DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 JUL 26 have been fully considered but they are not completely persuasive.
Any objection/rejection not maintained herein has been overcome/withdrawn based upon Applicant’s amendments and/or remarks.
With respect to U.S. 2,476,622 to Pelo, such meets the claims broadly yet reasonably. Per MPEP § 2111, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Thus, whether the operation of Pelo is opposite in sequence to Applicant’s intent, Pelo fully discloses blocking and non-blocking positions when the breechblock is within a predefined distance from the battery position. Applicant argues a sequence is required but there is nothing in the independent claims to require such. Note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988). See MPEP § 2145(VI). Rather, the claims require the blocking lever be configured to move to the non-blocking position when the breechblock is within a predefined distance from the battery position. Though movement may be implied, this is a broad limitation and allows for: 1) no movement of the breechblock; 2) movement thereof toward battery; and 3) movement thereof out of battery. Applicant improperly asserts that the breechblock being within a predetermined distance from the battery position requires movement thereto instead of therefrom, while the claims only positively require the breechblock be a certain distance from battery. Furthermore, there is nothing in the claims regarding “when the breechblock is nearly fully returned to battery,” or any particular order of events, but rather blocking/non-blocking operations when the breech block is at a predefined distance. Thus, Pelo can disclose an entirely opposite operational sequence and still meet the claims.
With respect to the blocking lever, Applicant asserts that “Pelo’s blocking member 5 is not itself biased to the blocking position by a dedicated biasing element.” Whether correct, as noted above limitations from the specification will not be read into the claims and any combination of elements wherein the blocking lever is biased suffices for anticipation. Thus, that combination relied upon suffices.
Regarding dimensional limitations Applicant argues that such “define[] a tolerance that ensures the firearm can only fire when the breechblock is essentially fully in battery” (emphasis added). ‘Essentially fully in battery’ does not appear to be evidence that “a device having the claimed relative dimensions … perform[s] differently than the prior art device,” as noted in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Furthermore, the examiner relied on MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which covers dimensionality, and it does not appear, nor has Applicant demonstrated, that the examiner erred in this reliance.
Regarding the spring of claims 8-9, claim 8 merely requires “a spring arranged to bias the blocking lever to the blocking position.” The argument that this does not convey “a dedicated spring biasing a blocking lever to the blocking position,” as Applicant asserts, is invalid. Pelo, disclosing a spring 17, which, in combination with, inter alia, breechblock 3 and frame 4, biases the blocking lever 5, would suffice as anticipatory of a dedicated spring biasing the blocking lever because nowhere in that language or in the claims is the spring required to directly impinge on the blocking lever, which appears to be the pith of Applicant’s argument. Claim 9 does not require direct impingement either. Thus, broad yet reasonable interpretation allows for the basis of rejection given. The examiner relied on MPEP § 2144.06(II), which covers substituting equivalents known for the same purpose, and it does not appear, nor has Applicant demonstrated, that the examiner erred in this reliance.
For these reasons, the rejections, as modified to address claim amendments, stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10-13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pelo.
Re: claim 1, Pelo discloses the claimed invention including an auto-loading firearm, Title (see, e.g., Fig. 1), comprising: a receiver 4, e.g., Figs. 2-5; a striker (hammer, clearly shown in Fig. 1 as an operable part of the trigger mechanism) coupled to the receiver (via pins, shown) and movable between a cocked position (not shown but an inherent result of breech block 3 moving rearwardly as shown in, e.g., Fig. 5) and a fire position (clearly shown); a breechblock 3 configured to reciprocate along the receiver between a recoil position, e.g., Fig. 5, and a battery position, e.g., Fig. 1; and a blocking element 5 movable between a blocking position, e.g., Figs. 2-3, and a non-blocking position, e.g., Figs. 4-5, with respect to the striker (any movement of any element of the firearm anticipates movement with respect to any other element, provided the two are not integral or moving as one; thus, Pelo meets this limitation as well), wherein the blocking element is biased (via, inter alia, breech block 3, recoil spring 17, and frame 4) to the blocking position and is configured to move to the non-blocking position when the breechblock is within a predefined distance from the battery position (Fig. 4 captures the moment just before blocking element 5 is free of breech block 3, e.g., col. 2, ll. 30, through col. 3, ll. 19, which is clearly shown in Fig. 5). See further explanation(s) above.
Re: claim 4, Pelo further discloses further comprising an actuator 9 between the blocking element and the receiver, wherein the actuator moves the blocking element to the non-blocking position when the breechblock is within the predefined distance from the battery position, col. 2, ll. 45, through col. 3, ll. 19.
Re: claim 7, Pelo further discloses wherein the receiver defines a cam surface 11 arranged to engage the actuator when the breechblock is within the predefined distance from the battery position, thereby causing the blocking element to occupy the non-blocking position (clearly shown/disclosed).
Re: claim 8, Pelo further discloses comprising a spring 17 arranged to bias the blocking element to the blocking position. See above.
Re: claim 10, Pelo fairly discloses wherein the firearm is a semiautomatic handgun, col. 1, ll. 1-2. Pelo discloses “a rifle embodying features of this invention,” col. 2, ll. 16-17, and “While I have shown and described the more or less specific embodiment of my invention, it is to be understood that this has been done for the purpose of illustration only, and the scope of my invention is not to be limited thereby, but is to be determined by the appended claim,” col. 4, ll. 11-16. Notably, the claim fails to require a rifle. Thus, all manner of “automatic fire-arm” of the claim demonstrate that Pelo fully contemplated handguns to be included but chose a rifle merely as an example of the invention.
Re: claim 11, Pelo fairly discloses wherein the semiautomatic handgun is configured for recoil operation, evidenced by the citations above. See also “recoil barrel 1,” col. 2, ll. 32.
Re: claim 12, mutatis mutandis, Pelo discloses a hammer (see claim 1 above).
Re: claim 13, Pelo further discloses comprising: a firing pin movable along the central axis of the breechblock from a rearward position to a forward position, the firing pin (not particularly called out but clearly shown in, e.g., Figs. 1-2; see also col. 4, ll. 5-10, wherein non-essential elements are disclosed as not being described in detail) having a proximal end (rightmost end) that extends through the proximal face of the breechblock when the firing pin is in the forward position (after being struck by the hammer as in well-known in the art); and a firing pin spring (clearly shown surround the firing pin proximate the rightmost end, which is also well-known in the art) between the breechblock and the firing pin (clearly shown, e.g., Fig. 2), the firing pin spring biasing the firing pin towards the rearward position (shown, but also as is well-known in the art, i.e., the firing pin is biased away from the primer of a cartridge until such time as a trigger releases a hammer/striker to impact the firing pin).
Re: claims 16 and 19-20, see relevant claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-3, 9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelo.
Re: claims 2-3 and 14-15, Pelo discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for the predefined distance being 2 mm or less, or 1 mm or less. It has been held that limitations relating to the size of an element were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A). Here, there is no evidence that different dimensions would alter the performance of the claimed invention. Thus, such are unpatentable over the art. See also relevant explanation(s) above.
Re: claim 9, Pelo discloses the claimed invention except for the spring being a torsion spring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute a torsion spring for that disclosed, since the equivalence of springs for their use in the firearm art and the selection of any known equivalents to that spring disclosed would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See also relevant explanation(s) above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern.
The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874.
/Bret Hayes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
28-Sep-26
