DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/02/2026 has been entered.
4. Claims 1, 2, 9, 12 and 25 are amended; claims 17-24 have been canceled; and new claims—claims 26 and 27—are added. Therefore, claims 1-16 and 25-27 are currently pending in this application.
Declaration under 37 C.F.R 1.132
5. The declaration filed on 06/16/2026 has been fully considered. However, the declaration fails to negate the Office’s findings under section §103 at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, the alleged commercial success, which the declarant is asserting, does not appear to be specific to the system/method currently claimed. In particular, per the declarant’s assertion, the commercial success is due to “the sales of Bagira’s systems, among them the MAGNET system, which includes the [current] patent application” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the commercial success (if any) appears to be due to the sales of various systems; and the MAGNET system, which is assumed to include the system described per the current application, appears to be one of the systems.
The observation above confirms that the alleged commercial success does not appear to be specifically due to the system/method currently claimed. For instance, there appears to be no evidence to suggest whether any one or more of the currently claimed features specifically resulted in the commercial success, which the declarant is alleging.
Secondly, while citing some of the current claims (parts of claims 1 and 9; note that 28 does not exist), the declarant appears to be emphasizing a safety feature that the claimed system supposedly incorporates (“by installing the claimed weapon adapter, the weapon accepts a training magazine, which is associated with virtual rounds, and not real rouinds [sic], Should a regular cartridge carrying magazine be attached to the weapon, the weapon adapter blocks the cartridges in the regular cartridge carrying magazine from chambering in the weapon, thus preventing any possible use of real rounds with the weapon having the weapons training assembly (WTA) installed thereon”). Of course, the declarant assumes this feature “is one of the reasons customers have sought out and contracted with Bagira for Bagira's MAGNET system including its weapons training assembly” (emphasis added).
However, none of the current claims recites any feature, or any combination of features, that relates to an adaptor that blocks a regular cartridge. Thus, the declarant’s assertions in this regard are not relevant to the current claims. In addition, except for the declarant’s broad opinion that the adaptor being “one of the reasons customers have sought out and contracted with Bagira for Bagira's MAGNET system including its weapons training assembly” (emphasis added), the declarant still fails to provide any supporting evidence to substantiate the role (if any) that the claimed adaptor is assumed to be played for the commercial success that the declarant is asserting.
Moreover, regarding the claims currently presented, it is a basic practice to implement an adaptor, which allows a simulated magazine to be inserted into a real weapon, so that the real weapon can be used for training purpose without firing live rounds. It is worth noting that at least one the references cited under section §103 already confirms the fact above. For instance, Schulz (US 2016/0169608) teaches not only an adapter that is configured on the head of the simulated magazine in order to enable the magazine to establish electromechanical connections with the weapon (see [0116]), but also a kit that comprises various simulated components in order to retrofit a real firearm for training purpose ([0119]). Thus, such configuration essentially provides a safety feature that prevents the weapon from firing a live round.
Of course, none of the current claims necessarily recites an adaptor that is configured to block a real magazine, which carries live rounds, form being inserted into the well of the weapon. Nevertheless, such implementation of an adaptor, which is configured to block a real magazine from being inserted into the well of the weapon, is still an old and well-known practice in the art. For instance, Doty (US 2018/0364001), teaches such an adaptor—namely, a safety block—that will be secured to the wall of the magazine well of the weapon; so that accidental loading of a live cartridge into the magazine well of the weapon is prevented ([0038]).
Note that Doty is presented above merely for exemplary purpose since one or more additional references also teach such adaptors configured to prevent the loading of a real magazine.
Thus, the declarant still fails to demonstrate whether the alleged commercial success is specifically due to such old and well-known implementation.
Thirdly, while citing current claim 1, the declarant asserts that “a main controller on the training magazine, which manages multiple operational aspects including Small Arms Transmitter (SAT) functionality and weapons training assembly (WTA) control of responses to hits on the weapon, is commercially successful. These claimed features are highly desired by customers, which is one of the reasons customers have sought out and contracted with Bagira for Bagira's MAGNET system including its weapons training assembly” (emphasis added).
However, here also the declarant appears to be once again relying on a generic assertion in order to substantiate the alleged commercial success. Although it is an old and well-known practice in the art to incorporate a controller, which controls the various functions of the weapon, into either the magazine (e.g. [0115] of US 2016/0169608) or the body (e.g. [0023] of US 2008/0188314) of the weapon, the declarant fails to demonstrate how/why such old and well-known feature is assumed to cause the alleged commercial success of the claimed system/method. Of course, the same is true regarding the controlling function that the decrant is asserting. In fact, the point that the declarant is making regarding the controlling function, i.e., “control of responses to hits on the weapon”, is gleaned directly from one of the old references. For instance, Rosenblum (US 2008/0188314) already teaches a simulated gun that incorporates a controller ([0023]), wherein the gun is also equipped with optical sensors; and accordingly, when the weapon is hit by a laser shot fired from another weapon, the controller disables the weapon ([0027]). This confirms that the declarant is indeed relying on such old and well-known features in order to support the alleged commercial success. Nevertheless, except for the declarant’s generic opinion above, once again there appears to be no evidence to show whether the alleged commercial success is specifically due to one or more of the features of current claim 1 (or any of the current claims).
Although the declarant has also attempted to refer to the cited articles, which appear to cover some sales figures relating to the “MAGNET” system (see paragraph 9 of the declaration), the declarant still fails to demonstrate whether any of the sales figures is specifically due to any one or more of the current claimed features. For instance, none of the articles that the declarant has cited, including the article that states, “the ‘MAGNET [(system)] . . . allows soldiers to simulate engagements without the use of blank ammunition . . .’”, necessarily demonstrates whether any one or more of the current claimed features specifically resulted in the commercial success that the declarant is alleging.
In addition, the articles currently presented (i.e., Appendix A to Appendix D) appear to be directed to a broad system, which includes the MAGNET system; and therefore, they appear to encompass features beyond the current claims. In particular, none of the articles appears to be specific to one or more of the features currently claimed. Consequently, none of the articles, considered individually or in combination, necessarily demonstrates whether the alleged commercial success is specifically due any one or more of the features currently claimed.
Fourthly, while referring to current claims 1 and 9 (it is again worth noting that claim 28 does not exist), the declarant asserts that “the claimed invention uses virtual rounds and is prevented against using real rounds. It is my opinion that these claimed features provide the claimed invention with commercial success and were one of the major reasons that the UK Ministry of Defense (the British Army) contracted with Bagira for the MAGNET system” (emphasis added).
However, a firearm simulator—such as US 2016/0169608—that shoots a laser beam, as opposed to live rounds, is already a system that “uses virtual rounds”; and thus, such system, including a real firearm retrofitted or modified with simulated components to shoot only a laser beam, is already prevented from using live rounds. In this regard, except for making yet another generic opinion, the declarant fails to demonstrate whether the alleged commercial success is specifically due to any one or more of the features currently claimed. Note that one or more entities may establish a contract with Bagira for the MAGNET system, as the declarant is asserting (e.g., per paragraphs 9 to 10 of the declaration); however, once again this does not necessarily mean a commercial success specifically due to any one or more of the current clamed features. In particular, the declarant’s generic opinion does not cure the lack of evidence.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of non-obviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-16 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Schulz 2016/0169608 in view of Rosenblum 2008/0188314.
Regarding claim 1, Schulz teaches the following claimed limitations: a weapons training assembly (WTA) for use with a weapon ([0026] lines 1-10; also FIG 13, label “1300”: e.g., a firearm simulator assembly for simulating the firing of a firearm), comprising: a magazine removably attached with the weapon (FIG 12 or FIG 13, label “1200”; also see [0035]; [0116] lines 7-9: e.g., a firearm simulator already comprises a plurality of components, including a magazine; and the magazine is removably attached to the weapon); and a small arms transmitter (SAT) ([0115]; FIG 1, labels “120” and “124”: e.g., the embodiment depicted per FIG 13 includes the optoelectronic assembly depicted per FIG 1; and wherein the optoelectronic assembly includes an optoelectronic output device that shoots laser. Accordingly, the optoelectronic assembly above corresponds to the small arms transmitter), wherein the magazine comprises a controller for controlling actions of the weapons training assembly ([0115]; also FIG 12 or FIG 13, label “116”: e.g., the magazine already houses a microcontroller, labeled as “116”; and thus, the microcontroller above corresponds to the controller that controls actions of the weapon training assembly).
