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.
3. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 10/06/2025.
Claims 17-24 are canceled; and a new claim—claim 25—has been added. Thus, claims 1-16 and 25 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 and 11-16 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 (FIG 12 or FIG 13, label “1200”: e.g., a firearm simulator already comprises a plurality of components, including a magazine); 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), and wherein the SAT comprises SAT optical detector (FIG 1 or FIG 13, label “126”; [0038] lines 20-27: e.g., the optoelectronic assembly, which corresponds to the SAT, already comprises an optoelectronic sensor that senses light; and the above corresponds to the optical detector), wherein the magazine further comprises power and control circuitry configured to operate the WTA ([0115]; also FIG 12, labels “108”, “116”: e.g., per the embodiment currently considered, i.e., FIG 13, the magazine already houses (i) the microcontroller, labeled as “116”, and also (ii) the battery, which is labeled as “108”. In this regard, the microcontroller above corresponds to the control circuitry that is already configure to operate the WTA); and wherein the magazine is configured to be inserted into the weapon ([0116] lines 16-24: e.g., the magazine is already configured to be instead into the well of the firearm simulator).
Considering the exemplary implementation that corresponds to a pistol (e.g., see FIG 13), Schulz does not expressly describe the above optoelectronic sensor in plural form
However, Schulz already suggests that the weapon simulator can be arranged to represent various types of weapons, including: a rifle, a machine gun, etc. ([0030]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schulz’s system by incorporating at least one additional optoelectronic sensor, for example, when the weapon being simulated is larger than a pistol (e.g., a machine gun, etc.), so that the effectiveness of the system to easily detect light is improved.
Similarly, 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 [0119] lines 1-9).
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.
Schulz does not describe that the magazine has optical detectors configured to detect that a laser virtual shot of another weapon has hit the weapon.
Although Rosenblum does not expressly indicate the location of the light sensors, Rosenblum describes a laser gun that can be used for combat simulation; and wherein optical sensors (e.g., an IR sensor, a laser sensor, etc.), which are already configured to detect laser shots, are attached to the gun in order to detect “hit” (laser shots fired) from one or more guns ([0027]).
The implementation above achieves Applicant’s intended purpose regarding the optical sensors on the magazine.
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 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., so that the system would be used in one or more additional simulation scenarios—such as, a combat scenario, wherein the optical sensors detect when the weapon is being targeted/hit by another weapon (e.g., the optical sensors, which are placed on the outer surface of the barrel and/or magazine of the weapon, detect a laser shot fired by another weapon; and thereby, the trainee would easily know when—and/or where—his/her weapon is hit, etc.).
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, the magazine comprises a component selected from the group consisting of a GPS receiver, a mobile data communication device, a short range communication device, an audio amplifier, a battery, a speaker, and 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: attaching the WTA of claim 4 to a weapon (see the discussion per claim 4 above; and also see [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 the magazine well of the weapon to load 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 does not expressly describe charging the weapon with a bolt of the weapon to chamber one of the virtual rounds, Rosenblum already 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).
● 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 real 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).
It is worth to note that the bolt sensor above performs the same function, i.e., detecting the movement of the bolt, regardless of whether the bolt is a simulated-bolt (of a simulator) or a real bolt of a real weapon. This is because the bolt is in the form of a rod regardless of whether it is considered to be a simulated bolt or a real bolt.
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 easily detects the movement of the bolt of the firearm (i.e., the real firearm discussed per claim 1 above, which already comprises a real 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, Schulz in view of Rosenblum and in view of Quinlan teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
Although Quinlan does not expressly describe that an adapter is positioned in the magazine well of the weapon, the top portion of the magazine case is already functioning as a weapon adaptor since it is configured to establish electromechanical connection when the magazine (FIG 4, label “2”) is inserted into the well of the weapon; and furthermore, the top portion above already comprises the bolt detector (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 on the top portion of the electronic magazine (see Schulz FIG 12, label “1200”); so that, one or more desired components, such as the boll detector, is easily positioned on the top portion of the electronic magazine; and thereby, the magazine easily engages the well of the weapon to establish a reliable electromechanical connection between the components of the magazine and one or more parts of the weapon (e.g., the bolt of the weapon, 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 modification discussed with respect to claim 3.
Particularly, the fixed/removable arrangement (i.e., the adapter) is implemented on the top portion of the electronic magazine; and thereby, the magazine easily engages the well of the weapon to establish a reliable electromechanical connection.
Accordingly, the modification discussed per claim 3 above already addresses 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 such location; 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 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).
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 inflation 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.
● Claim 25 is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Seo 2010/0003643 in view of Jarrard 2021/0018291.
Regarding claim 25, Seo teaches the following claimed limitations: a training magazine for use in a weapon (see FIG 1, label “20”: e.g., a simulated magazine, which is a training magazine for use in a weapon), wherein the weapon is a real weapon capable of firing live ammunition ([0023]: e.g., the simulated magazine above is used with one or more real weapons—such as, M16, M60, etc., which are already capable of firing real ammunition), and wherein the magazine is configured to be inserted into the weapon ([0024]; [0028]: e.g., the simulated magazine above is already in the form of a real magazine; and thus, it is already configured to be inserted into the magazine insertion portion—i.e., the well—of the real weapon).
Seo does not expressly describe that the simulated magazine above comprises optical detectors that detect that a laser virtual shot of another weapon has hit the weapon. However, Seo already suggests a combat training scenario—namely, a multiple integrated laser engagement system (MILES), wherein a laser sensor is attached to a participant’s weapon, so that a laser shot/hit is detected ([0001]; [0002]).
It is worth to note that Seo already suggests attaching an optical sensor to the weapon even though Seo is silent regarding the particular place where the optical sensor is attached. Nevertheless, Jarrard teaches a simulated magazine that can be used with a real weapon ([0040]), wherein the simulated magazine is configured to be inserted into a well of the real weapon ([0042]); and wherein the magazine simulator comprises optical sensors ([0049]).
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 the invention of Seo in view of Jarrard; for example, by attaching, as applied to each weapon participating in the MILES training, one or more additional laser sensors onto one or more parts of the weapon, including the simulated magazine that each weapon is carrying; so that, the potential to easily detect a laser shot hitting a given weapon is improved; and this enhances the reliability of each weapon for different types of training scenarios.
Response to Arguments.
5. Applicant’s arguments directed to the prior art have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 10/06/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while referring to the Office’s obviousness analysis, Applicant is asserting that “[the] statement does not identify any prior-art teaching or problem that would have led a POSITA to (1) relocate hit detection onto a detachable magazine and (2) pair that relocation with magazine-resident power and control that operate the WTA. It merely states the desired end (‘additional simulation scenarios’), then uses Applicant's claim as a blueprint to pick the magazine - rather than, for example, the stock, grip, or rail - as the sensor location. This is the hallmark of impermissible hindsight” (emphasis modified).
However, besides mischaracterizing the Office’s obviousness analysis, Applicant appears to fail to properly construe the criteria that governs obviousness analysis per section §103. For instance, unlike Applicant’s assumption above, the Office’s modification does not involve “relocat[ing]” a hit detection onto a detachable magazine of the weapon; rather, the modification involves “attaching one or more optical 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.” (emphasis added). Thus, as evident from the excerpt above, no relocation of any unit, including a hit detection unit, is performed. Instead, one or more optical sensors—i.e., additional units—are being incorporated into the existing system, while maintaining the existing units in their original location. Thus, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the Office’s obviousness analysis, while tampering with the modification discussed in the Office action, is already invalid. In particular, instead of considering the Office’s modification as presented in the office-action, Applicant appears to introduce a new assumption that the modification does not even contemplate.
In addition, as evident from the obviousness analysis, the optical sensors are being attached to “one or more parts of the weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc.” (emphasis added). Given the expression above, basic common sense once again dictates that the practice of attaching one or more optical sensors is not limited merely to the magazine. Instead, besides the magazine, an optical sensor(s) is also attached to additional parts of the weapon (e.g., the barrel, etc.). However, while mischaracterizing the expression above, Applicant asserts that the Office “uses Applicant's claim as a blueprint to pick the magazine - rather than, for example, the stock, grip, or rail - as the sensor location” (emphasis original). Thus, Applicant’s conclusory assertion above is not valid.
Note also that the artisan—i.e., PHOSITA—readily recognizes the Office’s modification based on the teaching gleaned from the prior art. In particular, Schulz already recognizes the use of firearm simulators for improving firearm handling and improving shooting skills ([0003]). Of course, besides the fact above, basic common sense also dictates that providing a training scenario, which allows two or more users to participate in a simulated combat scenario, also helps to improve one’s shooting skills. In this regard, Rosenblum teaches a toy gun, which can be used in a simulated combat scenario; and the gun above is equipped with optical sensors (e.g., an IR sensor, a laser sensor); so that, it registers “hits” (e.g., a laser shot fired) from other toy guns ([0027]).
Thus, given Rosenblum’s teaching above, the artisan readily recognizes that Rosenblum is also useful for improving one’s shooting skills. Of course, besides the fact above, the artisan also recognizes—from Rosenblum’s teaching—how to modify Schulz’s system, so that it can also be used in a simulates combat scenario (i.e., expanding or improving Schulz’s the system to conduct additional training scenarios). Particular, the artisan readily recognizes attaching one or more laser sensors on one or more parts of Schulz’s weapon (e.g., the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc.); so that, the system would be used to conduct one or more additional simulation scenarios—such as, a combat scenario, wherein the laser sensors detect when the weapon is being targeted/hit by another weapon.
It is further worth to note that PHOSITA does not necessarily require any of the references to provide detailed description regarding each and every element. This is because PHOSITA is not an automaton; rather, “a person of ordinary creativity” (also see MPEP 2141(II)(C), emphasis added),
“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[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 at 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.
Thus, when modifying Schulz’s system based on the teaching gleaned from Rosenblum, PHOSITA implements one or more creative steps regarding: (a) the connection of the sensors with the existing power supply ([0033]), (b) the additional program subroutine(s), which the existing processor (FIG 1, label “116”), is required to execute in order to manage a simulated combat scenario, etc. The above is further evident given the teaching of Schulz. In particular, Schulz’s system already implements a power supply—such as a battery (see [0033])—that supplies power to the weapon’s electronic components, including an optical detector (FIG 1, label “126”) that is attached to the weapon; and furthermore, the optical detector communicates sensed light data to the processor, so that the processor determines—based on the sensed light—whether a “target hit event” or a “target miss event” has occurred ([0046]; [0053]). Thus, regardless of the creative steps that PHOSITA may employ, Schulz already provides sufficient teaching that allows PHOSITA to easily accomplish the modification discussed in the office-action. However, Applicant does not appear to consider any of the facts above; and therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not even relevant to challenge the Office’s obviousness findings.
The observations above demonstrate that Applicant’s so-called “blueprint”, i.e., the practice of attaching an optical sensor on a part of a weapon in order to detect a laser shot fired from another weapon, is a concept that Applicant gleaned directly from the prior art. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the optical sensor, per the prior art, is attached to the barrel of the weapon, or whether the prior art is silent regarding the specific location of the sensor. This is because PHOSITA readily recognizes, given the
fundamental teaching gleaned from the prior art (again see [0027] of Rosenblum), the practice of attaching one or more optical sensors on one or more parts of the weapon, including the magazine of the weapon. Consequently, Applicant’s subjective conclusion, namely the alleged “hallmark of impermissible hindsight”, is certainly baseless.
Secondly, while referring to Schulz, Applicant asserts that “Schulz's ‘magazine sensor’ is a presence detector for insertion/ejection round-counting, and Schulz's optical detector is not relocated to the magazine even when other electronics are located there. The Examiner has not identified any prior-art teaching to add hit detection specifically to a detachable magazine while leaving other weapon surfaces (stock, grip, rail) unchosen - confirming that the choice of magazine comes from the claim, not the art” (emphasis added).
However, while cherry-picking parts unrelated to the Office’s obviousness findings, Applicant is applying a piecemeal analysis in further attempt to challenge the Office’s findings. For instance, unlike Applicant’s speculation, it is immaterial whether Schulz's magazine sensor (e.g., see FIG 1, label “118”) is considered to be a “presence detector for insertion/ejection round-counting”. This is because neither the Office’s analysis nor the reference itself (Schulz) considers the “magazine sensor” above as an optical sensor, much less an optical sensor attached to the surface of the magazine. Thus, Applicant’s assertion directed to the magazine sensor above is irrelevant to challenge the Office’s obviousness finding. Due to the difficulty to challenge the Office’s obviousness analysis, Applicant appears to resort to parts of the system that are unrelated to the obviousness analysis.
Similarly, again while failing to properly construe the Office’s analysis, Applicant appears to be repeating the same inaccurate assertion. In particular, Applicant’s assertion, “[t]he Examiner has not identified any prior-art teaching to add hit detection specifically to a detachable magazine while leaving other weapon surfaces (stock, grip, rail) unchosen - confirming that the choice of magazine comes from the claim, not the art” (emphasis added), fails to properly construe the Office’s obviousness analysis. It is again important to note that the concept for the modification, such as attaching one or more optical sensors on one or more parts of Schulz's weapon, is gleaned from the prior art. In particular, Rosenblum teaches attaching optical sensors (e.g., an IR sensor, a laser sensor) on a toy gun; so that, during a simulated combat scenario, the toy gun registers “hits” (i.e., detects laser shots fired) from other toy guns (again see [0027]). Thus, given the teaching above, PHOSITA readily recognizes attaching one or more laser sensors on one or more parts of Schulz’s weapon (e.g., the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc.); so that, Schulz’s weapon would be used to conduct one or more additional simulation scenarios—such as, a combat scenario; and wherein the laser sensors detect when the weapon is being targeted/hit by another weapon.
However, while simply ignoring the secondary reference (Rosenblum), which the Office has cited as the basis for the modification, Applicant appears to make the same incorrect conclusory assertion. Moreover, it is again evident from the Office’s modification that the optical sensors are not limited merely to the magazine; rather, one or more optical sensors are also attached to one or more parts of the weapon (e.g., the barrel of the weapon, etc.). Consequently, Applicant’s repetitive assertion is not valid. In particular, unlike Applicant’s assertion, attaching an optical sensor(s) to the magazine of the weapon is not gleaned from Applicant’s claims (or Applicant’s disclosure). Instead, it is gleaned from the prior art, as it is evident from the cited references. In particular, the main—and the only—function of the claimed optical detectors, which are attached on the magazine, is to detect a laser shot from another weapon. This means, even if one attaches the same optical sensors above on another part of the weapon, such as the barrel of the weapon, they still perform the same function (i.e., detect a laser shot from another weapon). In this regard, Rosenblum already achieves the above core function since Rosenblum attaches optical sensors on the weapon (the toy gun); and thereby, the system detects laser shots fired from other weapons. Accordingly, given Rosenblum’s teaching above, PHOSITA would be motivated to attach one or more optical sensors (e.g., one or more laser sensors) onto one or more parts of Schulz’s weapon (e.g., the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon) in order to improve the suitability of Schulz’s weapon for combat training, etc. In particular, just because the reference does not expressly mention the magazine, it does not necessarily mean that Applicant’s claim is nonobvious over the prior art (see again MPEP 2141(III), emphasis added),
Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be “so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.” Id . In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts . . . Factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap.
Thus, the observation above once again confirms that Applicant’s claimed implementation is gleaned directly from the prior art.
Applicant further asserts that “The cited art is silent on making the magazine both (i) a hit-sensing element and (ii) the power/control hub that operates the WTA. Post-KSR, the Examiner must still provide a reasoned, evidence-based motivation why a POSIT A would make this specific modification in this specific way, not merely show that individual elements exist somewhere in the art. See In re Magnum Oil Tools (PTO ‘bears the burden’ and must articulate why the artisan would combine to arrive at the claim); In re Van Os (‘[a]bsent some articulated rationale,’ calling a combination ‘common sense’ or ‘intuitive’ is no different from merely saying ‘it would have been obvious’); Arendi v. Apple (‘common sense’ cannot be a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially for a missing limitation) . . . KSR allows flexibility, but it does not permit hindsight-driven reconstruction. A proper analysis must identify ‘a reason that would have prompted a [skilled artisan] to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does,’ not merely that each element existed” (emphasis modified).
However, the above argument has several flaws. As an initial matter, assuming that Applicant is referring to Schulz, the assertion, “[t]he cited art is silent on making the magazine both (i) a hit-sensing element and (ii) the power/control hub that operates the WTA”, does not appear to make any sense. This is because the Office has already acknowledged that Schulz does not teach attaching an optical detector to the magazine. In fact, the above is the reason why a modification is made to Schulz’s system. Thus, it makes no sense at all to argue that the cited art is “silent on making the magazine . . . a hit-sensing element” since the Office already points out the above as the missing element. Of course, except for the above missing element, Schulz already contemplates that the magazine incorporates the power supply for the processor of the weapon ([0115]).
Similarly, assuming that Applicant’s argument above (“[t]he cited art”) is referring to the combined teaching of the references, Applicant still does not provide any reason to demonstrate whether PHOSITA does not recognize attaching an optical detector on the magazine. It is again worth to note that Rosenblum already teaches attaching optical detectors (e.g., an IR sensor, a laser sensor) on the weapon (e.g., a toy gun); so that, the weapon detects—during a simulated combat scenario—a laser shot fired from another weapon ([0027]). Thus, Rosenblum’s teaching above provides PHOSITA with sufficient basis to attach one or more optical detectors on one or more common parts of Schulz’s weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc., so that, Schulz’s weapon also detects—during a simulated combat scenario—a laser shot fired from another weapon (also see the discussion presented above in this regard). In fact, even the teaching of Schulz provides PHOSITA with some reason for the modification even though none of the references is necessarily required to provide any suggestion for the motivation. In particular, as already pointed out above, Schulz already recognizes the benefit of firearm simulators; namely, helping users to improve firearm handling and shooting skills (see [0003]; [0004]). In this regard, again basic common sense dictates that participating in a training, which simulates a combat scenario, is one of the effective ways to improve one’s shooting skills. In this regard, Rosenblum does teach a shooting game, which allows two or more users to participate in a simulated combat scenario ([0027]). Thus, besides the commonsense fact pointed out above, Rosenblum’s teaching also provides PHOSITA with sufficient reasoning to make the proposed modification; so that, Schulz’s system would be capable of providing “one or more additional simulation scenarios—such as, a combat scenario” (see the obviousness analysis above). Consequently, Applicant’s generic assertion, “[t]he Examiner's generic appeal to ‘additional simulation scenarios’ lacks that required reasoning and thus tracks the ex-post reasoning KSR warns against” (emphasis added), is invalid. Applicant’s failure to appreciate the Office’s reasoning does not necessarily mean that a reasoning is lacking.
So far, except for simply alleging a lack of evidence and/or rationale, Applicant fails to consider any of the Office’s findings presented in the office-action. However, simply pretending that the Office has failed to provide “evidence-based motivation” or “articulated rationale”, while simply ignoring the factual evidence and/or rationale presented in the office-action, does not constitute a valid argument, much less a persuasive one. In particular, due to the difficulty to challenge the Office’s obviousness findings, Applicant appears to simply cite multiple case laws as if they are applicable to the Office’s findings. Consequently, none of Applicant’s assertions is valid.
In addition, while again failing to properly construe the Office’s obviousness analysis, Applicant continues to present the same repetitive argument, “the Examiner has not even shown that the individual elements (sensor on a removeable magazine) exist somewhere in the art” (emphasis added). However, as already discussed above, attaching an optical detector (which is an individual element) on a magazine (which is also an individual element) is obvious over the combined teaching of Schulz and Rosenblum. For instance, Schulz already teaches a magazine (FIG 1, label “110”; also FIG 12/FIG 13, label “1200”), which is an individual element that is removably inserted into a magazine-well of the weapon ([0030]). Of course, Schulz also teaches an optical detector, which is also an individual element ([0038] lines 20-27), that is attached to the weapon (FIG 1 or FIG 13, label “126”). Although Schulz teaches such optical detector attached to the weapon, Schulz does not teach attaching a similar optical detector to the magazine of the weapon, so that a laser shot fired from another weapon can be detected. Thus, the above is the missing element per the teaching of Schulz. However, Rosenblum already teaches attaching optical detectors, which are individual elements (e.g., an IR sensor, a laser sensor), to a weapon; so that, a laser shot fired from another weapon can be detected ([0027]). Accordingly, given Rosenblum’s teaching above, PHOSITA would be motivated to modify Schulz’s system; for example, by attaching one or more laser sensors on one or more common parts of the weapon (e.g., the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc.) in order to expand the suitability of Schulz’s system to conduct additional simulation scenarios—such as, combat scenarios, which help the users improve their shooting skills.
The observation above demonstrates that the Office’s obviousness analysis already indicates the existence of a first individual element (e.g., a laser sensor) that is attached to a second individual element (e.g., a removable magazine). Consequently, Applicant’s still fails to challenge—much less negate—the Office’s obviousness findings.
Applicant also fails to appreciate Rosenblum’s basic teaching. For instance, Applicant asserts, “Rosenblum merely states that ‘the toy gun 200 can also be equipped with an IR sensor to register 'hits' from another toy gun’ ([0027]). That disclosure is narrowly directed to a toy system and provides no teaching about the positioning of such a sensor merely describing that the toy gun may be ‘equipped’ with an IR sensor and not even providing a numbered reference or position for such a sensor in the figures. Since no magazine can be found on the toy of Rosenblum it stands to reason that a magazine is not an option for such ‘equipping’. The Examiner reframes this passage into a broad teaching that Rosenblum ‘describes a laser gun that can be used for combat simulation; and wherein optical sensors ... are attached to the gun in order to detect 'hit' (laser shots fired) from one or more guns.’ This expansion goes well beyond the actual text of Rosenblum ‘optical sensors’ are ‘attached’) and effectively imports concepts not disclosed in that reference. Such mischaracterization highlights the hindsight nature of the rejection: the cited art does not teach the claimed configuration, and only by rewriting Rosenblum in light of Applicant's claim does the Examiner arrive at his rationale” (emphasis modified).
However, it is immaterial whether Rosenblum positively mentions whether the toy gun has a magazine or not. Rosenblum may choose, perhaps for simplicity reason, a toy gun that does not have a detachable magazine. However, the above does not
necessarily impede PHOSITA from recognizing (a) a gun that has a detachable magazine, and/or (b) the practice of attaching one or more laser sensors on one or more parts—including the magazine—of a gun. This is further evident given the fact that the particular weapon, which PHOSITA is modifying, already incorporates a detachable magazine (e.g., see [0035] of Schulz). Accordingly, the key concept, which PHOSITA learns from Rosenblum, is to attach one or more laser sensors on one or more parts of the weapon; so that, a laser shot fired from another weapon can be detected ([0027]). Of course, once PHOSITA gleans the teaching above from Rosenblum, PHOSITA makes the necessary modification to Schulz’s weapon, which is already in the form of a rifle or a machine gun ([0030]) that incorporates a detachable magazine ([0034]; [0035]). In particular, PHOSITA makes the modification by attaching one or more laser sensors on one or more parts of Schulz’s weapon (e.g., the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc.); so that, Schulz’s system would be capable of additional simulation scenarios—such as, a combat scenario, etc.
However, while again failing to properly consider the combined teaching of the references, which is a requirement per section §103, Applicant appears to cherry-pick one reference at a time in a piecemeal fashion. In particular, Applicant is simply identifying an element(s) that Rosenblum fails to mention, as opposed to determining whether PHOSITA readily recognizes the element(s) based on: (i) the context of the teaching of Rosenblum, and/or (ii) the combined teaching of the references. In particular, per Applicant’s subjective theory, an element(s) is not obvious unless the reference expressly mentions that element(s). However, this is certainly not the standard for obviousness analysis; also see MPEP 2141(III) (emphasis added),
The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents . . . In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The following observation also demonstrates why Applicant’s theory above is flawed. For instance, Applicant argues that Rosenblum (i) does not positively describe where the optical sensors are positioned; and furthermore, (ii) none of the figures include a reference numeral representing an optical sensor. Does this mean that Applicant does not acknowledge the attachment of any optical sensor on Rosenblum’s gun? Of course, if one applies Applicant’s theory pointed out above, Rosenblum’s gun is considered to be missing an optical senor on the gun. If so, how does Rosenblum’s gun detect a laser shot that is fired from another weapon ([0027])? Of course, Applicant fails to address the above fundamental issue. Instead, Applicant is simply announcing the element(s) that Rosenblum fails to positively mention. In contrast, given the context of Rosenblum’s teaching, one with basic common sense readily recognizes that at least one optical sensor is attached to at least one part of the gun. Otherwise, the gun will not perform its function of detecting a laser shot fired from another weapon ([0027]).
Of course, similar analysis applies to attaching one or more optical sensors to the magazine of Schulz’s weapon. In particular, given Schulz’s teaching regarding a weapon, which is in the form of a rifle or a machine gun ([0030]) that incorporates a detachable magazine ([0034]; [0035]), PHOSITA readily recognizes attaching one or
more optical sensors—such as one or more laser sensors—on one or more parts of the gun; such as, the barrel of the gun, the magazine of the gun, etc.; so that, Schulz’s weapon would also be used to simulate additional scenarios, including combat scenarios.
The observation above demonstrates the critical flaw regarding Applicant’s core argument. In particular, unlike Applicant’s theory, a reference(s) is not necessarily required to mention each and every element, particularly when the element is obvious over the prior art, and/or PHOSITA requires only a routine skill in the art to recognize the element.
In addition, despite alleging that the Office/Examiner has reframed the teaching of Rosenblum (i.e., [0027]) into a “broad teaching”, Applicant fails to point out the alleged “broad teaching”, which is considered to be an “expansion [that] goes well beyond the actual text of Rosenblum” (emphasis added). Instead, Applicant is listing some words—such as (i) the phrase “optical sensors” and (ii) the word “attached”, which Rosenblum does not use. However, the Office’s use of such terms does not necessarily indicate any expansion of Rosenblum’s teaching ([0027]). This is because the terms above do not change the underlying facts that is Rosenblum’s teaching. For insane, Rosenblum states the following (see [0027] lines 1-5, emphasis added),
“The toy gun 200 can also be equipped with an IR sensor to register ‘hits’ from another toy gun, as is the case during game play. 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 . . .”
Thus, as quite evident from the excerpt above, Rosenblum’s gun is equipped with an IR sensor and/or a laser sensor. In this regard, at least PHOSITA readily recognizes that both of the above sensors are optical sensors (i.e., light sensors). Thus, the use of the term “optical sensors”, per the office-action, does not mean expanding Rosenblum’s teaching, even if Rosenblum does not expressly use the term “optical sensors”. Of course, the same is true regarding the term “attached”. In particular, again Rosenblum teaches that the gun is equipped with an IR sensor and/or a laser sensor. Thus, given the ordinary meaning of the term “equipped with”; such as “outfitted with” or “furnished with”, etc., again PHOSITA readily recognizes that an IR sensor and/or a laser sensor are “attached” to Rosenblum’s gun.
However, while failing to apply such basic commonsense interpretation, Applicant incorrectly asserts that the Office’s analysis “goes well beyond the actual text of Rosenblum” (emphasis added). Consequently, Applicant’s subjective conclusion regarding the Office’s analysis, “imports concepts not disclosed in that reference. Such mischaracterization highlights the hindsight nature of the rejection: the cited art does not teach the claimed configuration, and only by rewriting Rosenblum in light of Applicant's claim” (emphasis added), is certainly invalid. In particular, Applicant appears to be evaluating the words that the reference is using, as opposed to applying proper obviousness analysis as outlined per section §103. Moreover, the observations above already confirm that Applicant’s claimed (and disclosed) training system is gleaned directly from the prior art.
