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 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 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, 7, and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer (2011/0005383).
In reference to claim 1, In reference to claim 1, Kramer discloses a firearm extractor (figures 4A-4D) comprising:
a first end as claimed (top end in figs. 4C and 4D);
a second end opposite the first end, the first end and the second end defining an axis extending therebetween (bottom end in figs. 4C and 4D);
a support tower defined at an outer side of the firearm extractor, wherein the support tower defines a proximal sloped region that slopes upwardly toward the first end and a distal sloped region that slopes downwardly toward the first end (looking at figure 4C, rotated 90° clockwise: the proximal end is mapped to the left-hand end of the extractor, and the distal end is mapped to the right-hand end of the extractor; the support tower is the delineated portion having length B and height E+D, with a proximal, upwardly sloping region extending upwardly toward the first end, and a distal, downwardly sloping region extending downwardly and toward the distal end, there being a planar topmost surface; see first marked-up figure 4C, below); and
a notch defined at the inner side of the extractor (figures 4C and 4D, notch with dimension G; paragraphs 28, 38, 40, and 43-50),
wherein the notch has a proximal edge and a distal edge, as claimed, wherein the distal edge of the notch is aft of the distal sloped region (looking at figure 4C, rotated 90° clockwise: the distal edge of the notch is the right-hand edge thereof; the proximal edge of the notch is the left-hand edge thereof; the distal edge is aft, i.e., to the left, of the distal sloped region of the support tower).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marked-up Figure 4C of Kramer
In reference to claim 7, Kramer discloses wherein:
a thickness of the extractor in at least one location defined at the axial location of the notch and configured to be disposed radially inward of one or more lugs of a barrel or a barrel extension during cycling of the bolt (“web thickness”) is greater than 0.019 inches (marked-up figure 4C, below, and figure 4E: dimension D is 0.042 in, and a web thickness, represented by dimension X, is clearly larger than dimension D),
the support tower defines a width in a circumferential direction perpendicular to the axis that is less than a width of the firearm extractor (figures 4A and 4C, the support tower is not as wide as the extractor), and
the support tower is positioned at a location other than the at least one location having the thickness that is greater than 0.019 inch, as set forth above (figures 4A and marked-up figure 4C, below, and figure 4E: dimension D is 0.042 in, and a web thickness, represented by dimension X, is clearly larger than dimension D).
In reference to claim 9, Kramer discloses the claimed invention (figures 4A-4D; looking at fig. 4A, the web thickness at the axial location of the notch is thickest at the foot of the support tower, and thinner at the lateral edge of the extractor).
PNG
media_image2.png
402
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Marked-up Figure 4C of Kramer
In reference to claim 10, Kramer discloses the claimed invention (see marked-up figure 4C, above: the height of the outer surface corresponds to dimension X plus the depth of the notch, which is clearly greater than the height of a 5.56 AR pattern firearm extractor due to the web thickness X, which is greater than that of a 5.56 AR pattern firearm extractor, and the depth of the notch which is deeper than a 5.56 AR pattern firearm extractor, in order to accommodate ERC cartridges per paragraphs 28, 38, 40, and 43-50).
In reference to claim 11, Kramer discloses the claimed invention (figures 4B and 4D, the first end includes a circular recess formed therein, and an underside of the extractor).
In reference to claim 12, Kramer discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above (also see figures 4A and 4C).
In reference to claim 13, Kramer discloses the claimed invention (figures 4C and 4D, notch with dimension G; paragraphs 28, 38, 40, and 43-50).
In reference to claim 14, Kramer discloses the claimed invention (figure 4C, pivot portion shown with a circle therethrough).
In reference to claim 15, Kramer discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1 (also see figure 2, bolt 204; figure 9; paragraph 21).
In reference to claims 16 and 17, Kramer discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claims 1 and 15 (also see figure 9: a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the claimed barrel assembly, since an AR-15 platform barrel assembly includes the claimed structures).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s admission of prior art (AAPA; figure 5A).
In reference to claim 1, AAPA discloses an extractor (figure 5A) comprising:
a first end as claimed (right-hand end, i.e., distal end);
a second end opposite the first end, the first end and the second end defining an axis extending therebetween (left-hand end, i.e., proximal end);
a support tower defined at an outer side of the firearm extractor, wherein the support tower defines a proximal sloped region that slopes upwardly toward the first end and a distal sloped region that slopes downwardly toward the first end (support tower 506); and
a notch defined at the inner side of the extractor (notch 502),
wherein the notch has a proximal edge and a distal edge, as claimed, wherein the distal edge of the notch is aft of the distal sloped region (following the same rationale applied above in reference to Kramer, wherein the distal sloped region is a region entirely to the right of the distal edge of the notch).
In reference to claim 3, AAPA discloses the claimed invention (figure 5A, 505 is greater than 503).
Claims 1, 2, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomez (2014/0090283).
In reference to claim 1, Gomez discloses a firearm extractor having a maximum width, the firearm extractor (240) comprising:
a first end (figures 22B-22D, left-hand end);
a second end opposite the first end, the first end and the second end defining an axis extending therebetween (figures 22B-22D, right-hand end; longitudinal axis of extractor 240);
a support tower defined at an outer side of the firearm extractor, wherein the support tower defines a proximal sloped region that slopes upwardly toward the first end and a distal sloped region that slopes downwardly toward the first end (figure 22C, support tower is the upwardly jutting portion of claw 248, where the lead line for numeral 248 lands; the tower of Gomez is nearly identical to Applicant’s tower; and includes proximal and distal sloping regions as claimed, the distal sloping region is the left-hand sloping region, to the left of the lead line for 248, and the proximal sloping region is the right-hand sloping region, to the right of the lead line for 248; marked-up figure 22C, below, adds a vertical line that clearly shows the distal sloped region is to the left of the distal edge of the notch, since the added vertical line is aligned with the distal edge of the notch),
a notch defined at an inner side of the firearm extractor (figure 22C, notch 251),
wherein the notch has a proximal edge and a distal edge, and wherein the distal edge of the notch is aft of the distal sloped region (figure 22C: distal edge 252; proximal edge at the right-hand side of notch 251; distal edge 252 is clearly aft, i.e., to the right, of the distal sloped region).
In reference to claim 2, Gomez discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1 (also see figure 22C, and the marked-up version below).
In reference to claim 14, Gomez discloses the claimed invention (figure 22C: notch 251, pivot portion 242, support tower positioned forward, i.e., to the left of, the pivot portion).
PNG
media_image3.png
1016
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Marked-up Figure 22C of Gomez
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 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer.
In reference to claim 4, Kramer discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein a thickness of the firearm extractor in at least one location defined at an axial location of the notch is greater than or equal to approximately 0.043 inch and less than or equal to approximately 0.055 inch. However, Kramer does disclose a thickness of the extractor in at least one location defined at the axial location of the notch and configured to be disposed radially inward of one or more lugs of a barrel or a barrel extension during cycling of the bolt (“web thickness”) that is greater than 0.042 inches (marked-up figure 4C, above, and figure 4E: dimension D is 0.042 in, and a web thickness, represented by dimension X, is clearly larger than dimension D).
Further, the knowledge-base of a person having ordinary skill in the art includes basic mechanical engineering principles (e.g., a thicker metal bar is stronger/stiffer than a thinner metal bar, material properties the same; the thicker metal bar has greater impact strength than the thinner metal bar). An extractor is essentially a metal bar, and the extractor groove impacts the rim of a cartridge during chambering, as would be at once envisaged by a person of ordinary skill in the art; it is within the knowledge-base of a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand how an AR-15 extractor works. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage that the web thickness of the extractor is a result effective variable (e.g., a thicker web thickness results in a stronger/stiffer extractor; a thicker extractor has greater impact strength than a thinner extractor).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the extractor of Kramer with a web thickness greater than or equal to approximately 0.043 inches and less than or equal to approximately 0.055 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claim 5, Kramer discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the web thickness is approximately 0.043 inches. However, based on the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the extractor of Kramer with a web thickness of approximately 0.043 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claim 6, Kramer discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the web thickness is approximately 0.055 inches. However, based on the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the extractor of Kramer with a web thickness of approximately 0.055 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
In reference to claim 8, Kramer discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the web thickness of the extractor in all locations, as claimed, is greater than 0.019 inches. However, based on the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the extractor of Kramer with a web thickness in all locations, as claimed, that is greater than 0.019 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer in view of NLX (see IDS filed 3/21/25, Cite No. 41).
In reference to claims 18-20, Kramer discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the references to claims 1 and 11, except for where the firearm extractor is manufactured to have its final geometry via a material removal process, e.g., machining a billet. However, NLX teaches that it is known to form an extractor from a billet via machining, i.e., removing material from a billet to form an extractor having a desired geometry, in order to provide a high strength, monolithic extractor with an extremely hard surface and a tough, ductile core resistant to structural failure (long service life; page 1, description at bottom of page). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the extractor of Kramer from a billet via machining, i.e., removing material from a billet to form an extractor having a desired geometry, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a high strength, monolithic extractor with an extremely hard surface and a tough, ductile core resistant to structural failure (long service life).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez in view of NLX (see IDS filed 3/21/25, Cite No. 41).
In reference to claims Gomez discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the references to claims 1 and 14 (also see figures 22A and 22B, the support tower is as wide as the body of the extractor), except for where the firearm extractor is manufactured to have its final geometry via a material removal process, e.g., machining a billet. However, NLX teaches that it is known to form an extractor from a billet via machining, i.e., removing material from a billet to form an extractor having a desired geometry, in order to provide a high strength, monolithic extractor with an extremely hard surface and a tough, ductile core resistant to structural failure (long service life; page 1, description at bottom of page). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the extractor of Gomez from a billet via machining, i.e., removing material from a billet to form an extractor having a desired geometry, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a high strength, monolithic extractor with an extremely hard surface and a tough, ductile core resistant to structural failure (long service life).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,253,319. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each and every feature recited in the claims of the instant application is to be found in the patent claims, except for features that are known in the prior art, as set forth above. It would have been obvious to modify the invention of the patent claims to include such features, in order to realize the benefits and advantages associated therewith. Thus, the application claims are patentably indistinct from the patent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Kramer have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the rationale applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Gomez, the examiner does not find Applicant’s argument persuasive. It is the opinion of the examiner that Gomez clearly depicts the distal sloped region as entirely distal of the axial position of the distal edge of the notch (see marked-up figure 22C, above). Thus, Gomez discloses the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 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