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 tab being configured to extend perpendicularly from the main body to engage with a firearm's trigger mechanism (claims 8 and 17) 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 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.
Claims 8 and 17 are 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.
Because engagement with a firearm’s trigger mechanism is not shown, the metes and bounds of the claims are indefinite because one can only guess at the configuration intended. The claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following are quotations of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the bases 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 1-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 12,379,178 to Vitulli.
Re: claim 1, Vitulli discloses the claimed invention including a firearm trigger 40, e.g., Fig. 3, comprising: a main body 38 configured as a curved rectangle with an open center (shown), wherein the main body includes: a first short side 42, a second short side 48 opposite the first short side, and two long sides 44, 46; the first short side and the two long sides being straight (shown); and the second short side being slanted (shown), such that a width of a top plane of the main body is shorter than a width of a bottom plane of the main body (inherent as shown), the bottom plane being opposite the top plane (same); a tab 30 coupled to the first short side of the main body (shown), the tab including: a top surface (shown), a bottom surface (surface not shown but reasonably inferred) opposite the top surface (same), a straight side (nearest callout 42) coupling the top surface and the bottom surface and extending perpendicularly from the main body (shown), and a curved side (farthest from callout 42) opposite the straight side (shown); wherein the curved side of the tab is integrally formed with and coupled to the main body (see col. 3, ll. 54-59, e.g., “3:54-59”).
Re: claims 2-4, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Thus, these limitations have not been given patentable weight.
Re: claim 5, whether Vitulli expressly articulates the function of the main body being the open center of the main body reduces material usage and weight while maintaining structural integrity, such is clearly shown and, thus, anticipatory. Note that a prior inventor does not need to know everything about how or why its invention worked. Nor must it conceive of its invention using the same words as the patentee would later use to claim it. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, 331 F.3d 1378, 100 USPQ2d 1885, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2011). An inventor need not comprehend the scientific principles on which the practical effectiveness of his invention rests. Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Co., 220 U.S. 428, 435-36 (1911). Furthermore, the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2131.
Re: claim 6, Vitulli further discloses wherein the straight side of the tab is configured to extend perpendicularly from the first short side of the main body (shown), and the curved side of the tab is integrally formed with the main body (shown), ensuring structural continuity (inherent as shown; see also case law cited above).
Re: claim 7, Vitulli further discloses wherein the main body's slanted second short side provides a tapered effect that enhances ergonomic interaction by conforming to the natural motion of a user's finger (shown/inherent). See explanation(s) above.
Re: claim 8, Vitulli further discloses wherein the tab is configured to extend perpendicularly from the main body to engage with a firearm's trigger mechanism, inter alia, 20, e.g., Fig. 2, thereby providing effective operation of the trigger under repeated use (inherent or see above).
Re: claim 9, Vitulli further discloses wherein the main body and the tab are made from carbon steel, 3:63-65. Because Vitulli discloses brazed joints between bow and shoe, 3:56, some metal must inhere for the shoe. Whether that metal is any of those recited is immaterial because the claim does not exclude other materials. Thus, that at least some portion of the combination is made of steel suffices to meet the claim.
Anent method claims 10 and 14-18, in view of the structure disclosed by Vitulli, the method of making the firearm trigger is inherent, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device is made.
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 11-13 and, alternatively claims 2-4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitulli.
Should the assertions/rejections above be held invalid, Vitulli discloses the claimed invention except for particular means of manufacturing, specifically: claims 2 and 11, machining from a single piece of billet aluminum; claims 3 and 12, bead blasting and anodizing; and, claims 4 and 13, honing subsequent to anodizing.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Applicant is not claiming, nor is able to claim, invention of the particular means of manufacturing, but rather, applying known means of manufacturing to make a known prior art device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to machine the trigger from a single piece of billet aluminum, since it was known in the art that: 1) machining parts from a single billet of any material is well-known in the art for the purposes of maintaining dimensional tolerances, mass production, rapidity of manufacture, etc.; and, 2) whether any material is disclosed by Vitulli, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07. Aluminum is well-known and suitable for the intended use. Thus, the claims are unpatentable.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, see above. Bead blasting and hard coat anodizing are well-known means for treating surfaces of parts for the purposes of smoothing/finishing, wear-resistance, and corrosion-prevention. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further expose the trigger to bead blasting and hard coat anodizing for the purposes of smoothing/finishing, wear-resistance, and corrosion-prevention. Thus, the claims are unpatentable.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, see above. As Applicant notes, “the anodizing process [may/can/sometimes] create[s] minor inconsistencies,” ¶ [0032]. Because such are known and because proper operation of the trigger is necessary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to remove any imperfections created by the manufacturing process that would be necessary to proper operation of the trigger. Because honing is well-known in the art for the purposes of achieving desired surface finishes, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claims are unpatentable.
Claims 2 and 11 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitulli in view of US 2016/0327357 to Wheatley.
Though Vitulli is silent with respect to the manner of manufacturing the trigger, Wheatley teaches that it is known to make a trigger finger lever portion 16, e.g., Figs. 2-3, “using conventional material removal (CNC) machining methods from a billet of material matching other customized metallic parts of the firearm[] …from an aluminum alloy or steel, selected so that its surface may be finished, such as by anodizing…,” ¶ [0022], in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of “match[ing] the look of the receiver,” id. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vitulli as taught by Wheatley with a reasonable expectation of success because Wheatley further discloses the lever portion “may be anodized to a color and finish exactly matching that of other customized parts of the firearm,” ¶ [0020], thus describing a desire for certain finishes of parts. Further rationale: All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitulli in view of US 9,528,795 to Burnsed, Jr. (“Burnsed”).
Though Vitulli is silent with respect to the manner of manufacturing the trigger, Burnsed teaches a sling attachment device body 12, e.g., Figs. 1-8, wherein “the body 12 is CNC machined from a 6061-T6 aluminum billet before being tumbled and bead-blasted,” 4:24-26, in the same field of endeavor, e.g., firearms and associated elements, for the purpose of “provid[ing] a non-reflective surface,” id. Burnsed further discloses that, subsequently, “[t]he body is hard-coat anodized,” 4:26-27. While no particular purpose is expressly disclosed, such would include any of those attributed to the process noted above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vitulli as taught by Burnsed with a reasonable expectation of success because Burnsed further discloses the body’s trapezoidal shape with intricacies, e.g., 3:35-44, requiring no less manufacturing means than recited in the claims. See also further rationale above.
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
11-Jun-26
Prosecution Insights