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 . This action is in response to Application #19/450,561 filed on 15 January 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The dependent claims do not specify which preceding claim they depend on. A best guess by the Examiner is made and noted for each rejected claim below. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2022/0290937 to Geissele et al (Geissele).
Regarding Claim 1, Geissele discloses a bolt assembly for a direct gas operated firearm (See gas tube 32 for direct impingement operation) comprising:
a bolt comprising a cylindrical member having a forward recess surrounded by multiple lugs and a side recess (see fig.3);
an extractor pivotally mounted in the side recess by way of an extractor pin (300/301);
a claw portion of the extractor (fig.13, 304) biased into the forward recess by one or more springs acting on the extractor (303), and
an ejector and a spring disposed in the forward recess (19/21).
Regarding Claim 3 Geissele discloses claim 1 and an increased bolt diameter configured to prevent a tin web from becoming a crack initiation point that reduces the life of the bolt (see fig.3, front portion at 22a clearly shown stepped and thicker. Further, area at 22 has an increased diameter relative to the area behind and away from the bolt face).
Regarding Claim 4, Geissele discloses claim 1, the extractor includes a pivot portion disposed between the claw portion and a biased portion (fig.3, 310).
Regarding Claim 5, Geissele discloses claim 4 and the biased portion (fig.7, end 306) is configured to be biased away from the bolt by way of the one or more springs disposed between the biased portion and the bolt (see fig.3, 303, paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 6, Geissele discloses claim 4 and a primary and secondary spring that press the biased portion away from the body of the bolt (see at least fig.3, detailing an extractor spring and insert. The insert for the AR15/M16 rifle as disclosed is covered under Mil-Spec: MIL-PRF-6855-REV G, and is a specification for rubber neoprene the inserts are made from. Inherently, rubber will act as a spring material, and is considered a second spring).
Regarding Claim 7, Geissele discloses claim 4 and the pivot portion presses the claw portion into the forward recess due to the spring force acting on the biased portion (at least paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 8, Geissele discloses claim 4 and the biased portion is configured to ensure that a rim of a cartridge remains within the claw portion until the cartridge casing is ejected from the firearm by way of the ejector (at least paragraphs 59, 65).
Regarding Claim 9, Geissele discloses claim 4 and a primary and secondary counterbore are concentrically disposed in a lower surface of the biased portion (see fig.7 at end 306).
Regarding Claim 10, Geissele discloses claim 9 and the primary counterbore and the secondary counterbore are configured to respectively retain the primary spring and the secondary spring between the bolt and the biased portion (see fig.7 at end 306 and retaining springs shown in fig.3).
Regarding Claim 11, Geissele discloses claim 1 and the extractor includes an upper surface that is rounded or curved in a circumferential direction so as to substantially match a curvature of an exterior surface of the bolt (see fig.6 at 304).
Regarding Claim 12, Geissele discloses claim 1 and the extractor includes a lug that extends along the upper surface above the claw portion (fig.10, 316).
Regarding Claim 13, Geissele discloses claim 13 and the lug comprises a thicker portion of the extractor that is configured to reinforce the claw portion (see fig.10, 330).
Regarding Claim 14, Geissele discloses claim 4 and the pivot portion includes parallel prongs that extend from a lower surface of the extractor (see figs. 7 and 10, pivot portion 310).
Regarding Claim 15, Geissele discloses claim 14 and a transverse hole disposed in the parallel prongs (see figs. 3, 7, 10) and is configured to receive the extractor pin (301) such that the extractor moves in a seesaw manner when the claw portion engages an ammunition cartridge casing (at least paragraphs 59, 64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0290937 to Geissele et al (Geissele) in view of US Patent 10,151,544 issued to Sugg.
Regarding Claim 2, Geissele discloses the bolt assembly of claim 1, but fails to specifically disclose the lugs: have a rear angle of at least 60-degrees to reinforce the bolt. However, Sugg teaches a similar bolt, and teaches the lugs may have rear angles to promote better operation of the bolt lugs going in and out of battery (at least column 23 lines 22-31). Utilizing this teaching it would have been obvious to modify the lugs of Geissele to be angled, and selecting a specific angle of at least 60 degrees would have been an obvious matter of discovering an optimum value as a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0290937 to Geissele et al (Geissele) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0047612 to Sullivan et al (Sullivan).
Regarding Claim 16, Geissele discloses the extractor pin comprises a generally elongated member having a center portion disposed between end portions (301). Geissele fails to specifically disclose: the center portion having a larger diameter than the diameter of the end portions.
However, Sullivan teaches a similar firearm bolt and extractor with an extractor pin in which a center portion (fig.13D, 1312) has a larger diameter than the end portions (fig.13D, 1314) for the advantage of having the extractor and extractor pin cooperate with the spring force to prevent the extractor pin from passing through the hole and disassembly (at least paragraph 184). It would have been an obvious modification of Geissele to include such a pin as taught by Sullivan for the taught advantage of having a pin sized and shaped to prevent accidental disassembly.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Geissele and Sullivan disclose claim 16 wherein the end portions are configured to loosely seat within transverse holes disposed in the bolt while the center portion is configured to loosely seat within the transverse hole of the extractor (see Sullivan paragraph 184, loosely seat prior to spring pressure).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Geissele and Sullivan disclose claim 17 wherein the larger diameter of the center portion and the spring force acting on the biased portion are configured to hold the end portions in the transverse holes (see Sullivan paragraph 184 and figure 13D).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Geissele and Sullivan disclose claim 17 wherein the transverse holes have an inner diameter that is large enough to allow passage of the center portion during removal of the extractor pin from the bolt (see Sullivan paragraph 184 and figure 13D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for pertinent art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D COOPER whose telephone number is (571)270-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 - 4:30 MST.
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.
/JOHN COOPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights