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 .
Drawings
The drawings submitted 3/10/2025 are acknowledged and acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Troy et al. (U.S. Patent 8,037,633).
In regards to claim 1, Troy et al (henceforth referred to Troy) disclose a handguard mounting system, comprising:
a receiver having a tenon on which is defined a plurality of tenon lugs. Troy teaches a barrel nut that extends from a firearm receiver and constitutes a “tenon” and includes circumferential lugs (items 37 and 38); and
a handguard having an open rear end in which the tenon is receivable and a plurality of handguard lugs on an interior surface of the open rear end. Figures 1 and 2 of Troy illustrate a handguard (item 10) with its associated open end and a plurality of handguard lugs (items 35),
wherein the tenon lugs and the handguard lugs cooperate to mount the handguard to the receiver when the tenon is received in the open rear end of the handguard and a top of the handguard is rotationally aligned around the tenon with a top of the receiver. At col. 5, lines 49-67, Troy describes twisting the handguard so that the “tines” (items 38) are positioned behind the “land” (items 35) to hold or lock the handguard to the firearm.
In regards to claim 2, Troy discloses that the handguard lugs and the tenon lugs cooperate to prevent longitudinal movement of the handguard relative to the receiver when the tenon is received in the open rear end of the handguard and the top of the handguard is rotationally aligned around the tenon with the top of the receiver. Troy teaches tines and lands consistent with “lugs” on the handguard and receiver barrel nut that cooperate to hold or lock the handguard onto the receiver and prevent longitudinal movement.
In regards to claim 3, Troy discloses that the handguard lugs longitudinally overlap the tenon lugs when the tenon is received in the open rear end of the handguard and the top of the handguard is rotationally aligned around the tenon with the top of the receiver. Troy teaches that when the handguard is rotated onto the receiver barrel nut, the tines and lands overlap longitudinally and the top portion of the handguard is aligned with the top of the receiver.
In regards to claim 4, Troy discloses that a forward surface of each handguard lug engages a rear surface of each tenon lug when the tenon is received in the open rear end of the handguard and the top of the handguard is rotationally aligned around the tenon with the top of the receiver. Troy describes the tines being moved behind the lands and in frictional engagement when the handguard is twisted. The engagement involves the forward and rear surfaces of the components (col. 5, lines 49-67).
In regards to claim 5, Troy discloses that at least one plurality of the plurality of tenon lugs and the plurality of handguard lugs is configured to bias the handguard into contact with a body of the receiver when the tenon is received in the open rear end of the handguard and the top of the handguard is rotationally aligned around the tenon with the top of the receiver. Troy teaches that the handguard has abutting engagement with the front of the receiver when the tines and lands are aligned (col. 5, lines 18-21 and lines 49-67).
In regards to claim 8, Troy discloses: that each handguard lug of the plurality of handguard lugs extends further around the interior surface of the open rear end of the handguard than each tenon lug of the plurality of tenon lugs extends around the tenon. As illustrated, the lugs on the interior surface of the handguard extend at least further when compared to the lugs of the barrel nut.
In regards to claim 9, Troy discloses that the plurality of tenon lugs is spaced circumferentially around and extends radially outward from the tenon; and
the plurality of handguard lugs is spaced circumferentially around and protrudes
centripetally from the interior surface of the open rear end of the handguard. As illustratred, the tines and lands protrude as claimed (see figures 4 and 6).
In regards to claim 10, Troy discloses that the plurality of handguard lugs defines a plurality of tenon lug keyways through which the plurality of tenon lugs is receivable extending longitudinally along the interior surface of the open rear end of the handguard between adjacent handguard lugs of the plurality of handguard lugs; and
the plurality of tenon lugs defines a plurality of handguard lug keyways through which the plurality of handguard lugs is receivable extending longitudinally along the tenon between adjacent tenon lugs of the plurality of tenon lugs. Troy teaches movement of the tines of the barrel nut (tenon) through “grooves” between the lands of the handguard functioning as keyways.
In regards to claim 11, Troy discloses that the handguard is rotatable about the tenon in both a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction to rotationally align the top of the handguard with the top of the receiver to mount the handguard to the receiver when the tenon is received in the open rear end of the handguard. The handguard of the Troy design moves both clockwise and counterclockwise to engage and disengage tines and lands.
In regards to claim 12, Troy discloses that the handguard is rotatable about the tenon in only one of a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction to rotationally align the top of the handguard with the top of the receiver to mount the handguard to the receiver when the tenon is received in the open rear end of the handguard. Troy teaches counterclockwise rotation of the handguard relative to the receiver to engage the frictional fit of the tines and lands and clockwise to disengage.
In regards to claim 18, Troy discloses a method of mounting a handguard for a gun to a receiver for the gun, comprising:
providing the receiver and the handguard of claim 1;
inserting the tenon into the open rear end of the handguard; and
rotationally aligning the top of the handguard around the tenon with the top of the receiver. Troy teaches inserting the barrel nut into the handguard open end and rotating until the handguard is aligned with the receiver.
In regards to claim 19, Troy discloses a gun comprising the handguard mounting system of claim 1. Troy teaches a gun.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy et al. (U.S. Patent 8,037,633).
In regards to claim 6, Troy does not explicitly disclose that at least one plurality of the plurality of tenon lugs and the plurality of handguard lugs is at least partially helical. Troy teaches arrangement of the tines and lands to provide frictional engagement. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the tines and lands of the Troy components in various configurations including helical as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regards to claim 7, Troy discloses that the plurality of tenon lugs includes a first row of tenon lugs, but not a second row of tenon lugs spaced longitudinally rearward on the tenon from the first row of tenon lugs; and
Troy also teaches that the plurality of handguard lugs includes a first row of handguard lugs, but not a second row of handguard lugs spaced longitudinally forward on the interior surface of the open rear end from the first row of handguard lugs.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add more than a single row of either the handguard or barrel nut lugs as claimed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 13-17 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 13 and 20, the closest prior fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claims 13 and 20, the latch configured to selectably deter rotation of the handguard about the tenon when the top of the handguard is rotationally aligned around the tenon with the top of the receiver.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-12 18 and 19 are rejected, claim 20 is allowable and claims 13-17 and 21 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641