DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 15, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on June 15, 2026 for the patent application 17/924,793 filed on November 11, 2022. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 17 and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are pending. The first office action of August 15, 2025 and the second office action of December 16, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 1 is directed to “a firearms training system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “firearms training in a virtual environment,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations, per claim 1:
“…to track orientation of the firearm;
…display a virtual environment in which the firearm may operate, the virtual environment automatically updatable according to… orientation of the firearm;
… in a manner to that simulates the firearm being used in the virtual environment…”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a firearm,” “one or more sensors,” “a display,” “a portable computing device,” and “a scope or sighting system,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “firearms training in a virtual environment,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a firearm,” “one or more sensors,” “a display,” “a portable computing device,” and “a scope or sighting system,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a firearm,” as described in para. [0098] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0098] While the firearms illustrated above are pistols and rifles, any suitable firearm may be used, including an air or gas-powered firearm, an air rifle, an air soft gun or a gel blaster.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a firearm,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional commercially available product.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more sensors,” “a display,” and “a portable computing device,” as described in paras. [0082]-[0083] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0082] The components 605-630 may be provided in a single portable computing device, such as a smartphone or a tablet computer.” “[0083] The firearm may comprise a rifle, which may have a scope, and the sensors and display may comprise sensors and a display of a portable computing device attached to the scope. The portable computing device may be mounted to the firearm by a bracket.” As such, the Applicant’s claimed “one or more sensors,” and “a display,” are reasonably interpreted as generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements as part of a commercially available product.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a scope or sighting system,” is not found in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Specifically, the specification fails to provide any detail beyond what is reasonably understood to be so sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element. As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a scope or sighting system,” is reasonably interpreted to be a generic, well-known, and conventional optical element that is commonly and commercially available today.
Therefore, these elements (i.e. “a firearm,” “one or more sensors,” “a display,” “a portable computing device,” and “a scope or sighting system”) are regarded as ubiquitous commercially available products that are generic, well-known, and conventional which do not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallery, et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Gallery,” US 2022/0178657) in view of Tallo (US 2013/0344461).
Regarding claim 1, Gallery discloses a firearms training system (see title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SHOOTING SIMULATION AND TRAINING) comprising: one or more sensors, (see para. [0007]: In some embodiments, provided herein are virtual reality systems and methods comprising: a) a controller (e.g., firearm-shaped controller, firearm, etc.), comprising: i) a frame (e.g., comprising the shape of a firearm and, optionally, the shape of a target acquisition device, such as a riflescope); and ii) one or more sensors (e.g., position sensors; firearm firing sensors; etc.); b) a user interface (e.g., headset, monitor, projected image, etc.) comprising at least one visual interface or viewer displaying a shooter view (e.g., riflescope view displaying a reticle pattern), and optionally at least one auditory, haptic or somatosensory interface; c) a computer component comprising a processor; and d) non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions that when executed by said processor cause the computer to execute a shooting simulation (e.g., projected to the user interface)) configured to be mounted to an operable firearm to track orientation of the firearm (see FIG.11; see para. [0049]: FIG. 11 shows an exemplary embodiment of the spatial x-axis, y-axis and z-axis orientation of a smartphone of the present invention, together with the angle of the smartphone to a visual anchor and the corresponding angle of aiming shown on an exemplary reticle. Use of a camera and reference point supports tracking of firearm movement in the x, y and z axis relative to a virtual target.’)
a display, configured to be mounted to the firearm (see FIG. 11) and to display a virtual environment in which the firearm may operate (see para. [0050] FIGS. 12A, 12B and 12C show exemplary smartphone displays of aiming points corresponding to ballistic solutions. FIG. 12A shows a close-up display that simulates an optic with a reticle moving relative to a virtual target;
see para. [0063]: In some embodiments, a user is immobile in a real world, and mobile in a virtual reality, an augmented reality or a mixed reality. In some embodiments, a user is mobile in a real world and mobile in a virtual reality, an augmented reality or a mixed reality;
see para. [0068]: In particular embodiments, a network links a plurality of shooters in diverse simulated physical locations within a shared virtual environment. In further embodiments, a network links a diversity of shooters in diverse simulated physical locations within a shared virtual environment to one or more instructors.”), the virtual environment automatically updateable according to data received from the one or more sensors including data concerning orientation of the firearm, wherein: the display is mounted to the firearm in a manner that simulates the firearm being used in the virtual environment; the firearm includes a scope or sighting system (see FIG. 11).
Gallery does not explicitly disclose with the display configured to be positioned forward of the scope or sighting system of the firearm and above a barrel of the firearm, such that the display is viewable through the scope or sighting system of the firearm; the one or more sensors and the display comprise sensors and a display of a portable computing device, and wherein the portable computing device is mounted to the firearm by an adjustable bracket.
However, Tello teaches with the display configured to be positioned forward of the scope or sighting system of the firearm, such that the display is viewable through the scope or sighting system of the firearm; the one or more sensors and the display comprise sensors and a display of a portable computing device, and wherein the portable computing device is mounted to the firearm by an adjustable bracket (see FIG. 8, sight line 40; see para. [0103]: While the embodiments shown in FIGS. 1-7 show use of the UMTS 20 with iron sights 92, the embodiment shown in FIG. 8 discloses the use of an optical sight 72. The sight shown is a common "red dot" sight, but other closed, optical, and or telescopic sights can be used;
see para. [0049]: The hardware components of the system 20 may also include a display device 24 having a graphic display 26 (display screen) thereon. While the display device 24 is shown as a cell phone; tablet computers, laptop computer, or other portable devices may be used. In one form as shown in FIG. 1, the display device 24 is attached to a firearm 28 through a positionable arm 30 with a bracket 62 thereon. In other examples such as shown in FIG. 24, the display device 24 is attached via a bore mounted insert 134.
see para. [0050]: The (positionable) arm 30 as seen best in the examples of FIGS. 2 and 3 has a first end 58 which is attached to the muzzle end 88 of the firearm 28 and a second end 60 having a display device bracket 62 thereon. The embodiment of FIG. 2 includes a barrel attachment clamp 64 which removably attaches directly to the barrel 90 of the firearm 28. The embodiment of FIG. 3 includes a Picatinny rail attachment clamp 66 which attaches to a Picatinny rail 68 portion of a hand guard 70 or similar portion of the firearm 28. The positionable arm 30 in one form is made of a malleable material or a series of movable joints such that the first end 58 is positionable relative to the second end 60. In this way, the placement of the display device 24 can be more easily adjusted as desired relative to an emission beam 36 and/or sight line 40).
Tallo is analogous to Gallery, as both are drawn to the art of marksmanship training. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system as taught by Gallery, to include with the display configured to be positioned forward of the scope or sighting system of the firearm, such that the display is viewable through the scope or sighting system of the firearm; the one or more sensors and the display comprise sensors and a display of a portable computing device, and wherein the portable computing device is mounted to the firearm by an adjustable bracket, as taught by Tallo, since the modification would facilitate the incorporation of a display device on a firearm to create a virtual training system. In one form of the disclosed device and system, the display device displays a sight target on the graphic display wherein the sight target is visually perceived by a marksman. (see para. [0003] of Tallo. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been motivated to apply the prior art of Tallo to achieve the claimed invention and would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Gallery and Tallo do not teach with the display configured… entirely above a barrel of the firearm. However, the Applicant’s use of the display configured… entirely above a barrel of the firearm is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that the position of the display configured… entirely above a barrel of the firearm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any position of the display in relation to the barrel using the system of Gallery and Tallo or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Gallery and Tallo to obtain the system as specified in claim 1, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Gallery and Tallo.
Regarding claim 2, Gallery discloses wherein the one or more sensors are configured to track at least rotational movement of the firearm (see para. [0022] In some embodiments, firearm rotation, that is, the relative angle between a firearm and target or anchor image in virtual reality, is determined by a camera and an anchor image. In some embodiments, a camera provides features of an environment in which virtual reality is conducted including, for example, edge detection, corners, walls, flooring, and ceilings as provided, for example, by the Oculus Quest (Markerless AR) system. In some embodiments, firearm rotation is determined by an IMU, a gyroscope, an accelerometer, and/or a compass. In some embodiments, firearm rotation is determined by a position of a base station, for example, an HTV Vive base station. In some embodiments, firearm rotation is controlled and/or monitored by user input including, for example, tap, drag, pinch and the like. In some embodiments, a camera is mounted on a head mounted display (HMD), and an anchor image is mounted on a firearm).
Regarding claim 3, Gallery discloses wherein the one or more sensors are configured to track roll, pitch and yaw of the firearm (see para. [0063]: In some embodiments, a user is immobile in a real world, and mobile in a virtual reality, an augmented reality or a mixed reality. In some embodiments, a user is mobile in a real world and mobile in a virtual reality, an augmented reality or a mixed reality. In some embodiments, an IMU detects the roll, pitch and or yaw of a controller (for example, a controller in the shape of a firearm) used by a user.)
Regarding claim 4, Gallery discloses wherein the one or more sensors are further configured to track translational movement of the firearm (see para. [0049]: FIG. 11 shows an exemplary embodiment of the spatial x-axis, y-axis and z-axis orientation of a smartphone of the present invention, together with the angle of the smartphone to a visual anchor and the corresponding angle of aiming shown on an exemplary reticle. Use of a camera and reference point supports tracking of firearm movement in the x, y and z axis relative to a virtual target).
