Prior art — US Patent US7398723

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent No. 7,398,723

The following analysis details the prior art cited during the prosecution of US Patent No. 7,398,723 ("the '723 patent"). Each cited reference is examined for its potential to anticipate the single independent claim (Claim 1) of the '723 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Claim 1 of US7398723:
"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."

Analysis of Cited Prior Art:

The '723 patent itself identifies four key prior art references in its "Description of the Prior Art" section. The analysis will focus on these patents as they were considered by the inventor and presumably the examiner.

1. U.S. Patent No. 6,101,918 (Akins)

Full Citation: US 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 discloses a method where the firearm's receiver and action can recoil within the stock. This recoil moves the trigger away from a shooter's stationary finger, allowing the trigger to reset. A spring then returns the firearm to its forward position, causing the trigger to contact the finger again, firing another round. This process creates a rapid "bump firing" effect.
Potential Anticipation of Claim 1:
- Does it teach the elements? No. Akins does not use an internal cam activated by a reciprocating mechanism to reset the trigger. Instead, it relies on the external movement of the entire firearm action relative to the stock and the shooter's finger. The trigger is not actively "pushed" forward by an internal mechanism but rather moves away from the finger due to recoil.
- Conclusion: Akins '918 does not anticipate Claim 1. The fundamental mechanism of action is different; Akins '918 uses the recoil of the firearm within the stock, whereas the '723 patent uses an internal cam to mechanically reset the trigger.

2. U.S. Patent No. 4,023,465 (Inskip)

Full Citation: US Patent 4,023,465, "Firearm," filed June 27, 1975, and issued May 17, 1977.
Brief Description: The Inskip patent describes a mechanism for a firearm that uses the cycling of the bolt carrier to reset the trigger to a forward position. It is intended to regulate the rate of fire in a machine gun. The '723 patent specifically discusses Inskip, noting that its design can transmit the operator's trigger finger pressure vertically to the bolt carrier, potentially causing friction and stoppages.
Potential Anticipation of Claim 1:
- Does it teach the elements? Inskip discloses a reciprocating mechanism (the bolt carrier) that interacts with the trigger mechanism to force the trigger forward. This appears to teach the core concept of using the firearm's action to reset the trigger. However, the '723 patent's claim specifies a "cam" that simultaneously pushes and holds the trigger forward. The '723 patent argues that its cam-based design is different and avoids the binding issue present in Inskip's design. The key question for anticipation would be whether Inskip's mechanism constitutes a "cam" as described in the '723 patent and performs the claimed "simultaneous" push and hold function in a "single rotational motion."
- Conclusion: Inskip '465 is highly relevant prior art and may anticipate or render obvious the general concept of Claim 1. However, a detailed analysis would be required to determine if the specific mechanism in Inskip meets all the limitations of the claim, particularly the "cam" that "simultaneously" pushes and holds the trigger in a "single rotational motion." The '723 patent's own description suggests there are functional differences aimed at overcoming perceived flaws in the Inskip design.

3. U.S. Patent No. 4,787,288 (Miller)

Full Citation: US Patent 4,787,288, "Rapid fire trigger activator," filed July 24, 1987, and issued November 29, 1988.
Brief Description: This patent discloses an external device that attaches to the trigger guard of a semi-automatic firearm. It consists of a crank that, when turned, repeatedly actuates the trigger, allowing for rapid firing.
Potential Anticipation of Claim 1:
- Does it teach the elements? No. The Miller patent describes an external, manually operated crank mechanism. It does not involve an internal reciprocating mechanism of the firearm activating a cam to reset the trigger. The firing cycle is accelerated by an external, user-powered device, not the firearm's own action.
- Conclusion: Miller '288 does not anticipate Claim 1 as it operates on a completely different principle and is an external attachment rather than an internal mechanism.

4. U.S. Patent No. 4,697,495 (Beretta)

Full Citation: US 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. This involves modifying the trigger and sear mechanism to hold the bolt to the rear until the trigger is pulled.
Potential Anticipation of Claim 1:
- Does it teach the elements? No. The Beretta patent is focused on the mode of operation (closed-bolt vs. open-bolt) and the interaction between the trigger, sear, and bolt hold-open functions. It does not describe a mechanism where the reciprocating action of the firearm causes a cam to reset the trigger forward to increase the cyclic rate.
- Conclusion: Beretta '495 does not anticipate Claim 1 as it addresses a different technical problem and does not disclose the claimed method of trigger reset.

This analysis is based on the information available in the patent documents. A definitive legal determination of anticipation would require a more in-depth claim construction and expert analysis.