DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the breechblock and the breechblock bolt (claims 2 and 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one of magazine” should have --a-- inserted between the last two words. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following are quotations of the relevant paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The issue is whether there is adequate support in the specification for all possible combinations of first and second firearms, first and second components, and first and second safety elements. Because of the use of “or” throughout the claim, some claimed embodiments appear to lack adequate support in the disclosure.
For example, per the claim both safety elements can be on the first firearm, i.e., not a component thereof, yet the second prevents attachment of the second component with the second firearm to the first firearm? Mutatis mutandis, switching first and second in the previous example creates the same issue.
If the intention is “first and second firearms” or “first and second components of first and second firearms” as two distinct varieties, suggested is separating the two in independent claims.
Claims 1-7 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for certain embodiments described by the language of claim 1, does not reasonably provide enablement for others. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. See examples and explanation, above.
Claims 1-7 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is ambiguous because it is unclear whether there is adequate support for every possible combination recited in the claim. It has been asserted there is not. Furthermore, the first and second components, being recited in the alternative, need not be present at all. How then are positive recitations of such in the claim, e.g., the first component in lines 9-12 (2X) and the second component in lines 11-13 (2X), to be understood?
Claims 2 and 9 are ambiguous because that which is claimed is not shown. Thus, the metes and bounds of those two elements noted above are unclear.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
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.
Claims 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0317858 to Emde, cited by Applicant.
Re: claim 1, from the Office Action by the German Patent & Trademark Office submitted by Applicant, herein after D1, the instant claims are fully anticipated by such. Emde, being a U.S. version with priority to D1, must also be considered as anticipatory. References in D1 to numerals followed by an “a” thereafter, e.g., 1a, 2a, 3a, etc., are understood to be interpretations of other like elements 1-3 (though any numbers before 10 to do not appear to be part of the disclosure of Emde). Because Emde clearly discloses: different calibers, Abstract and ¶¶ [0002], [0011], [0019], and [0028]; smaller caliber weaponry, ¶¶ [0006]-[0020], and otherwise identical larger caliber weaponry, ¶¶ [0005]-[0020]; the smaller caliber firearm grip piece 10 including a cam 15 corresponding to a groove 14 on the barrel block 12 therefor, ¶ [0028], and, the larger caliber firearm barrel block not being compatible with the smaller caliber grip piece, ¶ [0029], such must be construed as anticipatory. Furthermore, Emde further discloses features, inter alia, narrower section 18, e.g., Fig. 3, to prevent larger caliber magazines from being installed in the smaller caliber grip piece, ¶¶ [0031]-[0032], and a magazine 19, e.g., Figs. 4-6, including an upper narrower section 21 corresponding to grip piece 10. Thus, any combination of first and second firearms or first and second safety elements appears to be fully anticipated, as best understood.
Re: claim 2, Emde discloses a magazine/loader, a grip/lower receiver, an upper/barrel receiver, a barrel, and a locking element. See above.
Re: claim 3, Emde discloses the safety elements being a mechanical structure or a recess on at least one of the components. See above.
Re: claim 4, Emde discloses the safety elements including an engagement and/or form-fitting connection between components, as recited. See above.
Re: claim 5, Emde discloses the safety elements being an enlargement or reduction of at least part of the components. See above.
Re: claim 6, Emde discloses the safety elements being a visual or tactile marker (asserted because such can be seen and touched, which suffices).
Re: claim 7, Emde discloses the safety elements being provided on some or all components of the firearms. See above.
Anent claims 8-14, Emde fully discloses the metes and bounds of the claims as set forth above.
Evidence to the contrary of any of the above is welcome.
Conclusion
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
9-Jun-26
Prosecution Insights