Prior art

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent 7,398,723

This analysis examines the prior art cited by the examiner during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 7,398,723 ("the '723 patent"). The '723 patent has a single independent claim, which is a method claim. For a prior art reference to anticipate this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and every element of the claimed method in a single document.

The independent claim of the '723 patent reads:

Claim 1: A method of accelerating the firing cycle of a semi-automatic firearm comprising the steps of: depressing a firearm trigger with a finger to discharge the firearm; activating a reciprocating mechanism within the firearm that causes a cam, in a single rotational motion of the cam, to simultaneously push the trigger forward into a ready to fire position and hold the trigger forward in the ready to fire position until the reciprocating mechanism has reached an approximately closed, ready to fire position.

Below is an evaluation of the most relevant prior art cited against the '723 patent.

---

U.S. Patent No. 4,023,465 to Inskip

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent 4,023,465, "Firearm," filed June 27, 1975, and issued May 17, 1977.
• Brief Description: The Inskip patent discloses a firearm mechanism where the cycling of the bolt carrier forces the trigger to a forward, ready-to-fire position. It describes a system intended to regulate the rate of fire in a machine gun by linking the trigger's position to the movement of the bolt carrier. A lever interacts with the bolt carrier to push the trigger forward.
• Anticipation Analysis of Claim 1:
  • "depressing a firearm trigger with a finger to discharge the firearm": This is a fundamental action in any firearm and is implicitly disclosed by Inskip.
  • "activating a reciprocating mechanism within the firearm": Inskip's design relies on the movement of the bolt carrier, which is a reciprocating mechanism.
  • "that causes a cam, in a single rotational motion of the cam, to simultaneously push the trigger forward... and hold the trigger forward": This is the key point of distinction. The '723 patent itself argues that the Inskip mechanism is different. Inskip uses a lever that interacts with the bolt carrier to force the trigger forward. The '723 patent asserts that this creates an upward force on the bolt carrier throughout its cycle, which can cause binding. The '723 patent's use of a cam with a specific single rotational motion is designed to overcome this issue by bearing the trigger finger pressure within the accelerating mechanism itself, rather than transmitting it to the reciprocating bolt. While Inskip discloses the concept of resetting the trigger with the bolt, the specific mechanism and its claimed simultaneous "push and hold" function via a single rotational cam motion appears to be a point of novelty over Inskip. Therefore, Inskip likely does not anticipate claim 1 because it does not disclose the specific "cam" and its "single rotational motion" as claimed.

---

U.S. Patent No. 6,101,918 to Akins

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent 6,101,918, "Method and apparatus for accelerating the cyclic firing rate of a semi-automatic firearm," filed May 12, 1998, and issued August 15, 2000.
• Brief Description: The Akins patent describes a "bump-stock" type device. It uses the recoil of the firearm to move the receiver, action, and barrel rearward within a stock. This movement effectively pulls the trigger away from a stationary trigger finger, allowing the trigger to reset. The user maintains forward pressure on the firearm, causing the trigger to be "bumped" against the finger again once the recoil impulse subsides, firing the next shot.
• Anticipation Analysis of Claim 1:
  • Akins achieves an accelerated firing rate, but through a different method. The core of the '723 patent's claim is the internal reciprocating mechanism (like the bolt carrier) actively pushing the trigger forward via a cam. In Akins, the entire firearm recoils away from the finger; there is no internal cam acting directly on the trigger to force it forward. The reset is a consequence of the relative motion between the firearm and the shooter's stationary finger. Therefore, Akins does not disclose the "cam...push[ing] the trigger forward" element and does not anticipate claim 1.

---

U.S. Patent No. 4,787,288 to Miller

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent 4,787,288, "Rapid fire trigger activator," filed July 24, 1987, and issued November 29, 1988.
• Brief Description: Miller discloses an external device that attaches to the trigger guard of a semi-automatic firearm. It consists of a crank that, when turned, actuates a lever that repeatedly pulls and releases the trigger, simulating rapid fire.
• Anticipation Analysis of Claim 1:
  • The Miller device is an external attachment and does not use the firearm's internal reciprocating mechanism to reset the trigger. The trigger is actuated by an external, manually operated crank. It fails to disclose the key elements of the claim, including the "reciprocating mechanism within the firearm" causing a "cam" to "push the trigger forward." Therefore, Miller does not anticipate claim 1.

---

U.S. Patent No. 4,697,495 to Beretta

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent 4,697,495, "Tripping mechanism for the conversion closed-bolt automatic rifles to open-bolt ones," filed December 10, 1984, and issued October 6, 1987.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a mechanism to convert a closed-bolt firearm to an open-bolt one. It involves modifications to the trigger and sear mechanism to hold the bolt to the rear until the trigger is pulled.
• Anticipation Analysis of Claim 1:
  • The purpose and mechanism described in Beretta are fundamentally different from the '723 patent. Beretta is concerned with the mode of operation (open-bolt vs. closed-bolt), not with accelerating the firing rate by actively resetting the trigger forward with a cam actuated by the reciprocating mechanism. It does not disclose the elements of the claimed method and therefore does not anticipate claim 1.