US 12038247

Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247

Title: Firearm trigger mechanism

Assignee: ABC IP, LLC

Inventor: Brian A. Blakley

Filing Date: May 30, 2023

Issue Date: July 16, 2024

Abstract:
The patent describes a trigger mechanism for AR-pattern firearms that includes a hammer, a trigger member, a disconnector, a cam, and a three-position safety selector. The selector allows for "safe," "standard semi-automatic," and "forced reset semi-automatic" modes. In the standard semi-automatic mode, the disconnector catches the hammer after a shot, requiring the user to release the trigger to reset it. In the forced reset mode, the safety selector prevents the disconnector from engaging the hammer, and the movement of the bolt carrier forces the trigger to reset, allowing for a faster rate of fire without needing to release the trigger.

Plain-Language Summary of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a firearm trigger mechanism that can be installed in the fire control pocket of a receiver. It details the interaction of a hammer, trigger member, disconnector, and a pivoting cam. The key feature is a three-position safety selector that enables:
  • Safe: Prevents the trigger from being pulled.
  • Standard Semi-Automatic: After a shot, the bolt carrier's movement resets the hammer, which is then caught by a disconnector. The user must release the trigger to reset it for the next shot.
  • Forced Reset Semi-Automatic: The safety selector deactivates the disconnector. The bolt carrier's movement not only resets the hammer but also forces the trigger to reset via a cam mechanism. This allows for a subsequent shot without the user needing to manually release the trigger.
• Claim 4: This claim is similar to claim 1 but describes the trigger mechanism as being contained within a "housing" or "drop-in" module. This module, containing the hammer, trigger, disconnector, and cam, is designed to be easily installed into a firearm's receiver. The functionality with the three-position safety selector remains the same as in claim 1.
• Claim 9: This claim describes a complete firearm that includes the trigger mechanism from claim 1. It details the interaction between the reciprocating bolt carrier and the trigger mechanism's components (hammer, trigger, disconnector, cam, and three-position safety selector) to achieve the safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset semi-automatic modes of operation.
• Claim 14: This claim broadens the description of the cam, stating that it is "movably mounted" rather than specifically "pivoting." The core functionality remains the same as in claim 1, with the three-position safety selector controlling the standard and forced reset semi-automatic modes. This broader language could cover different mechanical designs for the cam's movement.
• Claim 15: This claim describes a firearm trigger mechanism with two modes: standard semi-automatic and forced reset semi-automatic. In the standard mode, a disconnector catches the hammer, and the user must release the trigger to fire again. In the forced reset mode, a cam forces the trigger to reset, and the disconnector is prevented from catching the hammer, allowing for a faster rate of fire.
• Claim 20: Similar to claim 15, this claim describes a trigger mechanism with safe, standard semi-automatic, and forced reset modes. It specifies that the cam is not part of the safety selector and that the selector operates by rotation. The trigger and disconnector are described as being on a coaxial pivot.

Litigation:

A search of court dockets indicates that U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 is currently involved in litigation. A case, ABC IP LLC v. Mars Trigger LLC, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on March 23, 2026. The plaintiff, ABC IP, LLC, alleges that the defendant's "Super Safety" firearm trigger mechanism infringes on this patent, among others. There is also a record of a PTAB case, IPR2025-01473, which has not been instituted. A search of CAFC dockets for "12038247" did not yield any direct results at this time.

Based on a review of available information as of April 27, 2026, U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 is involved in the following legal proceedings:

District Court Litigation

• Case Name: ABC IP LLC v. Mars Trigger LLC
• Plaintiff: ABC IP LLC
• Defendant: Mars Trigger LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 2:26-cv-00055
• Filing Date: March 23, 2026
• Status: The case is currently active. The complaint alleges that the defendant's "Super Safety" firearm trigger mechanism infringes on U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247, among others.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

• Case Name: IPR2025-01473
• Status: Not Instituted. The petition for an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 was denied.

A search of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and a broader search of PACER did not reveal additional litigation specifically naming U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 at this time.

Proceedings overview

The patent, U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247, has been subjected to one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-01473, which resulted in a denial of institution. This outcome indicates a stronger defensive posture for the patent owner, as the challenged claims remain undisturbed.

IPR2025-01473 — Atrius Development Group Corp. v. ABC IP LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-29
• Status: Institution Denied. This means the PTAB declined to initiate a formal review of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jennifer L. Blando, Brian S. Sullender, and Patrick J. Leal.
• Petition grounds: Atrius Development Group Corp. challenged claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, alleging obviousness in view of a combination of U.S. Patent No. 7,398,723 to Blakley (Blakley '723) and U.S. Patent No. 9,939,221 to Graves (Graves '221).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-21. The panel determined that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board found that the petitioner failed to adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the specific features of Blakley '723 and Graves '221 to arrive at the claimed invention, particularly regarding the distinct "three position" safety selector's interaction with the disconnector in the forced reset semi-automatic mode.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued from which to appeal.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution for IPR2025-01473 means that claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 have withstood a challenge based on the specific combination of Blakley '723 and Graves '221. A defendant facing assertion of these claims will find it harder to challenge them on the same grounds.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-06-01, claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 have been challenged in IPR2025-01473, and the petition for institution was denied. This means these claims are currently SUSTAINED against that particular challenge, and claims 9-23 remain UNTESTED by any AIA trial proceeding. The patent has not been narrowed through IPR.

The estoppel landscape dictates that Atrius Development Group Corp., and any party in privy with them, is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting that claims 1-8 are unpatentable on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01473. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means the specific combination of Blakley '723 and Graves '221 to challenge claims 1-8 as obvious under § 103 would be an unavailable ground if they are in privy with Atrius. However, other prior art combinations or different statutory bases (§ 102 anticipation or § 112 written description/enablement) for challenging claims 1-8, or any grounds against untested claims 9-23, would still be available.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner on this patent or aggressive appeals by the patent owner. The petitioner, Atrius Development Group Corp., does not appear to be a known defensive aggregator like Unified Patents.

Recommended next steps

The institution decision for IPR2025-01473, which denied the petition, can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal. The Board found that "Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of challenged claims 1-8 of the ’247 patent."

Given the denial of institution, there are no active PTAB proceedings pending for this patent, and thus no trial-stage milestones to note. The absence of successful PTAB challenges, especially for a patent involved in district court litigation, suggests that patent owner ABC IP LLC has a relatively strong position regarding the validity of claims 1-8 against the specific prior art and arguments presented in IPR2025-01473. Any future challenges would need to present new and compelling prior art or legal arguments to overcome the previous denial of institution.

Inventors

• Brian A. Blakley: Employed by ABC IP LLC at the time of filing, as the patent was assigned to ABC IP LLC on the filing date.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as named on the issued patent and at the time of filing, is ABC IP LLC.

ABC IP LLC is involved in the firearm industry, specifically with trigger mechanisms for AR-pattern firearms, including a "drop-in" replacement trigger module. The provided information does not explicitly state whether ABC IP LLC itself ships a product embodying the claims. However, they are actively asserting the patent in litigation.

Current Status: Active and litigating. The patent's legal status is "Active", and ABC IP LLC is the plaintiff in several infringement suits related to this patent.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov) for US Patent No. 12,038,247 yielded no recorded assignments. This indicates that the original assignee, ABC IP LLC, remains the current owner of record as reflected on the patent's front page and in Google Patents data, and no subsequent transfers have been publicly recorded.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12038247
    2022 : Priority date
    2023 : Application filed by ABC IP LLC
    2024 : Patent issued to ABC IP LLC
    2026 : First infringement suit filed
         : No further recorded assignments

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Unclear. While "ABC IP LLC" suggests an intellectual property holding company, there is no explicit information in the provided context (e.g., registered-agent address, confirmation of no products in commerce) to definitively classify it as a shell entity. However, the extensive litigation activity is characteristic of an entity primarily focused on patent assertion.
2. Known asserter in the chain: Present. The current assignee, ABC IP LLC, is actively asserting this patent against multiple defendants across various U.S. District Courts. The presence of "Unified Patents Litigation Data" in the Google Patents record and the listing of multiple cases by Unified Patents against this patent family further suggest that ABC IP LLC is recognized as a high-frequency plaintiff or NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent on the USPTO Assignment Center, so no correspondent records are available for review.
4. Cascading transfers: Not present. There are no recorded assignments for this patent on the USPTO Assignment Center.
5. Pre-litigation transfer: Not present. The patent was assigned to ABC IP LLC on its filing date (2023-05-30), well before the first recorded litigation filing date of March 23, 2026. There are no recorded assignments within six months of the litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present. No information indicates ABC IP LLC has filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering: Unclear. There is no information in the provided context to determine if ABC IP LLC is asserting patents on behalf of an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present. The patent is currently being asserted by ABC IP LLC, rather than being held by a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The verdict is high confidence NPE due to the current assignee, ABC IP LLC, being the plaintiff in numerous infringement lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions. This extensive and geographically dispersed litigation activity, coupled with the nature of the entity's name ("IP LLC"), strongly indicates a primary business model of patent assertion.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US12038247

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247

The following is an analysis of prior art references cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247. Each reference is evaluated for its potential to anticipate the claims of the '247 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

---

1. U.S. Patent No. 9,939,221 B2 (Graves)

• Full Citation: US 9,939,221 B2, "Firearm trigger mechanism," Inventor: Thomas Allen Graves, Assignee: Fost-ech, Inc., Publication Date: April 10, 2018 (Filed: Jan. 26, 2017).
• Brief Description: The Graves '221 patent describes a trigger assembly for a semi-automatic firearm designed to increase the rate of fire. It features a trigger that, when pulled, fires a round. The subsequent rearward movement of the bolt carrier assembly interacts with a secondary sear, which holds the hammer. As the bolt carrier returns to battery, it releases the secondary sear, causing the hammer to strike the firing pin and fire another round, provided the shooter maintains pressure on the trigger. This creates a "forced-reset" or "echo" firing mode. The mechanism includes a selector switch to choose between standard semi-automatic and the echo mode.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The Graves '221 patent discloses a trigger mechanism with multiple modes of operation, including a standard semi-automatic mode and a mode that facilitates a rapid rate of fire.
  • Claim 1 & 14: These claims describe a mechanism where a cam, actuated by the bolt carrier, forces the trigger member to reset. While Graves '221 achieves a similar outcome (a second shot upon bolt return), its mechanism operates differently. It uses a secondary sear and a "trigger locking slide" rather than a pivoting cam that directly forces the trigger member to its set position as described in the '247 patent. Therefore, Graves '221 does not appear to anticipate these claims directly, as the specific mechanical interactions differ.
  • Claim 15 & 20: These claims describe a trigger mechanism with a standard semi-automatic mode and a forced reset semi-automatic mode, where a cam forces the trigger member towards its set position. As with claims 1 and 14, the mechanism disclosed in Graves '221, while achieving a similar effect, does so through a different mechanical arrangement. The '247 patent's use of a dedicated cam with a cam lobe to directly reset the trigger member is a distinguishing feature.

---

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

• Full Citation: US 7,398,723 B1, "Trigger forward displacement system and method," Inventor: Brian A. Blakley, Publication Date: July 15, 2008 (Filed: Apr. 25, 2003).
• Brief Description: This patent, by the same inventor as the '247 patent, describes an earlier version of a forced-reset trigger. It details a system where the rearward movement of the bolt carrier actuates a pivoting cam. This cam, in turn, presses on a trigger extension, forcing the trigger to move forward and reset. The system is designed to increase the rate of fire by mechanically resetting the trigger.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The Blakley '723 patent is highly relevant prior art as it discloses a core concept of the '247 patent: a cam-actuated forced reset of the trigger by the bolt carrier.
  • Claim 1, 4, 9, 14, 15, & 20: Blakley '723 discloses a hammer, a trigger member, a disconnector, and a pivoting cam actuated by the bolt carrier to force the trigger to reset. This appears to teach the fundamental "forced reset semi-automatic" functionality. However, a key distinction in the '247 patent is the "three position" safety selector that allows the user to switch between a standard semi-automatic mode (where the disconnector functions normally) and a forced reset semi-automatic mode (where the disconnector is disabled). The '723 patent does not appear to describe this three-position selector or the ability to switch between these two distinct modes of semi-automatic operation. Therefore, while disclosing a forced reset mechanism, it does not anticipate the combination of features claimed in the independent claims of the '247 patent, particularly the selectable disconnector function.

---

3. U.S. Patent No. 10,514,223 B2 (Assigned to ABC IP, LLC)

• Full Citation: US 10,514,223 B2, "Firearm trigger mechanism," Inventors: Brian A. Blakley, et al., Assignee: ABC IP, LLC, Publication Date: Dec. 24, 2019 (Filed: Jan. 15, 2019).
• Brief Description: This patent, also assigned to the same entity as the '247 patent, describes a forced-reset trigger mechanism. In this design, the hammer itself has a cam surface that directly acts on a portion of the trigger assembly to force the trigger to reset as the hammer is being cocked by the rearward movement of the bolt carrier. A locking bar is included to prevent "hammer follow."
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is highly relevant as it comes from the same inventive entity and addresses the same technical problem.
  • Claim 1, 4, 9, 14, 15, & 20: While this patent describes a forced reset mechanism, it differs from the '247 patent in how the reset is achieved. The '223 patent uses a cam surface on the hammer to reset the trigger, whereas the '247 patent uses a separate, dedicated cam that is actuated by the bolt carrier. This difference in the mechanical means of achieving the forced reset would likely prevent the '223 patent from being considered a direct anticipation of the claims of the '247 patent, which specifically recite a distinct cam component.

---

4. U.S. Patent No. 11,346,627 B2 (Assigned to ABC IP, LLC)

• Full Citation: US 11,346,627 B2, "Firearm trigger mechanism," Inventors: Brian A. Blakley, et al., Assignee: ABC IP, LLC, Publication Date: May 31, 2022 (Filed: May 12, 2021).
• Brief Description: This patent is another related invention from the same assignee. It discloses a forced-reset trigger mechanism that, similar to the '223 patent, utilizes a component of the hammer to interact with the trigger for resetting. It also includes a locking bar to prevent out-of-battery discharge.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1, 4, 9, 14, 15, & 20: Similar to the '223 patent, the mechanism described in the '627 patent relies on the hammer's geometry to reset the trigger, not a separate, bolt-carrier-actuated cam as claimed in the '247 patent. This distinction in the core resetting mechanism likely prevents this patent from being considered a direct anticipation. The '247 patent's claims are specific to a configuration involving a separate cam, which is not present in the '627 patent's described embodiment.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247

Date of Analysis: April 29, 2026

Patent Under Review:

• Patent Number: US 12,038,247 B2
• Title: Firearm trigger mechanism
• Filing Date: May 30, 2023
• Priority Date: September 8, 2022
• Inventor: Brian A. Blakley
• Assignee: ABC IP, LLC

---

Introduction

This analysis examines the patentability of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 ('247 patent) in light of prior art, specifically under the legal standard of non-obviousness as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 103. The '247 patent describes a "three position" trigger mechanism for AR-pattern firearms, featuring a safe mode, a standard semi-automatic mode, and a forced reset semi-automatic mode. The key inventive concept appears to be the integration of a selectable disconnector function, which allows the user to switch between a conventional semi-automatic operation and a "forced reset" operation, all within a single trigger assembly.

Legal Standard for Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)

A patent claim is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA). This analysis requires considering the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. A key consideration is whether there would have been a reason or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.

Prior Art Analysis and Combination

The primary prior art references relevant to this analysis are U.S. Patent No. 7,398,723 B1 to Blakley (Blakley '723) and U.S. Patent No. 9,939,221 B2 to Graves (Graves '221).

1. Blakley '723: This patent, by the same inventor, is the foundational reference for the forced reset mechanism. It discloses a firearm trigger that uses a pivoting cam actuated by the bolt carrier to push the trigger forward, thereby resetting it. This allows for a rapid rate of fire, as the user's finger does not need to be lifted off the trigger to reset the mechanism. However, Blakley '723 does not teach a multi-mode selector that allows the user to switch between this forced reset mode and a standard semi-automatic mode where the disconnector functions normally.

2. Graves '221: This patent discloses a firearm trigger mechanism with a selector switch that allows the user to choose between a standard semi-automatic mode and an "echo" mode, which also enables a rapid rate of fire. While the underlying mechanism for the "echo" mode (using a secondary sear) is different from the cam-based forced reset in the '247 patent, the concept of a multi-mode selector for different semi-automatic firing styles is clearly taught.

Motivation to Combine

A person of ordinary skill in the art of firearm design, presented with the '247 patent's objective of creating a versatile trigger mechanism, would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Blakley '723 and Graves '221 for the following reasons:

• Providing User Choice: The market for firearm accessories demonstrates a clear demand for user-configurable options. A shooter may desire the rapid-fire capability of a forced-reset trigger for certain applications (e.g., competition) but prefer the feel and control of a standard semi-automatic trigger for others (e.g., precision shooting).
• Combining Known Features: Blakley '723 teaches a functional forced-reset trigger. Graves '221 teaches a selector switch to alternate between different semi-automatic modes. Combining these known elements—a selectable mode switch with a known trigger mechanism—is a predictable and logical design choice to enhance functionality. The "three-position" selector (safe, semi-auto, forced-reset) is a well-established concept in firearm design, making its application to this combination a matter of routine engineering.

Obviousness Argument Against Independent Claims

Re: Claims 1, 4, 9, 14, 15, and 20

These claims describe a firearm trigger mechanism with a hammer, trigger, disconnector, and a cam that forces the trigger to reset. The core of the claims is the addition of a three-position safety selector that allows switching between a "standard semi-automatic" mode (where the disconnector functions) and a "forced reset semi-automatic" mode (where the selector prevents the disconnector from engaging the hammer).

1. Blakley '723 in view of Graves '221:

   • Blakley '723 discloses all the essential mechanical components of the forced reset mode: a hammer, trigger, a cam that interacts with the bolt carrier, and a mechanism to reset the trigger.
   • Graves '221 teaches the use of a selector switch to alternate between a standard semi-automatic mode and a rapid-fire mode.
   • A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to add a standard semi-automatic mode to the forced-reset design of Blakley '723, would find it obvious to use a multi-position selector, as taught by Graves '221, to selectively engage or disengage the disconnector. The '247 patent's method of using a "narrow semi-circular portion" (116) on the safety selector to prevent the disconnector from pivoting is a known and straightforward mechanical implementation of such a selection function.

2. Detailed Breakdown by Claim Elements:

   • Hammer, Trigger, Sear, Cam (Claims 1, 4, 9, 14, 15, 20): These elements and their function in a forced-reset context are substantially taught by Blakley '723.
   • Disconnector (Claims 1, 4, 9, 14, 15, 20): A standard disconnector is a fundamental component of AR-pattern firearms, and its function is well-known in the art. Blakley '723 also includes a disconnector.
   • Three-Position Safety Selector (Claims 1, 4, 9, 20): This is the key distinguishing feature. While Blakley '723 lacks this, Graves '221 teaches the use of a selector to switch between different firing modes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply a similar selector mechanism to the Blakley '723 design to create a multi-mode trigger. The selector's interaction with the disconnector (preventing it from catching the hammer hook in the forced-reset mode) would be a logical and predictable way to "disable" the standard semi-automatic reset and enable the forced reset.
   • Housing/Module (Claim 4, 10, 11, 16): The concept of a "drop-in" trigger module is a well-established art in the firearms industry for simplifying installation and improving performance. It represents a common and obvious design choice for packaging a trigger mechanism, not an inventive step in itself.
   • Spring Biasing (Claim 3, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18): The use of springs to bias trigger components is fundamental to firearm design and would be considered an obvious and necessary element for the proper functioning of the mechanism.

Conclusion

The claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247 appear to be vulnerable to an obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The core forced-reset mechanism is disclosed in the inventor's own prior art (Blakley '723). The primary addition in the '247 patent is a three-position selector that allows the user to choose between standard semi-automatic and forced-reset semi-automatic modes by selectively disabling the disconnector. The concept of a multi-mode selector for a semi-automatic firearm is taught by prior art such as Graves '221. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine these known elements to create a trigger system with the claimed functionality, as it represents a straightforward combination of existing technologies to achieve a predictable result. The packaging of this mechanism into a drop-in module is also a well-known and obvious design choice in the field.

As of April 29, 2026, the following information is available for U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247:

Patent Term Analysis

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There is no indication of any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) for this patent. The time between the filing date (May 30, 2023) and the issue date (July 16, 2024) is less than three years, making it unlikely to have accrued significant A-delay. A detailed review of the file wrapper on the USPTO's Patent Center would be required to confirm the exact number of any PTA days, but it is expected to be zero.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no indication of any Patent Term Extension (PTE) for this patent. PTE is typically granted for delays caused by regulatory review (e.g., by the FDA) and is not applicable to this technology.
• Anticipated Expiration: The patent was filed on May 30, 2023. Barring any terminal disclaimers or other adjustments, its 20-year term would end on May 30, 2043.

Related Applications and Patent Family

• Priority Application: This patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/374,941, filed on September 8, 2022.
• Continuation Application: A continuation application, U.S. Application No. 18/761,606, was filed on July 2, 2024. This application claims priority to the same provisional application as the '247 patent. A continuation application allows the applicant to pursue additional claims related to the invention disclosed in the parent application.
• Other Related Patents/Applications:
  • The patent text references U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,514,223 and 11,346,627 as related art from the same assignee.
  • Litigation documents indicate that U.S. Patent No. 12,578,159, issued March 17, 2026, also shares the same priority date of September 8, 2022, and is part of the same patent family.
  • The assignee, ABC IP, LLC, holds other related patents in the field of forced reset triggers, such as U.S. Patent No. 12,031,784 and U.S. Patent No. 12,274,807.

This information suggests an active and ongoing strategy by the assignee to build a comprehensive patent portfolio around this trigger mechanism technology.

Defensive Technology Disclosure: Firearm Trigger Mechanism with Multi-Mode Reset

Publication Date: April 29, 2026

Abstract: This document discloses multiple variations, enhancements, and alternative applications of a firearm trigger mechanism that features a selectable mode of operation, including a standard semi-automatic mode and a forced-reset semi-automatic mode. The disclosed embodiments are intended to enter the public domain to act as prior art against future patent applications in this and adjacent fields. The core mechanism involves a cam system actuated by the firearm's bolt carrier, which, in a specific mode, physically resets the trigger, and a selector that can disable the disconnector function.

Claim 1/14/15/20: Firearm Trigger Mechanism with Selectable Reset and Disconnector Lockout

Derivative 1.1: Material and Component Substitution - Polymer-Ceramic Composite Fire Control Group

• Enabling Description: The hammer (36), trigger (38), disconnector (60), and cam (72) are manufactured from a high-pressure, injection-molded, carbon-fiber-reinforced ceramic-polymer composite. This material offers reduced weight, self-lubricating properties (by impregnating with PTFE), and significantly lower thermal expansion compared to steel, ensuring consistent trigger-pull weight under high-temperature firing schedules. The pivot pins (30, 32, 74) are replaced with case-hardened S7 tool steel for superior wear resistance at critical rotation points. The cam lobe (78) and hammer's sear catch (52) feature a vapor-deposited diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating to minimize friction and wear during the forced-reset cycle, improving reliability and component lifespan.
• Mermaid.js Diagram:

  graph TD;
      subgraph Firearm Receiver
          A[Bolt Carrier - Rearward Movement] --> B{Cam Actuation};
          B --> C{Cam Lobe Engages Trigger};
          C --> D[Trigger Reset];
          D --> E{Sear Re-engagement};
          E --> F[Hammer Cocked];
          A --> F;
      end
      subgraph Material Composition
          G[Hammer/Trigger/Disconnector/Cam] -- Injection Molded --> H(Carbon-Fiber/Ceramic-Polymer Composite);
          I[Sear/Cam Lobe Contact Surfaces] -- Vapor Deposition --> J(Diamond-Like Carbon Coating);
          K[Pivot Pins] -- Case Hardened --> L(S7 Tool Steel);
      end
      H --> G;
      J --> G;
      L -- Supports --> G;
  

Derivative 1.2: Material and Component Substitution - Magnetorheological Fluid Damper

• Enabling Description: The disconnector spring (67) is replaced with a miniature, sealed magnetorheological (MR) fluid damper. An electric coil, controlled by the safety selector (110), surrounds this damper. In standard semi-auto mode, no current is applied, and the damper provides standard spring-like resistance. In forced-reset mode, the selector sends a current through the coil, increasing the viscosity of the MR fluid to the point where it becomes semi-solid. This effectively locks the disconnector (60) in a downward position, preventing it from engaging the hammer hook (53). This provides a non-contact, wear-free method of disconnector deactivation.
• Mermaid.js Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User
      participant SafetySelector as Selector
      participant MCU
      participant MR_Damper as Magnetorheological Damper
      participant Disconnector
  
      User->>+Selector: Set to "Forced Reset"
      Selector->>MCU: Send "Forced Reset" Signal
      MCU->>MR_Damper: Apply Current to Coil
      MR_Damper->>MR_Damper: Fluid Viscosity Increases (Semi-Solid)
      MR_Damper-->>Disconnector: Lock in Downward Position
      Disconnector-->>User: Disconnector Disabled
  

Derivative 2.1: Operational Parameter Expansion - High-Frequency/Low-Mass Application

• Enabling Description: The mechanism is scaled down for use in a high-speed, electrically-actuated, low-mass projectile launcher, such as a pneumatic or coilgun system. The "bolt carrier" is a lightweight, high-speed reciprocating shuttle. The hammer (36) is replaced by a miniaturized, high-speed solenoid-driven striker. The cam (72) and trigger member (38) are fabricated from titanium alloys (e.g., Ti-6Al-4V) to minimize inertia. The system is designed to operate at cyclic rates exceeding 3,000 rounds per minute. The forced-reset mechanism is critical at this speed, as human reflex is insufficient to reset the trigger between shots. The cam profile (78) is optimized with a logarithmic spiral to ensure a smooth, non-jerky reset force on the trigger member's cam follower (58) even at extreme speeds.
• Mermaid.js Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph High-Frequency Actuator
          A[Reciprocating Shuttle - Rearward Motion] --> B(Actuates Micro-Cam);
          B --> C(Resets Titanium Trigger);
          D[Solenoid Striker] --Reset by Shuttle--> E[Ready State];
          C --> F{Sear Re-engages Solenoid};
      end
      subgraph Control System
          G[Fire Control Unit] --Trigger Pull--> H{Release Striker Solenoid};
          H --> D;
          F --> G;
      end
  

Derivative 3.1: Cross-Domain Application - Haptic Feedback System

• Enabling Description: The core mechanical principle is adapted for a haptic feedback device, such as a force-feedback joystick or surgical robot controller. The "bolt carrier" is a linear actuator, and the "hammer" is a weighted element that strikes an internal surface to create a sharp haptic impulse. The "trigger" is a user-operated button or joystick axis. In "standard" mode, the user must fully release the button to re-engage the haptic mechanism. In "forced-reset" mode, the linear actuator's return stroke engages the cam, which physically pushes the user's finger and the button back to the ready position, providing a tangible "kick" and enabling rapid, successive haptic events. This can be used to simulate recoil, impacts, or tool-surface interactions in a virtual environment.
• Mermaid.js Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph Haptic Controller
          A(User Pushes Button) --> B{Electrical Signal Sent};
          B --> C[Microcontroller];
          C --> D[Actuator Fired];
          D --Moves forward--> E(Weighted Hammer Strikes Surface);
          E --Generates--> F(Haptic Impulse);
          D --Begins Return Stroke--> G(Cam Engages Button Lever);
          G --> H(Button/Finger Physically Pushed Back to Reset);
          H --> A;
      end
  

Derivative 3.2: Cross-Domain Application - High-Speed Industrial Stapler/Nailer

• Enabling Description: In a pneumatic or electric industrial fastening tool (e.g., a framing nailer or assembly line stapler), the "bolt carrier" is the piston/driver blade assembly. The "hammer" is the firing valve release mechanism. The cam (72) is linked to the piston's return stroke. In "standard" single-shot mode, the operator must release and re-press the trigger for each nail. In "forced-reset" or "bump-fire" mode, the selector (110) disables the disconnector. With the trigger held down, each time the piston returns after driving a nail, the cam forces the trigger mechanism to reset instantly. The tool will then fire again as soon as the safety tip is re-compressed against the work surface, allowing for extremely rapid fastening.
• Mermaid.js Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Press Tool to Workpiece] --> B{Depress Safety Tip};
      B --> C[Pull Trigger];
      C --> D{Actuate Firing Valve};
      D --> E[Drive Piston/Nail];
      E --> F[Piston Reciprocates];
      F --Engages--> G(Cam);
      G --Resets--> C;
      C --If Held & Safety Depressed--> D;
  

Derivative 3.3: Cross-Domain Application - Automated Textile Weaving/Tufting Machine

• Enabling Description: In a high-speed textile machine, a series of needles ("hammers") must be actuated to punch yarn through a backing material. The reciprocating motion of the needle bar assembly ("bolt carrier") can be harnessed. The cam mechanism (72) is adapted to reset a clutch or latching system ("trigger member" 58) for each needle. By engaging the "forced reset" mode, the needle bar's return stroke immediately re-engages the drive clutch for that needle, enabling continuous, high-speed tufting or weaving without a separate reset signal. This eliminates the need for complex electronic timing for the reset, simplifying the design and increasing the operational speed of the loom or tufting gun.

• Mermaid.js Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Needle Bar Down-Stroke] --> B(Yarn Injected);
      B --> C[Needle Bar Up-Stroke];
      C --Engages--> D(Reset Cam);
      D --Resets--> E(Drive Clutch);
      E --Re-engages--> A;
  

Derivative 4.1: Integration with Emerging Tech - AI-Tuned Recoil Management

• Enabling Description: The firearm is equipped with an accelerometer and a small onboard microprocessor running a trained AI model. The cam (72) is not fixed but is mounted on a piezoelectric actuator. In "forced-reset" mode, the AI model analyzes recoil data from the accelerometer in real-time. It then precisely adjusts the position and angle of the cam via the piezoelectric actuator during the bolt carrier's cycle. This modulation of the cam's engagement with the trigger member (38) changes the timing and force of the trigger's reset. The AI can be trained to either (1) maximize the rate of fire by resetting the trigger at the exact peak of the recoil impulse, or (2) smooth out the "feel" of the reset to minimize sight picture disruption for the specific user. A companion smartphone app allows the user to select different recoil management profiles.
• Mermaid.js Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant User
      participant Trigger
      participant Bolt_Carrier
      participant Accelerometer
      participant AI_Processor
      participant Piezo_Cam
  
      User->>Trigger: Pull
      Trigger->>Bolt_Carrier: Fire and Cycle
      Bolt_Carrier->>Accelerometer: Generate Recoil Data
      Accelerometer->>AI_Processor: Send Data
      AI_Processor->>AI_Processor: Analyze Recoil Profile
      AI_Processor->>Piezo_Cam: Adjust Cam Position/Angle
      Bolt_Carrier->>Piezo_Cam: Actuate Adjusted Cam
      Piezo_Cam->>Trigger: Execute Optimized Reset
  

Derivative 4.2: Integration with Emerging Tech - IoT-Enabled Round Counting and Maintenance Alerts

• Enabling Description: The cam pin (74) is replaced with a smart pin containing a piezoelectric sensor and a low-power IoT communication module (e.g., LoRaWAN or NB-IoT). Each time the cam (72) is actuated by the bolt carrier, it exerts force on the pin, generating a detectable electrical pulse. This pulse is registered as a single firing cycle. The IoT module maintains a secure, blockchain-verified round count for the firearm. It transmits this data periodically to a cloud-based maintenance log. When the round count approaches a predetermined service interval (e.g., for barrel replacement, spring changes), the system automatically sends an alert to the user's mobile device or a designated armorer. The blockchain ledger ensures the firing history is tamper-proof, which is valuable for law enforcement or military inventory management.
• Mermaid.js Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Bolt Carrier Cycles] --> B(Actuates Cam 72);
      B --Pivots on--> C[Smart Pin 74];
      C --Generates Piezo Pulse--> D{IoT Module};
      D --Increments Counter--> E(On-board Flash Memory);
      D --Transmits Data--> F((Cloud Server));
      F --Logs Data--> G[Blockchain Ledger];
      G --Check Condition--> H{Round_Count > Threshold?};
      H --Yes--> I[Send Maintenance Alert];
      H --No--> J[Continue Monitoring];
  

Derivative 5.1: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode - Failsafe Disconnector Engagement

• Enabling Description: The mechanism is designed with a "fail-safe" or "dead-man's switch" feature. The disconnector (60) is held out of engagement in the forced-reset mode by a small, spring-loaded plunger or an electromagnet integrated into the safety selector (110). If the firearm is dropped or experiences a significant shock, a simple inertia-based switch or accelerometer de-energizes the electromagnet (or releases the plunger). This immediately allows the disconnector spring (67) to force the disconnector (60) back into its active position. The result is that any shock or failure automatically reverts the trigger to the standard, safer semi-automatic mode, where the hammer will be caught by the disconnector after a single shot, preventing an unintended discharge during the subsequent forced-reset cycle.
• Mermaid.js Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Standard_Semi
      Standard_Semi --> Forced_Reset: Selector Moved
      Forced_Reset --> Standard_Semi: Selector Moved
  
      state "Forced Reset (Disconnector Disabled)" as Forced_Reset {
          state "System Normal" as Normal
          state "Shock/Impact Detected" as Shock
          Normal --> Shock: Inertial Switch/Accelerometer Trigger
          Shock --> Revert: Deactivate Electromagnet
      }
      Revert --> Standard_Semi: Disconnector Re-Engages
  

Combination with Open-Source Standards

1. Combination with RISC-V Microcontroller Core: The trigger mechanism is integrated with an open-source RISC-V-based microcontroller unit (MCU). The safety selector (110) becomes a multi-position electronic switch. The MCU reads the selector's position and directly controls micro-actuators (solenoids or servos) that engage or disengage the disconnector and can even adjust the trigger pull weight by varying spring tension via a worm gear. This allows for a programmable trigger where "standard," "forced--reset," and potentially other modes (e.g., binary, burst) could be selected or even programmed by the user via a Bluetooth-connected app. All firmware for the RISC-V MCU is released under an open-source license like GPLv3.

2. Combination with Arduino-Compatible Sensor Shield: A custom "Fire Control Shield" is designed to mount onto a standard Arduino or similar open-source microcontroller board. This shield contains the complete trigger module (10) as described in the patent. The a cam (72) and hammer (36) positions are monitored by Hall effect sensors. The safety selector is a digital input. This allows hobbyists, researchers, and engineers to use an open-source hardware and software platform to analyze firearm performance, measure split times, and develop custom fire control logic for non-lethal training systems (e.g., laser-based simulators) or robotics applications, leveraging the mechanical principles of the forced-reset trigger.

3. Combination with open-source CAD/3D Printing Formats (STEP/3MF): The housing (12) and non-critical internal components like the trigger blade (54) are redesigned as a set of open-source 3D models released in STEP and 3MF formats. These models are specifically designed to be printed on widely available Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) or Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) 3D printers using high-strength polymers like carbon-fiber-infused nylon. This allows for rapid prototyping of custom ergonomics, aesthetics, and integration with other accessories, while the core high-stress components (hammer, sear, cam) remain machined from metal. This separates the non-patentable housing from the patented mechanism, placing the housing's geometry and its interface with the receiver into the public domain.