Although Schulz incorporates an optical detector that is in communication with the controller (FIG 13, label "126"; [0038]; [0057]; [0077]), Schulz does not describe such optical detectors on a plurality of sides of the magazine to detect a laser virtual shot from another weapon; so that the controller controls the actions of the weapon in response to at least one of the optical detectors having detected that a laser virtual shot of said another weapon has hit the weapon.
However, Rosenblum describes a laser gun that can be used for combat simulation; wherein the gun incorporates (i) a controller (e.g., a processor) for controlling the functions of the gun ([0023]), and (ii) a plurality of optical detectors (e.g., an IR sensor, a laser sensor, etc.) are attached to the gun in order to detect a “hit” (i.e. laser shots fired) from one or more other guns; and furthermore, the controller disables the gun when the gun receives a predetermined number of hits ([0027]).
Note that Rosenblum does not expressly state that the optical detectors are on a magazine. However, given Rosenblum’s teaching, “toy gun 200 can also be equipped with an IR sensor to register ‘hits’ from another toy gun . . . Similarly, the toy gun 200 may also be equipped with a laser sensor as well in order to register hits from other toy guns transmitting laser signals” ([0027], emphasis added), PHOSITA readily recognizes incorporating one or more optical detectors on one or more easily accessible or major parts of the weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon and the magazine of the weapon, so that the weapon can readily register the “hit” from other weapons. It is worth noting that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Although additional reference is not necessarily required due to the fact above, a previously cited reference—namely, US 2021/0018291—also teaches a simulated magazine that comprises a plurality of optical detectors ([0049]: e.g., the magazine comprises a tracker—see label “106” of FIG 1; and this tracker as a plurality of image/optical sensors).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Schulz based on the teaching gleaned from Rosenblum; for example, by attaching one or more optical/laser sensors on each of the one or more parts of the weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc., and the system’s algorithm is further upgraded so that the controller disables the weapon when a predetermined number of laser shots hit the weapon, etc., and accordingly, such arrangement enables the weapon to be used for one or more additional simulation scenarios—such as, a combat scenario in which the controller disables the weapon when the weapon receives a predetermined number of hits (e.g., three hits for a beginner trainee; or just one hit for an advanced trainee, etc.); and this further improves the user’s capability to manage real world scenarios.
Schulz in view of Rosenblum teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Schulz further teaches:
Regarding claim 4, a trigger detector and/or a fire selector detector ([0050]; [0057]: e.g., the system detects, as the user is pulling the trigger of the weapon, whether a trigger break event has occurred; and accordingly, it has at least a trigger detector);
Regarding claim 6, wherein the magazine is sized and adapted for insertion into a magazine well of the weapon ([0027]: e.g., the weapon already includes a magazine well; and thereby, the magazine is inserted into the magazine well);
Regarding claim 8, the SAT comprises a shot-flash light ([0038]: e.g., as already discussed per claim 1 above, the simulated weapon incorporates an optoelectronic assembly that corresponds to the SAT; and wherein the SAT includes an optoelectronic output device that shoots laser. Accordingly, the SAT already comprises shot-flash light. Note also that laser is already a shot-flash light per Applicant’s specification; see page 5, lines 28-30);
Regarding claim 9, wherein the magazine comprises a component selected from one or more of a GPS receiver, a mobile data communication device, a short range communication device, an audio amplifier, a battery, a speaker, a virtual-ammunition count indicator (FIG 12, labels “1200” and “108”: e.g. the simulator system already encompasses an implementation involving such magazine that comprises a plurality of components, including a battery).
Regarding claim 11, Schulz in view of Rosenblum teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
The limitation, “the wherein the magazine optical detectors and the SAT optical detectors are Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) compatible laser detectors”, is implicitly addressed per the modification discussed per claim 1.
