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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Geissele “does not disclose a chassis that houses both the bolt release mechanism and the magazine release mechanism as an integrated unit” and that “[t]his magazine release assembly is entirely separate from the bolt catch assembly”; it is initially noted that the claims do not require that the bolt release mechanism and the magazine release mechanism be an integrated unit. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further contends that the “purpose of Muska is to use a metal chassis to provide durability and strength when used with a polymer lower receiver. In contrast, the purpose of the present invention is to provide an integrated chassis, which has a different function and structure than Muska”. Again, it is the combination of Geissele and Muska that is relied upon for the current rejection. The fact that applicant uses the insert for a different purpose than the combination does, does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art device would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the reference. In re Lintner, 173 USPQ 560.
Applicant contends that Muska’s rationale provides no motivation to integrate the magazine release into the same chassis as the bolt release, nor to combine two previously separate mechanisms into a unified assembly. Initially it is noted that the claims do not require that the bolt release and the magazine release be a “unified assembly”, second Geissele does disclose that the bolt release and the magazine release are located very close to eachother. (see for instance Geissele Figs. 4B and 8B). Hence, it would be obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, that when combined with a chassis, as taught by Muska, for placing a stronger material in a polymer receiver so that normal items that are usually placed in a lower receiver can be placed in a cheaper, lighter polymer receiver without compromising the required strength that both the bolt release and the magazine release would be placed in a single chassis thus minimizing cost rather than producing two separate chassis, which would require additional machining which is a higher cost. 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).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant contends that the Examiner has taken Official Notice, however Official Notice was not necessary in that it is the reliance on the references for the suggestion of that which is claimed. It is what is suggested by the combination of the references, if either Geissele et al. or Muska separately disclosed both the bolt actuator components and the magazine release components within a single chassis structure then the rejection would have been a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. Rather, 35 U.S.C. requires
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.
The claimed invention would have been obvious over the cited references of Geissele et al. in combination with reference of Muska for the reasons given. Geissele et al. discloses the elements of both bolt actuator components and magazine components. Muska teaches mounting movable components, of the same type of firearm, within a chassis disposed within a frame of the firearm. There is no Official Notice taken or needed since all of the elements are disclosed by the prior art of record and combining them in a manner as recited in the present claims would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to applicant’s contention that “claim 8, as amended, [] has incorporated the subject matter of claims 9-14, including the allowable subject matter identified by the Examiner in claim 14.” It is noted that claim 8, as amended is written in a manner that is not the same, and does not contain each and every element of claims 8-14 of the previously presented claims, hence the reasons for the new rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/6/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks a timing statement as specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered OR fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 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 8 recites “a leg spring” in line 20 and “a leg spring” in line 21. It is not clear if applicant intends to only claim one “leg spring” or two separate “leg springs”. If applicant intends one leg spring, then the second occurrence should be changed to “the leg spring” or “said leg spring”; but if applicant intends a separate leg spring, then the second occurrence should be differentiated by something like “a second leg spring” (or other language which the specification supports).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the control system includes “the first bolt actuator”, “a second bolt actuator”, and “a magazine release mechanism” (i.e. it is not a separate element but rather that it includes those elements).
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, 2, 4-7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissele et al. (US 11,536,531) in view of Muska (US 12,504,242 based on the filing date of the provisional application 63/508,406). Geissele et al. discloses a firearm control system, comprising: a firearm frame (10); a first bolt actuator (112) rotatably received within a slot of the frame, the first bolt actuator having an upward position and a downward position, and having structure to position a bolt rearward when in the upward position; a second bolt actuator (122) rotatably received within a slot of the frame and operatively engaged with the first bolt actuator such that the first bolt actuator and second bolt actuator move in unison; a magazine release (200) slidably received within a magazine slot in the firearm frame and capable of sliding between a secure position and a released position; and a magazine catch (212) rotatably received within the firearm frame and in operable communication with the magazine release such that when the magazine release is in the secure position the magazine catch engages a magazine within a magazine well and when the magazine release is in the release position the magazine catch is rotated away from the magazine well disengaging the magazine. Geissele et al. does not expressly disclose the firearm having a chassis slot; a chassis received in the chassis slot; and the elements disposed in slots in the chassis, however Muska does. Muska teaches a firearm of the same type that is disclosed by Geissele et al., the firearm frame having a chassis slot (64) and a chassis (62) within the slot, the chassis having structure to receive operating elements of the firearm such as the bolt actuator (66). The claim would have been obvious because the technique of adding a chassis to a firearm frame and receiving operating elements within the chassis was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities for the benefit of allowing a stronger material to support operating elements while using a lighter weight material for the firearm frame as taught by Muska (col. 4, lines 39-55) and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
2. The firearm control system of claim 1, wherein the magazine release includes a left and a right position wherein the magazine release is in the release position when the magazine release is in the left or right position. (col. 30, lines 30-35)
4. The firearm control system of claim 1, wherein the first bolt actuator and the second bolt actuator each comprise a user push button or lever operable (112, 122) from opposite lateral sides of the firearm frame.
5. The firearm control system of claim 1, further comprising a biasing spring (135) configured to bias the first bolt actuator and the second bolt actuator toward the downward position.
