between the trigger guard and the magazine well” is vague and indefinite and does not seem to be supported by the Specification and Drawings. The applicant appears to only disclose a situation where all portions of the surfaces extend outward further than either the trigger guard or the magazine well. Thus, it is impossible for the surfaces to be located between the trigger guard and the magazine well. It seems that applicant is attempting to claim the positions relative to the positions mapped along a longitudinal axis of the firearm.
In claim 6, “lateral extents” has no antecedent basis in the claims.
In claim 10, “AR-15-type rifle” is vague and indefinite. Use of the word “type” makes the required structural limitations unclear.
Claim 19 contains the trademark/trade name “AR-15". Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or de19scribe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a semi-automatic rifle and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Sharps et al (10,386,139).
Sharps et al disclose a rifle with a firearm (column 2, line 27) receive comprising all claimed elements including a lower receiver 10 defining a magazine well 11, a fire control well (the interior of AR-15 lower receivers), and a trigger guard 12; where the lower receiver connects to an upper receiver; and a bottom portion of the lower receiver defines engagement surfaces 23 (Figures 2 and 3) that protrude laterally outward and extend forward of the trigger guard; where the engagement surfaces have a lower margin parallel to a top surface of the fire control well and has a downward sloped portion. Note, in regard to claim 3, an arbitrary portion of 23 between the trigger guard and the space forming the magazine well meet the limitation of being between the trigger guard and the magazine well.
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 2, 5-7, 9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharps et al (10,386,139).
Sharps et al disclose a rifle with a firearm (column 2, line 27) receive comprising most claimed elements including a lower receiver 10 defining a magazine well 11, a fire control well (the interior of AR-15 lower receivers), and a trigger guard 12; where the lower receiver connects to an upper receiver; and a bottom portion of the lower receiver defines engagement surfaces 23 (Figures 2 and 3) that protrude laterally outward and extend forward of the trigger guard; where the engagement surfaces have a lower margin parallel to a top surface of the fire control well and has a downward sloped portion. Note, in regard to claim 3, an arbitrary portion of 23 between the trigger guard and the space forming the magazine well meet the limitation of being between the trigger guard and the magazine well. Sharps et al fails to disclose the particular size and angle parameters of the engagement surfaces. However, claimed sizes are obvious and reasonable sizes that an engineer would naturally choose for the disclosed firearm so that it would operate in a manner normal for similar types of firearms. Likewise, the claimed angles of the engagement surfaces are considered to be obvious and non-patentable engineering choices which provide no unexpected results.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Curtis is cited as being of interest since it discloses a firearm with projections on the lower receiver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. WOODROW ELDRED whose telephone number is (571)272-6901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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.
/J. Woodrow Eldred/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
JWE
Prosecution Insights