Particularly, the optical sensors on both the SAT and magazine are laser sensors; and therefore, such laser sensors are already compatible with MILES, which also uses laser sensors. Note that the claim does not recite any specific feature, except for the generic compatibility required with respect to the optical detectors; and therefore, the combined teaching already addresses claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Schulz teaches the following claimed limitations: a method for weapons training, comprising: providing a weapons training assembly (WTA) for use with a weapon ([0026] lines 1-10; also FIG 13, label “1300”: e.g., a firearm simulator assembly for simulating the firing of a firearm), comprising: a magazine removably attachable with the weapon (FIG 12 or FIG 13, label “1200”; also see [0035]; [0116] lines 7-9: e.g., a firearm simulator already comprises a plurality of components, including a magazine; and the magazine is removably attached to the weapon); and a small arms transmitter (SAT) ([0115]; FIG 1, labels “120” and “124”: e.g., the embodiment depicted per FIG 13 includes the optoelectronic assembly depicted per FIG 1; and wherein the optoelectronic assembly includes an optoelectronic output device that shoots laser. Accordingly, the optoelectronic assembly above corresponds to the small arms transmitter); wherein the magazine comprises a controller for controlling actions of the weapons training assembly ([0115]; also FIG 12 or FIG 13, label “116”: e.g., the magazine already houses a microcontroller, labeled as “116”; and thus, the microcontroller above corresponds to the controller that controls actions of the weapon training assembly); attaching the WTA to a weapon ([0115]; FIG 1, label “120” and FIG 1, label “110” or FIG 13, label “1200”: e.g., the SAT—label “120”—and the magazine—label “110” or label “1200”— collectively represent the WTA. It is also understood that the above components are attached to a weapon—FIG 1, label “100” or FIG 13, label “1300”—before the weapon is ready to be used); inserting the magazine into a magazine well of the weapon to load one or more virtual rounds ([0034] or [0116] lines 16-24: e.g., the magazine stores rounds of ammunition; and wherein the magazine is inserted into the magazine well—label “103”—of the weapon to load the virtual round).
Although Schulz incorporates an optical detector that is in communication with the controller (FIG 13, label "126"; [0038]; [0057]; [0077]), Schulz does not describe such optical detectors on a plurality of sides of the magazine to detect a laser virtual shot from another weapon; so that the controller controls the actions of the weapon in response to at least one of the optical detectors having detected that a laser virtual shot of said another weapon has hit the weapon.
However, Rosenblum describes a laser gun that can be used for combat simulation; wherein the gun incorporates (i) a controller (e.g., a processor) for controlling the functions of the gun ([0023]), and (ii) a plurality of optical detectors (e.g., an IR sensor, a laser sensor, etc.) are attached to the gun in order to detect a “hit” (i.e. laser shots fired) from one or more other guns; and furthermore, the controller disables the gun when the gun receives a predetermined number of hits ([0027]).
Note that Rosenblum does not expressly state that the optical detectors are on a magazine. However, given Rosenblum’s teaching, “toy gun 200 can also be equipped with an IR sensor to register ‘hits’ from another toy gun . . . Similarly, the toy gun 200 may also be equipped with a laser sensor as well in order to register hits from other toy guns transmitting laser signals” ([0027], emphasis added), PHOSITA readily recognizes incorporating one or more optical detectors on one or more easily accessible or major parts of the weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon and the magazine of the weapon, so that the weapon can readily register the “hit” from other weapons. It is worth noting that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Although additional reference is not necessarily required due to the fact above, a previously cited reference—namely, US 2021/0018291—also teaches a simulated magazine that comprises a plurality of optical detectors ([0049]: e.g., the magazine comprises a tracker—see label “106” of FIG 1; and this tracker as a plurality of image/optical sensors).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Schulz based on the teaching gleaned from Rosenblum; for example, by attaching one or more optical/laser sensors on each of the one or more parts of the weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc., and the system’s algorithm is further upgraded so that the controller disables the weapon when a predetermined number of laser shots hit the weapon, etc., and accordingly, such arrangement enables the weapon to be used for one or more additional simulation scenarios—such as, a combat scenario in which the controller disables the weapon when the weapon receives a predetermined number of hits (e.g., three hits for a beginner trainee; or just one hit for an advanced trainee, etc.); and this further improves the user’s capability to manage real world scenarios.
Schulz also does not expressly teach charging the weapon with a bolt of the weapon to chamber one of the virtual rounds.
However, Rosenblum further teaches that the weapon system includes a bolt-action mechanism, which the user manually operates in order to reload the weapon with a number of laser beams (i.e., virtual rounds) when the user runs out of ammunition ([0020]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Schulz in view of Rosenblum; for example, by incorporating a bolt mechanism, which the user is required to operate manually in order to reload one or more simulated rounds (e.g., simulated bullets, etc.) when the user runs out of simulated rounds after firing the weapon for a given number of times, etc., so that the user would experience a more accurate realistic combat scenario, etc.
Schulz in view of Rosenblum teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 12. Schulz further teaches:
Regarding claim 13, detecting a trigger press by the trigger detector and firing one of the virtual rounds ([0057]: e.g., when the user pulls the trigger, the system detects that a trigger break event has occurred; and responsive to the above detected triggering event, the weapon activates the optoelectronic output device and outputs light; and thereby simulates a firing of a shot);
Regarding claim 14, wherein the firing of one of the virtual rounds comprises one or more of: decreasing the number of available virtual rounds in the magazine, causing a laser transmission from a laser transmitter on the SAT, causing a sound from the speaker, or causing a light flash from shot-flash light ([0054] lines 1-7; [0057]: e.g., when the user pulls the trigger, the system activates the optoelectronic device and outputs light—such as a laser; and thereby simulates a firing of a shot. Thus, the firing of the virtual rounds comprises causing a laser transmission from a laser transmitter on the SAT, or causing a light flash from shot-flash light, etc.);
Regarding claim 15, when the virtual rounds are exhausted, requiring removal and reinsertion of the magazine for reloading virtual rounds ([0064]; [0067]: e.g., when the user exhausts the number of simulated rounds in the magazine, the system no longer fires any shot even if the user is pulling the trigger; and thus, the user ejects the magazine and replaces it with another magazine; and thereby, the reloads simulated rounds).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation, “charging of the bolt for chambering one of the virtual rounds for firing”, is already addressed above per the modification discussed with respect to claim 12. Particularly, Schulz is modified based on the teaching gleaned from Rosenblum, wherein a bolt mechanism is incorporated to the weapon; and wherein the user manually operates the bolt in order to reload one or more simulated rounds (e.g., simulated bullets, etc.).
Accordingly, the above already encompasses charging the bolt for chambering one of the virtual rounds for firing (also see the motivation discussed per claim 12 since it also applies to claim 16).
Regarding claim 25, Schulz teaches the following claimed limitations: a training magazine for use in a weapon, the magazine comprising a controller for controlling actions of a weapons training assembly on the weapon (FIG 12 or FIG 13, label “1200”; also see [0035]; [0116] lines 7-9: e.g., a firearm simulator already comprises a plurality of components, including a magazine; and the magazine already houses a microcontroller, labeled as “116” per 12/13; and thus, the microcontroller above corresponds to the controller that controls actions of the weapon training assembly), and wherein the magazine is configured to be inserted into the weapon ([0116]: e.g., the weapon comprises a magazine well; and the magazine is already configured to be inserted into the magazine well of the weapon).
Schulz does not expressly describe the firearm above, such as FIG 13, as a real weapon capable of firing live ammunition.
However, Schulz already suggests an alternative embodiment in which an existing firearm can be retrofitted or modified with a kit of parts that comprises the components of the simulator assembly (see [0118]; [0119]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schultz’s implementation; for example, modifying a commonly available actual firearm by retrofitting the firearm with one or more of the components of the simulator assembly above (e.g., fitting the optoelectronic assembly into the barrel of the firearm; replacing the actual magazine with the electro-mechanical magazine—such as, FIG 12, label “1200”; establishing a wired and/or a wireless communication between the microcontroller of the electro-mechanical magazine and a controller of the optoelectronic assembly, etc.), so that a trainee would have multiple options to practice shooting without necessarily being limited to a specific firearm simulator.
Although Schulz incorporates an optical detector that is in communication with the controller (FIG 13, label "126"; [0038]; [0057]; [0077]), Schulz does not describe such optical detectors on a plurality of sides of the magazine to detect a laser virtual shot from another weapon; so that the controller controls the actions of the weapon in response to at least one of the optical detectors having detected that a laser virtual shot of said another weapon has hit the weapon.
However, Rosenblum describes a laser gun that can be used for combat simulation; wherein the gun incorporates (i) a controller (e.g., a processor) for controlling the functions of the gun ([0023]), and (ii) a plurality of optical detectors (e.g., an IR sensor, a laser sensor, etc.) are attached to the gun in order to detect a “hit” (i.e. laser shots fired) from one or more other guns; and furthermore, the controller disables the gun when the gun receives a predetermined number of hits ([0027]).
Note that Rosenblum does not expressly state that the optical detectors are on a magazine. However, given Rosenblum’s teaching, “toy gun 200 can also be equipped with an IR sensor to register ‘hits’ from another toy gun . . . Similarly, the toy gun 200 may also be equipped with a laser sensor as well in order to register hits from other toy guns transmitting laser signals” ([0027], emphasis added), PHOSITA readily recognizes incorporating one or more optical detectors on one or more easily accessible or major parts of the weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon and the magazine of the weapon, so that the weapon can readily register the “hit” from other weapons. It is worth noting that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Although additional reference is not necessarily required due to the fact above, a previously cited reference—namely, US 2021/0018291—also teaches a simulated magazine that comprises a plurality of optical detectors ([0049]: e.g., the magazine comprises a tracker—see label “106” of FIG 1; and this tracker as a plurality of image/optical sensors).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Schulz based on the teaching gleaned from Rosenblum; for example, by attaching one or more optical/laser sensors on each of the one or more parts of the weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc., and the system’s algorithm is further upgraded so that the controller disables the weapon when a predetermined number of laser shots hit the weapon, etc., and accordingly, such arrangement enables the weapon to be used for one or more additional simulation scenarios—such as, a combat scenario in which the controller disables the weapon when the weapon receives a predetermined number of hits (e.g., three hits for a beginner trainee; or just one hit for an advanced trainee, etc.); and this further improves the user’s capability to manage real world scenarios.
Regarding claim 26, Schulz in view of Rosenblum teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Schulz does not expressly describe that the firearm, which is described per the embodiment depicted in FIG 13, is a real weapon capable of firing live ammunition.
However, Schulz already suggests an alternative embodiment in which an existing firearm can be retrofitted or modified with a kit of parts that comprises the components of the simulator assembly (see [0118]; [0119]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schultz’s implementation; for example, modifying a commonly available actual firearm by retrofitting the firearm with one or more of the components of the simulator assembly above (e.g., fitting the optoelectronic assembly into the barrel of the firearm; replacing the actual magazine with the electro-mechanical magazine—such as, FIG 12, label “1200”; establishing a wired and/or a wireless communication between the microcontroller of the electro-mechanical magazine and a controller of the optoelectronic assembly, etc.), so that a trainee would have multiple options to practice shooting without necessarily being limited to a specific firearm simulator.
Regarding claim 27, Schulz in view of Rosenblum teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
The limitation, “the controlling actions of the weapons training assembly includes preventing further shooting from the weapon”, is already addressed per the modification discussed with respect to claim 1. In particular, the algorithm of Schulz is already upgraded, per the teaching gleaned from Rosenblum; and accordingly, the controller disables the weapon disables the weapon when a predetermined number of laser shots hit the weapon, etc. (also see the motivation discussed per claim 1 since it also applies to claim 27).
● Claims 2, 3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Schulz 2016/0169608 in view of Rosenblum 2008/0188314 an in view of Quinlan 2014/0065577.
Regarding claim 2, Schulz in view of Rosenblum teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Although Schulz—as modified above per claim 1—already implements a real weapon (e.g., a standard or commonly available firearm) that comprises a bolt, Schulz does not teach one or more bolt detectors configured to identify charging of a real bolt of the real weapon.
However, Quinlan teaches a simulated weapon for training; and wherein the weapon comprises various components—such as: a bolt (FIG 2, label “13”), an electronic magazine (FIG 6, label “2”), a bolt sensor (FIG 6, label “44”) that is mounted to the top portion of the magazine casing, etc.; and wherein the bolt sensor is utilized to detect the movement of the bolt within the bolt chamber—such as, determining the simulation of a shot being fired, etc. ([0027] lines 9-17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Schulz in view of Quinlan; for example, by incorporating one or more pertinent components—such as, a bolt detector(s) (e.g., a magnetic or an optical sensor) in close proximity to the bolt of the weapon; so that the bolt detector detects the movement of the bolt of the firearm (i.e., the real firearm discussed per claim 1 above, which already comprises a bolt); and thereby, the microcontroller in the magazine (see Schulz: FIG 12, label “116”) reliably determines—based on data from the sensor above—whether the bolt is being charged or not, etc., so that, besides enabling the trainee to practice additional scenarios, the modification above improves the accuracy of the system, etc.
Regarding claim 3, “a weapon adaptor positioned in a magazine well of the weapon, and wherein the one or more bolt detectors are positioned on the weapon adaptor”, Schulz in view of Rosenblum and in view of Quinlan teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
Schulz already teaches a weapon adaptor—such as, a magazine head connector (FIG 12, label “1210”; also [0116]: e.g., the magazine head connector, which is the adaptor, is positioned in a magazine well of the weapon when the magazine is inserted; and this adaptor allows the magazine to establish electromechanical connection with the weapon).
Although Schulz does not describe positioning a bolt detector on the weapon adaptor, Quinlan already positions a bolt detector on the magazine head (see FIG 6, label “44”).
Thus, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Schulz in view of Quinlan; for example, by incorporating a fixed or a removable arrangement for securing the bolt detector on the magazine head connector, which is the adaptor; and accordingly, besides allowing the magazine to easily establish reliable electromechanical connection, such arrangement allows the magazine to accommodate critical electromechanical units that allow it to simulate various weapon scenarios (e.g., when the magazine is used with one or more weapons, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Schulz in view of Rosenblum and in view of Quinlan teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 3. exchange
The limitation, “wherein the weapon adaptor is adapted for installation in the weapon”, is already addressed per the discussion presented with respect to claim 3. This is because the magazine head connector, which is the weapon adaptor, is already configured to be installed in the well of the weapon (see the discussion presented per claim 3 since it also applies to claim 5).
Regarding claim 10, Schulz in view of Rosenblum and in view of Quinlan teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 3.
Although Schultz, as modified above, does not teach that “the weapon adaptor comprises a virtual round loaded indicator”, Applicant’s specification does not appear to indicate any specific reason (e.g., an advantage) for placing such indicator on the adapter; and therefore, placing such indicator on a different location, such as a part of the weapon that is easily accessible to the user (a part that is easily viewable), appears to achieve the same intended purpose.
Nevertheless, Rosenblum already teaches that the weapon incorporates a visual interface (FIG 4, label “410”) that displays information to the user, including an indicator that indicates the number of ammos remaining, etc. (e.g., see FIG 4, label “450” or “470”); and wherein such display can be placed on “any suitable surface” of the gun (see [0037] lines 1-20, emphasis added).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Schultz in view of Rosenblum; for example, by incorporating a display—such as a small-size LCD, etc.—on at least one suitable part of the weapon (e.g., on the top of the scope of the weapon if one is installed; on the surface of the magazine or the magazine adapter, etc.), which enables the user to easily access/view the information that the display is presenting—such as, a graphical and/or numerical data that indicates the number of ammos in the magazine, etc., so that the user would be able to take appropriate measures based on the information (e.g., replacing the current magazine in timely manner if the current magazine is near empty, etc.).
● Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Schulz 2016/0169608 in view of Rosenblum 2008/0188314 an in view of Varshneya 2002/0134000.
Regarding claim 7, Schulz in view of Rosenblum teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Schulz in does not expressly describe that the SAT comprises a barrel mount for mounting on a barrel of the weapon.
However, as already pointed out with respect to claim 1, Schulz already suggests that the weapon simulator can be arranged to represent various types of weapons, including: a rifle, a machine gun, etc. ([0030]).
Moreover, Varshneya teaches a weapon simulation system; and wherein a SAT is bolted on the barrel of the weapon ([0039]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to further modify Schulz in view of Varshneya; for example, by incorporating a SAT that can easily be bolted to a barrel of one or more types of guns, so that it would be much easier to simulate a desired type of weapon suitable for a given training scenario, etc.
Response to Arguments.
7. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 06/02/2026). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, Applicant appears to fail to appreciate the teaching of Schulz regarding the process of controlling actions of the weapon in response to its optical detector detecting a laser hitting the weapon. In particular, Schulz not only implements an optical detector (FIG 13, label “126”) for detecting a laser light that reaches (i.e., hits) the weapon ([0038]), but also implements a controller (i.e., a processor) that controls the functions of the weapon in response to the laser light hitting the weapon. For instance, the controller determines whether a target hit or miss has occurred; and furthermore, it transmits the determined result to an external device (see [0057]; [0077]). However, Applicant appears to fail to properly construe Schulz’s teaching above.
Of course, Schulz lacks incorporating additional optical detectors to the magazine of the weapon, including performing one or more additional functions (e.g., disabling the weapon) in response to one of the optical detectors on the magazine detecting a laser light.
However, Rosenblum teaches a simulated gun that incorporates a controller ([0023]); wherein the gun is also equipped with one or more optical detectors to detect a laser light/shot fired from another weapon; and accordingly, the controller disables the weapon when the weapon is hit by one or more laser shots ([0027]).
Accordingly, given the teaching of Rosenblum above, PHOSITA would be motivated to modify Schulz; for example, by attaching one or more optical/laser sensors on each of the one or more parts of the weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc., and the system’s algorithm is further upgraded so that the controller disables the weapon when a predetermined number of laser shots hit the weapon, etc., and accordingly, such arrangement enables the weapon to be used for one or more additional simulation scenarios—such as, a combat scenario in which the controller disables the weapon when the weapon receives a predetermined number of hits (e.g., three hits for a beginner trainee; or just one hit for an advanced trainee, etc.); and this further improves the user’s capability to manage real world scenarios.
The observation above confirms that claim 1 is indeed obvious over the combined teaching of Schulz and Rosenblum. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Secondly, Applicant’s argument directed to Rosenblum also fails to challenge the Office’s obviousness findings. Applicant asserts, “Rosenblum '8314 fails to disclose any magazine, and it does not need any magazine for its disclosed operation . . . by lacking any magazine or disclosure thereof, adds nothing to Schulz '9608, and fails to cure it deficiencies. Therefore, the proposed combination of Schulz '9608 and Rosenblum '8314 remains deficient of claim 1, as fails to meet all of the recitations of claim” (emphasis added).
However, it is immaterial whether Rosenblum mentions a magazine or not since Rosenblum is not necessarily required to teach any magazine. This is because the primary system—i.e., Schulz’s weapon—already incorporates a magazine (e.g., see label “1200” per FIG 12 or FIG 13; also [0115]). Moreover, PHOSITA readily recognizes that a magazine is one of the major parts of many weapons. Accordingly, Rosenblum is required to teach only the missing features form Schulz; namely, (i) incorporating or adding one or more additional laser detectors on the weapon, and also (ii) adding additional function to the controller (i.e., the processor), so that the controller performs one or more additional functions—such as disabling the weapon—when one or more of the additional laser detectors detect a laser hit from another weapon (see [0027]).
So far, Applicant fails to consider—much less challenge—the obviousness analysis above; and consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note that Applicant’s arguments directed to Quinlan and Varshneya (including the previously cited references Seo and Jarrard) have also been fully considered. Applicant is relying on the same argument presented with respect to claim 1. Thus, the response presented above already addresses Applicant’s concern directed to each of the current claims.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached from 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights