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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
Claim 15, spring is labeled but not detailed
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
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 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.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear based on the wording of the claim what the applicant directly means. The examiner is interpreting the claim to mean the firing pin block is rigid enough that only the hammer with the force from the spring can move the engagement surface from one position to another.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites the limitation “extends obliquely from the longitudinal axis” then recites with an or statement “is curved so that a plate tangent to the hammer engagement surface is oblique to the longitudinal axis”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 15 and 16 will be examined as best as possible with the specification and drawings.
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) 1,3-9,12-14,16,18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fluhr (US 6145234). Regarding claim 1, Fluhr teaches a firing pin block (Fig. 1, 21) comprising: a first end (23) portion configured to couple to a slide of a firearm (25); an arm extending from the first end portion along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), wherein the arm comprises a distal end portion (Fig 1; Col. 4, lines 30-33), wherein the arm is resiliently flexible to permit displacement of the distal end portion along a second axis that is transverse to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 3), wherein the distal end portion comprises a hammer engagement surface (Fig. 1, 35), wherein the hammer engagement surface is configured to contact a hammer to effect displacement of the distal end portion (Fig. 3); and a protrusion extending downwardly from the arm along the second axis (Fig. 1, 29), wherein the protrusion is positioned between the first end portion and the hammer engagement surface along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Fluhr teaches the arm has a pair of lateral edges spaced along a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal and second axes, wherein the protrusion is positioned between the pair of lateral edges (Col. 6, lines 49-63).
Regarding claim 4, Fluhr teaches the firing pin block is unitarily formed from sheet metal (Col. 6, lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 5, Fluhr teaches the hammer engagement surface (Fig. 1, 35) extends obliquely to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Fluhr teaches the hammer engagement surface is planar (Fig. 1, 35).
Regarding claim 8, Fluhr teaches A firearm comprising: a slide; a firing pin block as in claim 1, wherein the firing pin block is coupled to the slide, wherein the distal end portion of the firing pin block is displaceable from a first position (Fig. 1) to a second position (Fig. 3), wherein the protrusion comprises a rear surface; a firing pin that is movable relative to the slide along the longitudinal axis, wherein the firing pin defines a radially extending surface that is configured to contact the protrusion when the distal end portion of the firing pin block is in the first position; and a hammer that is configured to contact the hammer engagement surface of the distal end portion to bias the distal end portion toward the second position, wherein, when the distal end portion is in the second position, the protrusion is spaced from the radially extending surface along the second axis to permit movement of the firing pin so that the radially extending surface passes the rear surface of the protrusion along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 9, Fluhr teaches the slide defines a recess, wherein the firing pin block is at least partly received within the recess of the slide (Fig. 1, 19;25).
Regarding claim 12, Fluhr teaches the firing pin (Fig. 1, 7) comprises an annular ridge (11), wherein the annular ridge defines the radially extending surface.
Regarding claim 13, Fluhr teaches a firing pin stop coupled to the slide (Fig. 1, 13), wherein the firing pin stop comprises a stop surface that is configured to contact the firing pin (Fig. 1) to inhibit further rearward movement of the firing pin.
Regarding claim 14, Fluhr teaches the firing pin (Fig. 1, 7) comprises an annular ridge (11) and a rear end portion that extends rearwardly from the annular ridge (Fig. 1), wherein the annular ridge is configured to contact the stop surface of the firing pin stop (13), wherein the firing pin stop defines an opening that is configured to receive the rear end portion of the firing pin therethrough (Fig. 1, 15).
Regarding claims 16 and 18-20, Fluhr teaches the firing pin block and firearm as previously shown, as such the same rejections apply here.
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.
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) 2,10,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fluhr (US 6145234) in view of Scott (US 4192236).
Regarding claims 2,10,17 Fluhr teaches all the elements of the current invention as stated above except the wherein the firing pin block is connected to the firearm with a fastener (screw). Scott teaches the firing pin block uses a screw (Fig. 9, 53) to hold it in place. Scott teaches a screw to hold the spring in place and affect alignment length-wise (Col. 4, lines 11-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fluhr to incorporate the teachings of Scott to provide the firing pin block with a screw. Doing so would hold the spring in place and affect alignment length-wise, as recognized by Scott.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fluhr (US 6145234) in view of Gagne (US 11913740)
Regarding claim 7, Fluhr teaches all the elements of the current invention as stated above except wherein the hammer engagement surface is curved. Gagne teaches the hammer engagement surface is curved (Fig. 1, 136). Gagne traches a curved hammer engagement surface allows for increased strength to the spring (Col. 4, lines 32-33)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fluhr to incorporate the teachings of Gagne to provide a curved hammer engagement surface to the firing pin block. Doing so would increase the strength of the spring of the firing pin block, as recognized by Gagne.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Fluhr (US 6145234).
Regarding claim 15, Fluhr teaches the firing pin block is moved by the hammer. Fluhr does not teach the hammer has a spring that imparts enough force to move the rigid firing pin block. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a firing pin block that is rigid with the only thing that can move it being the hammer with enough force imparted to it from a spring. Doing so increases safety of the device as it prevents actuation of the device in the event the hammer becomes disengaged from the spring and sear without the trigger being pulled.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached list of references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN W CAUDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-0481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET. Friday 8 a.m. - 12 p.m..
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
/L.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights