Prior art — US Patent 12038247

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.