Applicant is also relying on an inaccurate theory in further attempt to challenge the Office’s obviousness analysis. Applicant asserts, “magazine-mounted detector only becomes useful when the system is deliberately engineered for it - i.e., when the placement is designed to work in concert with the laser transmission system, for example, including the pattern and angles of the training lasers being fired, and the geometry/positions of the other detectors in the system (on the SAT). Rosenblum's toy gun offers no such teaching or design context, and thus provides no reason a skilled artisan would select the magazine as the detector location absent hindsight” (emphasis added).
However, unlike Applicant’s inaccurate theory above, the laser detectors detect laser light regardless of whether they are placed on the magazine—or on the barrel—of the weapon (or both). Moreover, it is important to note that none of the claims specifies any specific placement/positioning of the detectors on the magazine, much less a placement/positioning that is considered to be nonobvious over the prior art. Instead, the claims rely of a generic limitation, “the magazine comprises magazine optical detectors configured to detect that a laser virtual shot of another weapon has hit the weapon” (see claim 1, emphasis added). Thus, unlike Applicant’s theory above, such generic limitation does not constitute any specific placement of the optical detectors on the magazine. Of course, the same is true regarding Applicant’s alleged “pattern and angles of the training lasers being fired” and/or “geometry/positions of the other detectors in the system” since none of the claims even remotely contemplates such features. Once again, due to the difficulty to challenge the Office’s obviousness findings, Applicant appears to resort to new subject matter that even the claims do not contemplate. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are irrelevant.
Similarly, Applicant’s assertion regarding the alleged problem, which the claimed system is supposedly addressing, is also not relevant. Applicant asserts, “placing hit sensing on a detachable magazine that houses power/control electronics and thus functions as the operational hub of a real-weapon training system. Where the problem and the path to the solution are taken from the application - not the prior art - the rejection rests on hindsight” (emphasis added).
However, quite contrary to Applicant’s subjective assumption above, such practice of placing an optical sensor on a part of a weapon, including providing the weapon with a detachable simulated magazine that houses the electronics and power supply of the weapon (so that the weapon above can be used for training/simulation purpose), etc., is already part of the prior art. For instance, Schulz already teaches retrofitting or modifying an existing firearm using a kit ([0118]; [0119]). In particular, Schulz not only places an optical detector on a part of the weapon (e.g., see label “126” per FIG 1 or FIG 5), but also implements a detachable magazine (e.g., see FIG 12, label “1200”), which houses the electronics and power supply of the weapon ([0115]). Thus, except for missing an optical sensor(s) on the magazine, Schulz already does teach the core of Applicant’s claimed system.
Of course, the above minor missing element is effectively addressed when considering the combined teaching of Schulz and Rosenblum. In particular, as it has already been demonstrated several times above, Rosenblum does teach a laser gun on which optical detectors (e.g., an IR sensor, a laser sensor) are attached; and thereby, the gun detects a laser shot fired from another weapon ([0027]). Of course, given the above direct teaching, PHOSITA would be motivated to modify Schulz’s weapon by attaching one or more laser sensors on one or more parts of the weapon—such as, the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc. (see the discussion presented above). Of course, once such modification is implemented, Schulz’s weapon would also be capable of simulating additional training scenarios—such as, combat scenarios, etc.
Thus, the fact above once again demonstrates that the core of the Applicant’s claimed and disclosed system is gleaned directly from the prior art. If anything, Applicant appears to be attempting to solve the problem that the prior art has already solved. In particular, the practice of attaching one or more optical detectors (e.g., a laser sensor) on one or more parts of a weapon, including detecting—via such sensor—a laser shot fired from another weapon, has been available to the public at least for more than a decade prior to Applicant’s claimed (and disclosed) system. Thus, Applicant’s speculation regarding the alleged hindsight is not valid.
Note also that Applicant’s assertions regarding the alleged allowance, per EP and IL counterparts, is not relevant since the above has nothing to do with the Office’s obviousness findings.
