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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 28: “to receive” should read “to be received in”.
Line 29: “concave nodule” should read “concave recess”.
Lines 29-30: “to be received within” should read “to receive”.
Line 30: “convex recess” should read “convex nodule”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 12 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites a limitation “wherein the first interlocking non-planar surface comprises generally parallel surfaces defining a recess and wherein the second interlocking non-planar surface comprises generally parallel surfaces defining a nodule,” and this limitation is considered new matter. The original disclosure does not provide support for a first interlocking non-planar surface comprising multiple, generally parallel surfaces. There is no such disclosure in the original specification, claims, or abstract. Further, the originally filed drawings do not unambiguously show a sear mating end wall comprising a first interlocking non-planar surface comprising generally parallel surfaces, plural. The first interlocking surface (122) appears to be a single surface having multiple curves (figures 5 and 6), wherein the single surface can be considered to have multiple segments, but not multiple surfaces. The same rationale applied to claim 12.
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 9 and 12 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.
Claim 9 recites a limitation “wherein the first interlocking non-planar surface comprises generally parallel surfaces defining a recess and wherein the second interlocking non-planar surface comprises generally parallel surfaces defining a nodule,” and this limitation is considered indefinite. By definition, a single interlocking non-planar surface, singular, cannot comprise generally parallel surfaces, plural. Thus, this limitation raises the question as to what Applicant considers the metes and bounds of the term “surface.” For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider said limitation as reading “wherein the first interlocking non-planar surface comprises generally parallel segments defining a recess and wherein the second interlocking non-planar surface comprises generally parallel segments defining a nodule.” Correction and/or clarification are required.
Claim 12 recites a limitation “wherein the first and second interlocking surfaces have generally parallel surfaces,” and this limitation is considered indefinite due to ambiguity. Does Applicant intend to claim that each of the first and second interlocking surface comprises multiple, generally parallel surfaces, or is the limitation intended to require that the first and second interlocking surfaces are parallel to one another? For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider said limitation as reading “wherein the first and second interlocking surfaces are generally parallel to one another in a transverse direction” (this being consistent with the disclosure as a whole). Correction and/or clarification are required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kresser (2018/0010873).
In reference to claim 1, Kresser discloses a hammer for use within a firing mechanism of a firearm wherein the firing mechanism includes the hammer, a sear, sear spring, and a hammer strut, wherein the hammer comprises:
a thumb portion (20) removably coupled to a sear portion (12),
wherein the thumb portion includes a spur end (22) configured to be engaged by a thumb of a user to cock the hammer to a firing position, and a sear end (30) having a sear mating end wall defining a first interlocking non-planar surface (figure 2, generally cylindrical surface of element 30, or surface 32), and
wherein the sear portion includes a triggering end configured to engage the sear (figure 2, bottom end of element 12), and a thumb end (figure 2, the upper end of the element 12) having a thumb mating end wall defining a corresponding second interlocking non-planar surface adapted to mate with the sear mating end wall of the thumb portion (the inner surface of element 40, or the top surface 39 of element 37).
In reference to claim 2, Kresser discloses the claimed invention (figures 2-3).
In reference to claim 4, Kresser discloses the claimed invention (figure 4, element 22 is extended left and right relative to sear portion 12).
In reference to claim 5, Kresser discloses the claimed invention (figure 2, element 40 is capable of receiving and displaying one or more ornamental features).
In reference to claim 7, Kresser discloses the claimed invention (paragraphs 1 and 31; figure 3).
Claims 1, 2, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saltz (6305114).
In reference to claim 1, Saltz discloses a hammer for use within a firing mechanism of a firearm wherein the firing mechanism includes the hammer, a sear, sear spring, and a hammer strut, wherein the hammer comprises:
a thumb portion removably coupled to a sear portion (figures 3 and 4, thumb portion 20, sear portion 10),
wherein the thumb portion includes a spur end (28) configured to be engaged by a thumb of a user to cock the hammer to a firing position, and a sear end having a sear mating end wall defining a first interlocking non-planar surface (the sear mating end wall is shown mating with the sear portion in figure 4; element 26a is the first interlocking non-planar surface), and
wherein the sear portion includes a triggering end configured to engage the sear (figures 3-5, the end of the sear portion extending into the firearm), and a thumb end having a thumb mating end wall defining a corresponding second interlocking non-planar surface adapted to mate with the sear mating end wall of the thumb portion (figure 4 shows the thumber mating end wall engaged interfacing the sear mating end wall of the thumb portion; element 14a is the corresponding second interlocking non-planar surface).
In reference to claim 2, Saltz discloses the claimed invention (figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 6, Saltz discloses a hammer for use within a firing mechanism of a firearm wherein the firing mechanism includes the hammer, a sear, sear spring, and a hammer strut, wherein the hammer comprises:
a thumb portion removably coupled to a sear portion (set forth above in the reference to claim 1),
wherein the thumb portion includes a spur end configured to be engaged by a thumb of a user to cock the hammer to a firing position, and a sear end having a sear mating end wall defining a non-planar surface (set forth above in the reference to claim 1),
wherein the sear portion includes a triggering end configured to engage the sear, and a thumb end having a thumb mating end wall defining a corresponding non-planar surface adapted to mate with the sear mating end wall of the thumb (set forth above in the reference to claim 1),
wherein:
a) the thumb portion includes a first sidewall and an opposing second sidewall wherein the sear mating end wall extends between the first and second sidewalls (see the first marked-up figure 3, below), wherein the sear mating end wall comprises:
i) a first end segment extending inwardly from the first sidewall toward the second sidewall (see the first marked-up figure 3, below, showing the first end segment as extending from “a” to “b”);
ii) a second end segment extending inwardly from the second sidewall toward the first sidewall (see the first marked-up figure 3, below, showing the second end segment as extending from “f” to “e”;
iii) third, fourth and fifth contiguous wall segments extending from the first end segment to the second end segment, wherein the third wall segment forms a concave recess extending inwardly from the first end segment, the fourth wall segment forms a convex nodule, and the fifth wall segment forms a linear portion between the fourth wall segment and the second end segment (see first marked-up figure 3, below: the third segment extends from “b” to “c”, the fourth segment extends from “c” to “d”, and the fifth segment extends from “d” to “e”; see second marked-up figure 3, below, which calls out the concave recess of the third segment and the convex nodule of the fourth segment); and
b) the sear portion includes a first sidewall and an opposing second sidewall wherein the thumb mating end wall extends between the first and second sidewalls, wherein the thumb mating end wall comprises (see third marked-up figure 3, below):
i) a first end segment extending inwardly from the first sidewall toward the second sidewall (see third marked-up figure 3, below);
ii) a second end segment extending inwardly from the second sidewall toward the first sidewall (see third marked-up figure 3, below);
iii) third, fourth and fifth contiguous wall segments extending from the first end segment to the second end segment, wherein the third wall segment forms a convex nodule dimensioned to be received in the concave recess formed by the third wall segment of the sear mating end wall, the fourth wall segment forms a concave recess dimensioned to receive the convex nodule formed by the fourth wall segment of the sear mating end wall, and the fifth wall segment forms a linear portion between the fourth wall segment and the second end segment (figures 3 and 4: element 14a has a shape that corresponds to element 26a, and, thus, has third, fourth, and fifth contiguous wall segments, as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First Marked-up Figure 3 of Saltz
PNG
media_image2.png
471
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second Marked-up Figure 3 of Saltz
PNG
media_image3.png
552
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Third Marked-up Figure 3 of Saltz
In reference to claim 7, Saltz discloses the claimed invention (figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 8, Saltz discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 6.
In reference to claim 9, Saltz discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 6.
In reference to claim 10, Saltz discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 6.
In reference to claim 11, Saltz discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 6.
In reference to claim 12, Saltz discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker (3996686) in view of Laney (7140138), and further in view of Ruger (4742635).
In reference to claim 1, Baker discloses a hammer for use within a firing mechanism of a firearm wherein the firing mechanism includes the hammer, a sear, sear spring, and a hammer strut, wherein the hammer comprises:
a thumb portion and a sear portion (figure 1: hammer 18, the thumb portion being an upper portion of the hammer, including element 19, and the sear portion being a lower portion of the hammer),
wherein the thumb portion includes a spur end (19) configured to be engaged by a thumb of a user to cock the hammer to a firing position, and
wherein the sear portion includes a triggering end (66) configured to engage the sear (65).
Thus, Baker discloses the claimed invention, except for the thumb portion being removably coupled to the sear portion, the thumb portion including a sear end having a sear mating end wall defining a first interlocking non-planar surface, and the sear portion having a thumb end having a thumb mating end wall defining a corresponding second interlocking non-planar surface adapted to mate with the sear mating end wall of the thumb portion.
However, Laney teaches it is known to form a hammer of a handgun as a two-piece hammer including a thumb portion removably coupled to a sear portion, the thumb portion including a sear end having a sear mating end wall defining a first interlocking non-planar surface, and the sear portion having a thumb end having a thumb mating end wall defining a corresponding second interlocking non-planar surface adapted to mate with the sear mating end wall of the thumb portion, in order to provide easier access to the hammer when the pistol is used in combination with a telescopic sight, i.e., a scope (figure 5: hammer 70, thumb portion 72, sear portion 90; the sear mating end wall defines a cylindrical recess, i.e. a non-planar surface, per column 4, lines 34-39, which mates with cylindrical boss 112; the cylindrical surface of boss 112 maps to the non-planar surface of the thumb mating end wall; column 1, lines 6-7; column 2, lines 1-13).
Ruger teaches it is known to provide a handgun, like that of Baker, with a telescopic sight to provide enhanced aiming (figure 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handgun of Baker with a telescopic sight, and to modify the hammer to be a two-piece hammer, with the thumb portion removably coupled to the sear portion, the thumb portion including a sear end having a sear mating end wall defining a non-planar surface, and the sear portion having a thumb end having a thumb mating end wall defining a corresponding non-planar surface adapted to mate with the sear mating end wall of the thumb portion, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide enhanced aiming, while still maintaining easy access to the hammer with the telescopic sight mounted atop the handgun.
In reference to claim 3, Baker in view of Laney and further in view of Ruger makes obvious the claimed invention (Laney, figure 5: throughbore formed in 72, shown aligned with fastener 60 and threaded bore 66).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltz.
In reference to claim 4, Saltz discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the spur end includes one or both of a left extended wide spur portion and a right extended wide spur portion. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art to provide the spur end of a hammer with one or both of a left extended wide spur portion and a right extended wide spur portion, in order to provide easier engagement by a user. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the spur end with one or both of a left extended wide spur portion and a right extended wide spur portion, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide easier engagement by a user.
In reference to claim 5, Saltz discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the thumb portion is adapted to receive and display one or more ornamental features. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known in the art to adapt the thumb portion of a hammer to receive and display one or more ornamental features, in order to allow as user to customize the hammer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the thumb portion of a hammer to receive and display one or more ornamental features, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow as user to customize the hammer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Kresser fails to disclose first and second interlocking non-planar surfaces, as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the above-rejection of claim 1, which clearly calls out multiple interlocking non-planar surfaces. It is noted that a cylindrical surface that is slidably inserted into a corresponding cylindrical bore constitutes first and second interlocking, cylindrical surfaces. Further, the combination of Baker, Laney, and Ruger clearly renders obvious claims 1 and 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights