Prior art — US Patent 10514223

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223

This analysis details the most relevant prior art cited during the examination of U.S. Patent 10,514,223. Each cited reference is examined for its potential to anticipate the claims of the '223 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The core innovation of the '223 patent is a trigger mechanism featuring a forced-reset function, accomplished by the hammer directly resetting the trigger, combined with a locking bar that is actuated by the bolt carrier to prevent out-of-battery firing.

Key Prior Art and Potential Anticipation

The following patents and patent applications were cited by the examiner during the prosecution of the '223 patent.

1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0219307 A1 (Fostech Mfg Llc)

Full Citation: US 2017/0219307 A1, "Trigger-Locking Apparatus, System, and Method for Semiautomatic Firearms"
Publication Date: August 3, 2017
Filing Date: January 28, 2016
Brief Description: This application describes a trigger-locking mechanism for a semi-automatic firearm. It features a locking member that prevents the trigger from being pulled until the bolt carrier is in battery. The locking mechanism is disengaged by the forward movement of the bolt carrier, allowing the firearm to be fired. This invention is designed to enhance the safety and control of semi-automatic firearms.
Potential Anticipation of Claims:
- Claim 1 & 4: The '307 application discloses a locking bar or "locking member" that is actuated by the bolt carrier to block and unblock the trigger, which is a key element of the '223 patent's claims. However, a critical distinction lies in how the trigger is reset. The '223 patent explicitly claims that the hammer, as it is being cycled by the bolt carrier, makes contact with the trigger member to "force" it to the set position. The '307 application does not appear to describe this direct, hammer-forced reset of the trigger. Instead, it relies on a more conventional trigger return spring. Therefore, while it teaches the locking bar concept, it likely does not fully anticipate the combination of features in claims 1 and 4 of the '223 patent, which require both the locking bar and the hammer-forced reset.

2. U.S. Patent No. 7,398,723 B1 (Blakley)

Full Citation: US 7,398,723 B1, "Trigger forward displacement system and method"
Publication Date: July 15, 2008
Filing Date: April 25, 2003
Brief Description: The '723 patent discloses a system designed to forcibly reset the trigger of a semi-automatic firearm. It utilizes a "trigger extender" and a "cam body" that interact with the bolt carrier. As the bolt carrier moves, it acts upon this mechanism to push the trigger forward, preparing it for the next shot. The stated goal is to increase the potential rate of fire by actively displacing the trigger.
Potential Anticipation of Claims:
- Claim 1 & 4: The '723 patent teaches the concept of a "forced reset" or "forward displacement" of the trigger by the action of the bolt carrier, which is conceptually similar to the reset mechanism in the '223 patent. However, the mechanism by which this is achieved is different. The '723 patent uses a distinct "cam body subassembly" and "trigger extender," rather than having a surface on the hammer directly contact a surface on the trigger member to cause the reset. Furthermore, it does not explicitly disclose the spring-biased, pivoting "locking bar" that is disengaged by the bolt carrier only when it is in-battery, a crucial safety feature of the '223 patent's claims. Thus, the '723 patent does not appear to anticipate the specific combination of elements claimed in the '223 patent.

3. U.S. Patent No. 9,568,264 B2 (Graves)

Full Citation: US 9,568,264 B2, "Flex-fire technology"
Publication Date: February 14, 2017
Filing Date: September 11, 2014
Brief Description: This patent, one of several from the same inventor on "Flex-fire technology," describes a trigger reset mechanism that uses "rigid mechanical contact between the trigger and the gun bolt" to achieve a positive reset. It also includes a feature where the trigger is blocked from being depressed until late in the operating cycle, preventing the hammer from falling before the bolt is in battery.
Potential Anticipation of Claims:
- Claim 1 & 4: The Graves '264 patent presents a very strong piece of prior art. It teaches a forced reset through direct mechanical contact with a moving component of the firearm's action (the bolt). It also teaches blocking the trigger until the bolt is nearly or fully in battery. The key question for anticipation would be whether the '264 patent discloses the specific arrangement of the '223 patent: the hammer itself resetting the trigger and a separate, pivoting, spring-biased locking bar being acted upon by a specific surface on the bolt carrier. The '264 patent describes the gun bolt itself blocking the trigger. If the '264 patent does not describe the distinct, three-part interaction (bolt carrier -> locking bar -> trigger) and (bolt carrier -> hammer -> trigger) in the same manner as the '223 patent, it would not be a direct anticipation under § 102. However, it discloses a very similar functional system.

4. U.S. Patent No. 5,704,153 A (Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc.)

Full Citation: US 5,704,153 A, "Firearm battery and control module"
Publication Date: January 6, 1998
Filing Date: July 23, 1996
Brief Description: This patent discloses a modular fire control system for a firearm. The module contains the hammer, trigger, and other fire control components in a single, self-contained housing that can be easily installed into or removed from the firearm's receiver. This is an early example of a "drop-in" trigger unit.
Potential Anticipation of Claims:
- Claim 4: This patent is primarily relevant to the '223 patent's dependent claim 4, which specifies the trigger mechanism being contained within a "drop-in" housing. The '153 patent clearly anticipates the concept of a modular, drop-in fire control housing. However, it does not disclose the specific forced-reset and locking bar mechanism claimed in the '223 patent. Therefore, while it anticipates the "housing" element, it does not anticipate claim 4 as a whole, which requires the entire novel trigger mechanism to be within that housing.