DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are active.
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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/8/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6-7, 14, and 18-19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 18, the limitation “at least one selected from the group of a cartridge or cartridge case” in lines 1-2 should instead say, for example, “at least one selected from the group consisting of a cartridge [[or]] and a cartridge case” in order to reflect the proper format for a Markush grouping. See MPEP § 2117(I).
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “further comprising” in line 1 should instead say, for example, “further comprises”.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “further comprising” in line 1 should instead say, for example, “wherein the bolt lever further comprises” in order to reflect that the upper protrusion is a component of the previous recited bolt lever.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/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 15 recites the limitation “a bolt carrier group” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since a bolt carrier group was already recited in claim 11, from which claim 15 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stenzel (US 2022/0364810), herein ‘Stenzel’.
Regarding claim 1, Stenzel discloses a bolt lever (30) for a firearm (10), the bolt lever comprising:
a main body (Fig. 9);
a hole extending at least partially through the main body (Fig. 9); and
an ejector arm (32) that extends in a forward direction from the main body (par. 35).
Regarding claim 3, Stenzel discloses wherein the ejector arm is designed to interface with a corresponding groove in a bolt carrier group (Fig. 5; par. 29).
Regarding claim 4, Stenzel discloses wherein the ejector arm comprises a proximal portion (Fig. 9; rear portion connected to main body of catch 30) and a distal portion (Fig. 9; forward-facing surface portion 36) that are connected by a joint (Fig. 9; connecting portion between previously described proximal and distal portions).
Regarding claim 5, Stenzel discloses wherein the proximal portion and the distal portion are each disposed at an angle above horizontal (Fig. 6; entirety of ejector arm 32 is disposed at an angle above horizontal).
Regarding claim 6, Stenzel discloses wherein the ejector arm is designed to contact at least one selected from the group consisting of a cartridge (28) and a cartridge case (26) during operation of the firearm (Fig. 4; par. 29).
Regarding claim 7, Stenzel discloses wherein contact between the ejector arm and at least one selected from the group consisting of a cartridge (28) and a cartridge case (26) occurs when a bolt carrier group (22, 126; Fig. 2) is moving rearward (Fig. 4; par. 29).
Regarding claim 8, Stenzel discloses an upper protrusion designed to allow the bolt lever to be operated from an exterior of the firearm (Figs. 5-9; par. 35-36).
Regarding claim 9, Stenzel discloses wherein the bolt lever is designed to pivot about the hole (Figs. 5-8).
Regarding claim 10, Stenzel discloses wherein the bolt lever is attached to a lower receiver (12) of the firearm (Fig. 1; par. 29).
Regarding claim 11, Stenzel discloses a firearm (10) comprising:
a bolt carrier group (22, 126; Fig. 2);
a receiver (12; Fig. 1); and
a bolt lever (30) attached to the receiver (Fig. 1; par. 29),
wherein the bolt lever comprises an ejector arm (32).
Regarding claim 12, Stenzel discloses wherein the bolt lever comprises a main body (Fig. 9) and a hole extending at least partially through the main body (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Stenzel discloses wherein the ejector arm extends in a forward direction from the bolt lever (Fig. 11; par. 35).
Regarding claim 15, Stenzel discloses wherein the ejector arm is designed to interface with a corresponding groove in the bolt carrier group (Fig. 5; par. 29).
Regarding claim 16, Stenzel discloses wherein the ejector arm comprises a proximal portion (Fig. 9; rear portion connected to main body of catch 30) and a distal portion (Fig. 9; forward-facing surface portion 36) that are connected by a joint (Fig. 9; connecting portion between previously described proximal and distal portions).
Regarding claim 17, Stenzel discloses wherein the proximal portion and the distal portion are each disposed at an angle above horizontal (Fig. 6; entirety of ejector arm 32 is disposed at an angle above horizontal).
Regarding claim 18, Stenzel discloses wherein the ejector arm is designed to contact at least one selected from the group consisting of a cartridge (28) and a cartridge case (26) during operation of the firearm (Fig. 4; par. 29).
Regarding claim 19, Stenzel discloses wherein the bolt lever further comprises an upper protrusion designed to allow the bolt lever to be operated from an exterior of the firearm (Figs. 5-9; par. 35-36).
Regarding claim 20, Stenzel discloses wherein the bolt lever is designed to pivot about a hole (Figs. 5-8).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenzel (US 2022/0364810) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, respectively, and further in view of Gomez (US 2012/0167424), herein ‘Gomez’.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Stenzel discloses wherein the bolt lever further comprises a portion (Fig. 6; par. 36, 38-39) designed to interface with a magazine follower (20), but does not expressly teach wherein the portion is a forward protrusion.
Gomez teaches a firearm (1) comprising a bolt lever (20) including a main body (25), a hole (26) extending at least partially through the main body (par. 43), and a forward protrusion (29) designed to interface with a magazine follower (45; par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the bolt lever of Stenzel to comprise a forward protrusion designed to interface with a magazine follower as taught by Gomez with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable the magazine follower to move the bolt lever vertically into the path of the bolt carrier group when the magazine is empty to lock the bolt carrier group in a locked-back position (Gomez; par. 44, 53-54).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 BENJAMIN S GOMBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-4802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/Troy Chambers/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3641
/BENJAMIN S. GOMBERG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3641