6. The firearm control system of claim 1, wherein the magazine release comprises button attachment points on opposite lateral sides of the chassis for engaging release buttons operable from either side of the firearm frame. (Figs. 7)
7. The firearm control system of claim 6, further comprising a leg spring (231) configured to bias the magazine catch toward engagement with a magazine and the magazine release toward a center position between a right and a left position.
15. A firearm, comprising: a frame having an upper receiver removably attached to the frame and a lower receiver integrated with the frame; and a control system attached to the lower receiver: a first bolt actuator attached to the control system and configured to engage a bolt of the firearm; a second bolt actuator and operatively connected to the first bolt actuator for synchronized movement; and a magazine release mechanism the control system and operable from opposite lateral sides of the frame to selectively engage and disengage a magazine. (see remarks above with regards to claim 1)
Claim(s) 3 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissele et al. in view of Muska as applied to claims, 1 and 15 above and further in view of Davidson (US 11,287,204). Geissele et al. and Muska disclose the claimed invention but do not expressly disclose the first bolt actuator further comprises a magazine follower engagement arm configured to operatively engage a magazine follower to move the first bolt actuator to the upward position when a magazine is empty, however Davidson does. Davidson teaches a firearm of the type disclosed by Geissele et al. and Muska having a bolt actuator and further comprising a magazine follower engagement arm (62) having structure to operatively engage a magazine follower to move the bolt actuator to the upward position when a magazine is empty. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable results of allowing a user to merely load a new magazine in order to return the weapon to a ready-to-fire state as taught by Davidson (col. 2, lines 13-55) and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
16. The firearm of claim 15, wherein the first bolt actuator comprises a magazine follower engagement arm configured to move the first bolt actuator to an upward position when a magazine is empty. (see remarks above with regards to claims 3 and 9)
17. The firearm of claim 16, wherein the first bolt actuator and the second bolt actuator each comprise a user-operable lever accessible from opposite lateral sides of the frame. (see remarks above with regards to claim 4)
18. The firearm of claim 17, wherein actuation of either user-operable lever moves both the first bolt actuator and the second bolt actuator to a downward position. (see remarks above with regards to claim 5)
19. The firearm of claim 18, further comprising a biasing spring configured to bias the first bolt actuator and the second bolt actuator toward the downward position. (see remarks above with regards to claim 5)
20. The firearm of claim 19, wherein the magazine release mechanism comprises a slidable magazine release with button attachment points on opposite lateral sides of the lower receiver; and a rotatable magazine catch operably connected to the slidable magazine release, wherein movement of the slidable magazine release causes rotation of the magazine catch to selectively engage or disengage the magazine. (see remarks above with regards to claim 6)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geissele et al. (US 11,536,531) in view of Muska et al. (US 2024/0418462 (based on the filing date of provisional application 63/508,304)) and Davidson (US 11,287,204). Geissele et al. discloses a firearm control system for an AR-type firearm comprising a chassis (i.e. lower receiver 20) a first bolt actuator (112) rotatably received within the chassis between an upward position and a downward position, wherein the first bolt actuator engages a bolt of a firearm when in the upward position; a magazine release (200) slidable positioned within a magazine slot in the chassis between a secure position and a release position; and a magazine catch (212) rotatable within the chassis adapted to rotate in response to movement of the magazine release, wherein the magazine catch engages a magazine within a magazine well when the magazine release is in the secure position and disengages the magazine when the magazine release is in the release position wherein the first bolt actuator and the second bolt actuator are biased toward the downward position with a bolt actuator spring (135); a user push button or lever (112, 122) disposed on either side of the firearm frame to move both the first bolt actuator and the second bolt actuator to the downward position; wherein the magazine catch is biased toward engagement with a magazine when the magazine release is moved toward the center position with a leg spring (231); a leg spring (231) included in the chassis biasing the magazine catch toward engagement with a magazine and biasing the magazine release toward the center position; a release button (210, 220) disposed on either side of the firearm frame to move the magazine release to the left position or the right position.. Muska et al. discloses an AR type firearm control system, comprising: a chassis (i.e. lower receiver 80) configured to be received within a chassis slot (interior area formed between area 104, 106, 73, 102 (see Fig. 3)) defined in a firearm frame (i.e. upper receiver 70) and a chassis pin securing the chassis to the firearm frame (@ 502, 504 and takedown pin hole shown in Fig. 3). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable results of providing an AR-type firearm with beneficial ambidextrous controls can be placed in the chassis (i.e. lower receiver) and connected to the frame (i.e. upper receiver) in a manner that divides impact force across both the chassis and the frame and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. Geissele et al. and Muska et al. disclose the claimed invention but do not expressly disclose the first bolt actuator further comprises a magazine follower engagement arm configured to operatively engage a magazine follower to move the first bolt actuator to the upward position when a magazine is empty, however Davidson does. Davidson teaches a firearm of the type disclosed by Geissele et al. and Muska having a bolt actuator and further comprising a magazine follower engagement arm (62) having structure to operatively engage a magazine follower to move the bolt actuator to the upward position when a magazine is empty. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable results of allowing a user to merely load a new magazine in order to return the weapon to a ready-to-fire state as taught by Davidson (col. 2, lines 13-55) and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 MICHELLE CLEMENT whose telephone number is (571)272-6884. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/MICHELLE CLEMENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights