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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/9/25.
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, 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neroni (US 8,037,805) in view of Smathers et al. (US 12,007,199). Neroni discloses an autoloading pistol comprising: a slide (1); a barrel (16);
a frame (2) or lower receiver extending in a longitudinal direction, and having a trigger housing appendage (Fig. 1), said barrel secured within said lower receiver, and said slide being in slideable contact with said lower receiver (Fig. 1); and
a releasably attachable handgrip module (3) having a first centerline measured at a predetermined first angle with respect to said longitudinal direction, and a magazine bore, and having a second centerline at a predetermined second angle measured with respect to said longitudinal direction, wherein said first angle and said second angle are not equal (see annotated Fig). While Neroni does not expressly disclose the magazine bore formed to receive a double stack magazine, Smathers et al. does. Smathers et al. teaches an autoloading pistol including a magazine well and a trigger bow that are wide enough to accept a double stack magazine (col. 11, line 65 through col. 12, line 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 allowing the pistol to hold more ammunition to one of ordinary skill in the art and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
550
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
3. The autoloading pistol of claim 1 wherein said second centerline of said magazine bore is misaligned relative to said first centerline of said handgrip module within a range of 0.1 degrees to 7 degrees.
4. The autoloading pistol of claim 1 wherein said second centerline of said magazine bore is misaligned relative to said first centerline of said handgrip module within a range of 0.5 degrees to 4 degrees.
9. The autoloading pistol of claim 1 including a magazine release component and a magazine lock structure, wherein said lower receiver includes a first cavity for receiving a magazine release component, and a second cavity for receiving a magazine lock structure. (Neroni col. 5, line 54 through col. 6, line 26)
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neroni in view of Smathers et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Neroni and Smathers et al. disclose the autoloading pistol of claim 1 including wherein said handgrip module and said lower receiver form an attachment such that said handgrip module is releaseably attachable to an underside of said lower receiver (Fig. 1), wherein said handgrip module includes:
opposing flange extensions projecting towards said lower receiver for slidable insertion with said lower receiver underside, said opposing flange extensions each having attachment through-holes for receiving attachment screws or lugs (Fig. 18);
said lower receiver includes:
opposing shaped receiving wells, each formed for receiving one of said flange extensions, said opposing shaped receiving wells have aligning with said flange extension attachment through-holes when said handgrip module is completely inserted within said lower receiver opposing shaped receiving wells; lugs (3a) for attaching said handgrip module to said lower receiver (Fig. 4), but do not expressly disclose the receiving wells having screw holes rather than lug holes. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the holes screw holes or lug holes, since applicant has not disclosed that either one solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with either type hole. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
10. The autoloading pistol of claim 2, wherein said handgrip module includes opposing ledge structures on an inside of each opposing flange extension for mating with a lower side of said lower receiver, and forming a receiving edge for slidable insertion of said handgrip module. (Neroni Fig. 18)
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neroni in view of Smathers et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Faifer (US 10,041,759). Neroni and Smathers et al. disclose the autoloading pistol of claim 1 but do not expressly disclose wherein said handgrip module includes opposing reinforcing stiffeners that key into said lower receiver, at least a portion of said lower receiver is fabricated from steel, at least a portion of said handgrip module is fabricated from polymer material, wherein said handgrip module polymer material includes a non-slip grip texture on its exterior to facilitate handhold, however Faifer does. Faifer teaches a pistol grip includes opposing reinforcing stiffeners (74) that key into said lower receiver, at least a portion of said lower receiver is fabricated from steel (col. 3, lines 35-40), at least a portion of said handgrip module is fabricated from polymer material (col. 4, lines 10-15), wherein said handgrip module polymer material includes a non-slip grip texture (46) on its exterior to facilitate handhold. 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 a lightweight pistol that still had the necessary strength.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neroni in view of Smathers et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Strayer et al. (US 5,293,708). Both Neroni and Smathers et al. disclose the claimed autoloading pistol including a trigger bail but do not expressly disclose wherein said lower receiver includes an upper trigger bail track, and said handgrip module includes a lower trigger bail track, such that said upper trigger bail track and said lower trigger bail track form a channel in an interlocking connection to receive a trigger bail, however Strayer et al. does. Strayer et al. teaches a handgun having a trigger bail and the trigger bail track (126) going through both the trigger housing appendage and the handgrip. 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 the trigger shoe and trigger bow to be wholly contained within the frame/handgrip assembly by necessity (Strayer et al. col. 10, lines 50-60) as it also appears to be in Neroni and Smathers et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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