DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mains does not disclose the claimed trigger detection switch button, and Alicea does not cure this deficiency (Remarks, filed 07/31/25, pp. 5-6). Examiner first notes that a “trigger detection switch button” is not claimed in claim 1. Second, Examiner notes that the previous office action (non-final rejection, filed 02/07/25) notes that it is Ozaki which teaches the recited limitation.
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as presented in detail below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10-11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“virtual reality system; a trigger structure” recited in claim 1, ln. 7-8 should likely read “virtual reality system; and a trigger structure”;
“the safety switch” recited in claim 1, ln. 12-13 should likely read “the safety detection switch” for consistency purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity;
“a plurality of positions corresponding to the firing mode” recited in claim 10, ln. 2-3 should likely read “a plurality of positions corresponding to a plurality of firing modes”;
“positions associated with the firing mode” recited in claim 11, ln. 3 should likely read “positions associated with a plurality of firing modes”; and
“wherein rotating safety selector level” recited in claim 13, ln. 1-2 should likely read “wherein rotating the safety selector lever”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “a safety structure comprising a safety detection switch to detect user selection of a firing mode or a safety mode of the selective-fire weapon and a first electrical circuit configured to communicate signals of the user selection to the virtual reality system”. However, the Specification does not appear to disclose a safety structure comprising a safety detection switch and a first electrical circuit. Rather, the Specification appears to disclose wherein the safety detection switch and the first electrical circuit are the same component (see Specification, [0008], “The circuit board comprises a safety detection switch comprising a first electrical circuit configured to communicate signals representative of firing models selected on a selective-fire weapon to a virtual reality computing device.”; see further Specification, Figs. 11 & 13; [0047], “The safety detection switch 1104 comprises an electrical circuit configured to communicate electrical signals representative of changes in firing modes selected on the selective-fire weapon to a virtual reality computing device.”), as opposed to two distinct components of a safety structure, as required by the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 lacks written description.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites in part “a trigger structure comprising a trigger and a trigger detection switch to detect a user pull of the trigger of the selective-fire weapon and a second electrical circuit configured to communicate signals from the trigger detection switch to the virtual reality system”. However, the Specification does not appear to disclose a trigger structure comprising a trigger, a trigger detection switch, and a second electrical circuit. Rather, the Specification discloses wherein the trigger detection switch comprises the second electrical circuit (Specification, Figs. 11 & 13; [0008]; [0047]), as opposed to being two separate components of the trigger structure as required by the claim. Accordingly, claim 1 lacks written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in part “a safety structure comprising a safety detection switch to detect user selection of a firing mode or a safety mode of the selective-fire weapon and a first electrical circuit configured to communicate signals of the user selection to the virtual reality system”. It is indefinite as to how the safety detection switch and the first electrical circuit differ, as required by the claim, and the Specification does not offer further guidance (see Specification, [0008], “The circuit board comprises a safety detection switch comprising a first electrical circuit configured to communicate signals representative of firing models selected on a selective-fire weapon to a virtual reality computing device.”; see further Specification, Figs. 11 & 13; [0047], “The safety detection switch 1104 comprises an electrical circuit configured to communicate electrical signals representative of changes in firing modes selected on the selective-fire weapon to a virtual reality computing device.”).
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites in part “a trigger structure comprising a trigger and a trigger detection switch to detect a user pull of the trigger of the selective-fire weapon and a second electrical circuit configured to communicate signals from the trigger detection switch to the virtual reality system”. It is indefinite as to how the trigger detection switch and the second electrical circuit differ, as required by the claim, and the Specification does not offer further guidance (see Specification, [0008], “The circuit board further comprises a trigger detection switch comprising a second electrical circuit configured to communicate signals representative of trigger pull on the selective-fire weapon to the virtual reality computing device.”; see further Specification, Figs. 11 & 13; [0047], “Trigger detection switch 1106 comprises an electrical circuit configured to communicate electrical signals representative of trigger pull on the selective-fire weapon to the virtual reality computing device.”).
Claim 9 recites in part “the safety detection switch button” in ln. 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 13 recites in part “the plurality of firing modes” in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mains (WO 2016070201 A1) in view of Ozaki et al. (U.S. 6,672,962 B1) (hereinafter “Ozaki”) and Alicea (U.S. Pub. 2017/0089656 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mains discloses a circuit board for detecting selective fire of a selective-fire weapon in communication with a virtual reality system (p. 49, ln. 3-11; p. 65, ln. 21-23, volumetric area(s) may be used to house the controlling circuitry, and wherein the firearm simulation systems described may be used in virtual reality gaming peripherals), the circuit board comprising:
a safety structure comprising a safety detection switch to detect user selection of a firing mode or a safety mode of the selective-fire weapon and a first electrical circuit configured to communicate signals of the user selection to the virtual reality system (p. 19, ln. 15-27; p. 34, ln. 10-p. 35, ln. 7; p. 49, ln. 12-25, simulated firearm body may include a selector switch 450 operatively connected to controller 50 and operated by a user for controlling the type of operation firearm training system 10 (i.e., plurality of modes of simulation such as safety, semi-automatic firing mode, fully automatic firing mode, and burst firing mode)).
Mains further discloses a trigger structure, where a user may pull on trigger 170 which is connected to trigger switch 172, thereby sending a signal to controller 50 (p. 26, ln. 22-28). Additionally, Mains discloses wherein the existing infrastructure may be connected to the simulations / gaming computer, and wherein the computer may determine, for example, how many rounds have been spent by user in the training device (p. 34, ln. 17-p. 35, ln. 7). However, Mains may not explicitly disclose a trigger structure further comprising a trigger detection switch to detect a user pull of the trigger of the selective-fire weapon and a second electrical circuit configured to communicate signals from the trigger detection switch to the virtual reality system. However, Ozaki, directed to a gun-shaped controller compatible with virtual game(s) (Col. 1, ln. 6-18; Col. 1, ln. 64-Col. 2, ln. 6; Col. 24, ln. 48-52), teaches this limitation (Figs. 20-21; Col. 1, ln. 6-18; Col. 16, ln. 38-53; Col. 16, ln. 66-Col. 17, ln. 6, “Provided to the trigger lever 47 is a trigger switch 98 for converting operation signals of such trigger lever to electric signals. […] [T]he output of the trigger switch 98 and the output of the directional switches 99a, 99b are respectively connected to the digital input port of the signal processing circuit 53”, wherein the signal processing circuit 53 (second electrical circuit) supplies the input signals to the game processing board/CPU (virtual reality computing device) upon changing them into a prescribed signal format). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a trigger detection switch to detect a pull of a trigger and initiate transmittal of a corresponding signal, as taught by Ozaki, in the invention of Mains in order to execute firing of the weapon.
Additionally, while Mains may not further explicitly disclose wherein the trigger structure is inoperable when the safety switch is in the safety mode, this limitation is taught by Alicea, directed toward operating mode selection for a selective-fire firearm (Figs. 2-3; [0004]; [0027]; [0033]; [0038], wherein, in the safety mode, actuation of the trigger structure is blocked). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to render the trigger structure inoperable when in the safety mode, as taught by Alicea, in order to prevent unsafe firing of the weapon and/or to impart realism.
Regarding claim 2, Mains further discloses wherein the firing mode includes at least one of semi-automatic, burst, or fully automatic (p. 19, ln. 15-19, the selector switch 450 has a plurality of modes of simulation such as safety, semi-automatic firing mode, fully automatic firing mode, and burst firing mode).
Regarding claim 3, Mains further discloses wherein the safety structure comprises a safety selector lever (p. 19, ln. 15-19; p. 56, ln. 9-28, wherein the simulated firearm body may include a selector switch 450 (safety selector lever) operatively connected to controller 50 for controlling the type of operation firearm training system 10). However, Mains may not explicitly disclose wherein the safety structure further includes a switch lever interface coupled to the safety selector lever. Nevertheless, Alicea teaches these limitations (Figs. 3-4; [0033-0034]; [0036-0037], wherein a button (second button 134) is coupled to a lever (flexible actuator 132) coupled to a selector lever (mode selector), wherein when mode selector receives user input (i.e., is rotated to a particular mode (e.g., electronic mode of firing)), the flexible actuator (lever) toggles the second button). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the mechanism taught by Alicea in the invention of Mains in order to achieve the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Mains further discloses wherein the signals communicated from the first electrical circuit to the virtual reality system are by a wireless connection (p. 19, ln. 15-28; p. 26, ln. 22-28; p. 34, ln. 17-31-p. 35, ln. 7; p. 47, ln. 23-30; p. 65, ln. 17-p. 66, ln. 12; p. 67, ln. 4-11, the user selects which type of simulation for this particular firearm is desired by using selector switch 450 and then pulls on trigger 170 connected to trigger switch 172 sending a signal to controller 50, wherein the controller 50 is operatively coupled to the selector switch 450 and trigger switch 172, and wherein the firearm device communicates with virtual reality device (e.g., by wireless communication type) to create a simulated shooting experience relating to the actions of a user 5).
Regarding claim 5, Mains further discloses wherein the selective firing weapon is an M4 Carbine (p. 8, ln. 15-19, particular firearms that may be simulated include M4 rifles along with other conventional firearms).
Regarding claim 6, Mains further discloses a mounting bracket configured to mount the circuit board within a cavity of the selective-fire weapon (p. 18, ln. 1-10; p. 49, ln. 3-25, volumetric area 978 may be used to house controlling circuitry inside the firearm body 20, wherein the control circuitry may be operatively connected to the linear motor 500, and wherein the linear motor 500 is mounted to the support on firearm body via a plurality of openings 730 and 732 and connecting brackets 540).
Regarding claim 7, Mains further discloses wherein the mounting bracket is configured to mount the circuit board to a lower receiver of the selective-fire weapon (Fig. 2; p. 18, ln. 1-10; p. 49, ln. 3-25, lower receiver 140 includes a trigger 170 and selector switch 450 which are connected to the circuit board and mounted via a plurality of openings 730 and 732 and connecting brackets 540).
Regarding claim 9, Mains may not explicitly disclose, yet, Alicea teaches wherein the safety detection switch button is configured to be toggled via the switch lever interface by rotating a face of the safety selector lever (Figs. 5, 9, 13, & 17; [0033]; [0036-0037], wherein when the mode selector is rotated to a particular mode (i.e., electronic mode of firing), the flexible actuator (lever) toggles the second button). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the mechanism taught by Alicea in the invention of Mains in order to achieve the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Mains further discloses wherein the user may select the position of the selector switch from a plurality of lever positions in order to select a firing mode (Figs. 1 & 13; p. 19, ln. 15-27, the selector switch 450, which is operatively connected to the controller 50 for controlling the type of operation firearm training system 10, has a plurality of modes of simulation, wherein the user may select the position of selector switch 450 from a plurality of lever positions in order to select a firing mode). While Mains may not further explicitly disclose the safety selector switch comprising a rotating mechanism, this limitation is taught by Alicea (Figs. 5, 9, 13, & 17; [0027]; [0033]; [0037], wherein the mode selector is rotated to a particular mode of a plurality of firing modes (i.e., a safety mode position, a semi-automatic firing mode position, an automatic firing mode position, and an electronic firing mode position)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the rotating mechanism taught by Alicea in the invention of Mains in order to achieve the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Mains may not further explicitly disclose wherein the safety selector lever includes a channel having a notched portion and a cutout portion, the notched portion and the cutout portion corresponding to positions associated with the firing mode. However, this limitation is taught by Alicea (Figs. 5, 9, 13, & 17; [0036-0038]; [0041], the selector mechanism comprising a channel having a notched portion and a cutout portion as depicted in the figures and which correspond to positions associated with the plurality of firing modes). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the mechanism taught by Alicea in the invention of Mains in order to achieve the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Mains may not further explicitly disclose, yet, Alicea teaches wherein the safety detection switch button toggles the safety detection switch (Figs. 3-4; [0033-0034]; [0036-0037]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the mechanism taught by Alicea in the invention of Mains in order to achieve the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, Mains further discloses wherein the signals communicated from the second electrical circuit to the virtual reality system are by a wireless connection (p. 19, ln. 15-28; p. 26, ln. 22-28; p. 34, ln. 17-31-p. 35, ln. 7; p. 47, ln. 23-30; p. 65, ln. 17-p. 66, ln. 12; p. 67, ln. 4-11, the user selects which type of simulation for this particular firearm is desired by using selector switch 450 and then pulls on trigger 170 connected to trigger switch 172 sending a signal to controller 50, wherein the controller 50 is operatively coupled to the selector switch 450 and trigger switch 172, and wherein the firearm device communicates with virtual reality device (e.g., by wireless communication type) to create a simulated shooting experience relating to the actions of a user 5).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mains in view of Ozaki and Alicea, as applied to claim 11, and in further view of Markut et al. (WO 2021121908 A1) (hereinafter “Markut”).
Regarding claim 12, Mains may not further explicitly disclose wherein the switch lever interface is configured within the channel. However, Markut, directed to firearms, teaches this limitation (p. 5, ln. 20-29; p. 10, ln. 6-25, where selector 6 comprises two actuating members and a control shaft, whereby the control shaft 61 is arranged inside the housing 1 and can be adjusted by the two actuating members from the outside in its angular position, i.e., by rotation about the transverse direction 92, wherein the control shaft has differently shaped cams along it which interact with different parts of trigger unit 2 depending on rotary position of selector 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a safety structure which has a channel having a notched portion and a cutout portion corresponding to positions associated with the firing modes and wherein the switch lever interface is configured within the channel, as taught by Markut, in order to achieve the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Mains may not explicitly disclose, yet, Markut teaches wherein rotating safety selector lever toggles between the plurality of firing modes by causing the switch lever interface to travel between the notched portion and the cutout portion (p. 5, ln. 20-29; p. 10, ln. 6-25, where selector 6 comprises two actuating members and a control shaft, whereby the control shaft 61 is arranged inside the housing 1 and can be adjusted by the two actuating members from the outside in its angular position, i.e., by rotation about the transverse direction 92, wherein the control shaft has differently shaped cams along it which interact with different parts of trigger unit 2 depending on rotary position of selector 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a safety structure which has a switch lever interface configured to travel between a notched portion and a cutout portion corresponding to positions associated with the firing modes, as taught by Markut, in order to achieve the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. 2003/0022716 A1 – This reference teaches an input device for computer games including at least one trigger button and a signal processor for formatting signals output from the at least one trigger button and transmitting the formatted signals to a computer.
KR 20090044165 A – This reference teaches a simulated firearm having a trigger detection unit connected to the trigger of the main body to detect a trigger state of the trigger, wherein if the trigger is triggered, a trigger signal is generated and provided to the controller.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BRANDLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALYSSA N BRANDLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715