Similarly, Applicant’s remarks directed to the Office’s previous response is not relevant. Applicant appears to simply repeat the same argument that the Office “does not supply a prior-art-grounded rationale to (i) relocate hit detection specifically onto a detachable magazine and (ii) pair that relocation with magazine-resident power/control that operates the WTA” (emphasis modified). However, as already discussed above, the modification does not involve relocating a laser sensor; rather, it attaches one or more laser sensors on one or more parts of the weapon (see discussion above in the regard). Thus, Applicant’s repetitive attempt to mischaracterize the Office’s modification is invalid. Moreover, Schulz already implements a laser sensor that is attached to a part of the weapon (e.g., see FIG 1, label “26”); and wherein, the above laser sensor is already paired with the power/control electronics incorporated as part of the detachable magazine ([0115]). Thus, besides the ordinary creativity of PHOSITA, the combined
teaching Schulz and Rosenblum already provides PHOSITA with sufficient teaching to accomplish the proposed modification (also see the discussion above in this regard). Thus, Applicant’s repetitive argument, “Rosenblum's toy does not even have a magazine nor teach the specific selection of a magazine as a position for hit sensors and operational hub. Schulz, for its part, keeps the optical sensing in the frame/slide even when electronics are moved to the magazine; nothing in the cited art bridges the gap”, is not relevant to challenge the Office’s obviousness findings. Of course, the same is true regarding Applicant’s repetitive “blueprint” theory. In contrast, the facts presented above unambiguously demonstrate that Applicant’s claimed and disclosed system is gleaned directly from the prior art. If the prior art teaches a weapon, which is equipped with one or more laser sensors to detect a laser shot fired from another weapon (e.g., see [0027] of Rosenblum), then it is quite a straightforward process—at least to PHOSITA —to attach one or more laser sensors on one or more parts of Schulz’s weapon (e.g., the barrel of the weapon, the magazine of the weapon, etc.); so that, Schulz’s weapon would be capable of simulating combat scenarios (again see the discussion above in this regard). The above basic commonsense fact remains true regardless of Applicant’s repetitive assumptions. Consequently, Applicant’s subjective speculation, “the rejoinder still does not provide such a rationale - and instead selects the magazine only after reading Applicant's claim”, is groundless.
Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 2 are also invalid. Applicant is asserting that “Quinlan's system is expressly a non-lethal, air-gun training weapon created as a toy that ’can never be used as a real firearm.’ . . . Quinlan thus teaches shot-cycle detection in an air-gun, not identifying charging of a real bolt of a real weapon as recited in claim 2” (emphasis added).
However, the argument above demonstrates Applicant’s failure to appreciate the structural and functional features of Quinlan's system. For instance, it is completely immaterial whether Quinlan's system is a non-lethal weapon, or whether it can never be used as a real fire arm. This is because the issue, per the modification discussed with respect to claim 2, has nothing to do with the use of a lethal weapon or a non-lethal weapon. Instead, the issue is specific to the use of a bolt detector to detect the charging of a bolt. In this regard, even if Quinlan relates to a weapon simulator, it does incorporate a bolt sensor (FIG 6, label “44”), which can be a magnetic sensor; and the above bolt sensor detects the charging of a bolt ([0027]). Of course, per basic common sense, the use of a magnetic sensor above indicates that the bolt is a metal. However, while failing to properly construe the feature incorporated per the teaching of Quinlan, Applicant is relying on speculative assertions that have nothing to do with the Office’s modification.
Note also that Applicant’s assertion regarding Quinlan, “Quinlan positions the bolt sensor within the magazine casing as part of an electromechanical assembly but still uses it in service of simulated firing/jam scenarios - not to recognize a manual charging event on a real firearm”, is also irrelevant since the above is yest another subjective speculation in an attempt to mischaracterize Quinlan’s teaching. Nevertheless, the above still does not negate the fact discussed regarding the bolt sensor, which detects the charging of the bolt of the weapon (again see [0027]). Thus, it is once again immaterial whether Quinlan system is non-lethal or not since PHOSITA is only interested in the teaching directed to the implementation of a bolt sensor to detect the charging of a bolt. This is
because Schulz already teaches the use of a real/lethal weapon for training purpose ([0030]; [00118]; [0119]). Accordingly, unlike Applicant’s erroneous assumption, Quinlan's weapon is not necessarily required to be a real/lethal weapon.
The observation above demonstrates that Applicant’s arguments directed to Quinlan are not even remotely relevant to the core issue discussed per the Office’s modification. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are invalid.
Similarly, Applicant’s arguments directed to the new claim, namely claim 25, are also not valid. This is because the argument is relying on the same incorrect assumption; namely, the alleged lack of prior art that teaches a magazine with an optical detector. In this regard, it is once again immaterial whether the weapon is a real weapon or not. This is because one with basic common sense easily recognizes, given the teaching of the prior art, the practice of incorporating one or more laser sensors on one or more parts of the weapon (the barrel, the magazine, etc.), regardless of whether the weapon is a real one or not. Consequently, Applicant’s premises is already invalid from the start. Of course, Applicant’s speculations directed to Schulz and Rosenblum are also invalid since none of the above references is cited to address claim 25.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final 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 filled 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. 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