Regarding claim 5, Gallery discloses wherein the one or more sensors include image sensors (see para. [0027]: “In some embodiments, the at least one of the one or more sensors is a camera”), wherein tracking of the firearm is performed at least in part according to tracking of images captured by the image sensors (see para. [0021]: “In some embodiments, the systems and methods comprise one or more cameras. In some embodiments the camera acquires an anchor image thereby providing a relative angle of a virtual reality controller in, for example, the shape of a firearm to the anchor image”;
see para. [0028]: “In some embodiments, a virtual reality headset, an augmented reality headset, a mixed reality headset and/or a consensual reality headset comprises one or more cameras that track firearm position and/or firing mechanism position;”
see para. [0049]: “FIG. 11 shows an exemplary embodiment of the spatial x-axis, y-axis and z-axis orientation of a smartphone of the present invention, together with the angle of the smartphone to a visual anchor and the corresponding angle of aiming shown on an exemplary reticle. Use of a camera and reference point supports tracking of firearm movement in the x, y and z axis relative to a virtual target.”).
Regarding claim 6, Gallery discloses wherein the one or more sensors include an inertial measurement sensor (see para. [0020]: “In some embodiments, the systems and methods comprise an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a gyroscope, a compass, and/or a global positioning system (GPS)”).
Regarding claim 9, Gallery discloses wherein the display is configured to generate a first display portion, for display through the scope of the firearm, and a second display portion, for display outside of the scope of the firearm (see FIGS. 2, 3A and 3B).
Regarding claim 10, Gallery discloses wherein the first display portion corresponds to an enlarged portion of the virtual environment compared to the second display portion (see FIGS. 2, 3A and 3B; see para. [0123] In some embodiments, the simulation applications, systems and methods of the present invention provide virtual reality optical system (e.g., telescopic gunsight) simulation that enables the virtual reality user to adjust, for example, magnification, focus, focal distance, diopter, focal plane, zoom, and desired reticle to duplicate a physical optical system in virtual reality that parallel a real-world context. In certain embodiments, the virtual reality firearm comprises a physical, real-world scope linked to a virtual reality processor that adjusts the virtual reality optics to parallel real world adjustments, In other embodiments, the real world optical system and the virtual reality optical system are overlaid as the virtual reality users adjusts the windage and elevation of the physical (e.g., in-hand) virtual reality firearm (e.g., shoulder-mounted firearm with rifle barrel, or handgun or freestanding firearm with rifle barrel or handgun) to strike a virtual reality target.”).
Regarding claim 11, Gallery discloses wherein the display is updated when the firearm is fired without ammunition (dry fired) (see para. [0013]: “In some embodiments, one more sensors detects a shooting event. In some embodiments, the one or more sensors detects a position and/or motion of a firing mechanism. In some embodiments, the firing mechanism comprises one or more of a bolt, a trigger, a trigger pivot, a sear, a sear lever, trigger take-up, a hammer, a transfer bar, a firing pin, a striker, a lock plunger, a trigger safety, a striker safety, an actuator, one or more springs, a spring return hook and a disconnector. In some embodiments, the one or more sensors detects one or more of vibration of the firing mechanism, inertia of the firing mechanism, pressure on the firing mechanism, an image of the firing mechanism, and/or a sound or vibration of the firing mechanism. In some embodiments, the one or more sensors are connected to the controller by a wired connection, or by a wireless connection. In some embodiments, the one or more sensors detect a real-world change in a firing mechanism including, for example, a change in the real-world position, motion or sound of a firing mechanism. In some embodiments, an IMU measures the specific force of a body, an angular rate of change of a body, and/or the orientation of a body. In some embodiments, the motion is detected from artificial recoil. In some embodiments, artificial recoil is sensed, and a change in a firing mechanism is not sensed. In some embodiments, a sudden change is the angle of a controller is detected by augmented reality tracking. In some embodiments, augmented reality tracking does not require use of an IMU. In some embodiments, augmented reality tracking is real-world tracking, room tracking, plane detection (for example, detection of the ambient wall, floor and/or ceiling), visual detection of ambient feature points, and/or image tags. In some embodiments, one or more position sensors is affixed to an ambient real-world environment, for example, a wall, floor or ceiling. In some embodiments, one or more sensors are attached to a firearm bipod or tripod, or a reference point on a head mounted display (HMD). In some embodiments, an HMD camera tracks a position sensor. In some embodiments, the firing mechanism is an electronic firing mechanism comprising electronic primer discharge, and a sensor detects activation of the electronic firing mechanism. In some embodiments, a controller comprising a base comprising a firearm is modified to transmit an electronic signal from the firearm to a virtual reality unit and/or computing device coincident with activation of firing.”)
Regarding claim 12, Gallery discloses wherein the system includes a microphone, configured to sense a sound of the firearm dry-firing (see para. [0013]: “In some embodiments, the one or more sensors detects one or more of vibration of the firing mechanism, inertia of the firing mechanism, pressure on the firing mechanism, an image of the firing mechanism, and/or a sound or vibration of the firing mechanism”;
see para. [0067]: “In some embodiments, a virtual reality unit comprises a microphone sensitive to the sound of a firing mechanism, for example, movement of a firing pin. In some embodiments, the software transmits detection of a movement of a firing pin to a processor).
Regarding claim 13, Gallery discloses wherein the display is configured to display a virtual target to which the firearm may aim, wherein the system may determine whether the virtual target has been hit at least in part according to the orientation of the firearm, and wherein the display is updated to show whether the virtual target has been hit (see para. [0050] FIGS. 12A, 12B and 12C show exemplary smartphone displays of aiming points corresponding to ballistic solutions. FIG. 12A shows a close-up display that simulates an optic with a reticle moving relative to a virtual target. FIG. 12B shows a display when cycling of a firearm bolt was not sensed, and accordingly no projectile is in the firearm chamber. FIG. 12C shows the impact position of a projectile based on an aiming point relative to a virtual target using ballistic and environmental variables entered by a user. An impact point is shown by a dot in the white circle of the display;
see para. [0090]: “As shown in FIG. 8, specifics of feedback including hits vs. misses, and time until each hit are provided to the virtual reality user in the user's field of view or on another display (e.g., computing device display).
Regarding claim 16, Gallery does not explicitly disclose wherein the bracket extends outwardly from the firearm, and along a length of the firearm. However, Tallo teaches wherein the bracket extends outwardly from the firearm, and along a length of the firearm (see FIGS. 1-3, arm 30; see para. [0049]: The hardware components of the system 20 may also include a display device 24 having a graphic display 26 (display screen) thereon. While the display device 24 is shown as a cell phone; tablet computers, laptop computer, or other portable devices may be used. In one form as shown in FIG. 1, the display device 24 is attached to a firearm 28 through a positionable arm 30 with a bracket 62 thereon. In other examples such as shown in FIG. 24, the display device 24 is attached via a bore mounted insert 134.”;
see para. [0050]: “The (positionable) arm 30 as seen best in the examples of FIGS. 2 and 3 has a first end 58 which is attached to the muzzle end 88 of the firearm 28 and a second end 60 having a display device bracket 62 thereon.”)
Regarding claim 18, Gallery does not explicitly disclose wherein the bracket includes one or more clamp members, configured to clamp at least a part of the firearm. However, Tallo teaches wherein the bracket includes one or more clamp members, configured to clamp at least a part of the firearm (see FIGS. 2-3, clamp 64, 66 ; see para. [0050]: “The (positionable) arm 30 as seen best in the examples of FIGS. 2 and 3 has a first end 58 which is attached to the muzzle end 88 of the firearm 28 and a second end 60 having a display device bracket 62 thereon. The embodiment of FIG. 2 includes a barrel attachment clamp 64 which removably attaches directly to the barrel 90 of the firearm 28. The embodiment of FIG. 3 includes a Picatinny rail attachment clamp 66 which attaches to a Picatinny rail 68 portion of a hand guard 70 or similar portion of the firearm 28. The positionable arm 30 in one form is made of a malleable material or a series of movable joints such that the first end 58 is positionable relative to the second end 60. In this way, the placement of the display device 24 can be more easily adjusted as desired relative to an emission beam 36 and/or sight line 40.”).
Regarding claim 19, Gallery does not explicitly disclose wherein the bracket is configured to mount the display in front of the firearm. However, Tallo teaches wherein the bracket is configured to mount the display in front of the firearm (see FIGS. 1-3, arm 30, display device 24, firearm 28; see para. [0050]: “The (positionable) arm 30 as seen best in the examples of FIGS. 2 and 3 has a first end 58 which is attached to the muzzle end 88 of the firearm 28 and a second end 60 having a display device bracket 62 thereon. The embodiment of FIG. 2 includes a barrel attachment clamp 64 which removably attaches directly to the barrel 90 of the firearm 28. The embodiment of FIG. 3 includes a Picatinny rail attachment clamp 66 which attaches to a Picatinny rail 68 portion of a hand guard 70 or similar portion of the firearm 28. The positionable arm 30 in one form is made of a malleable material or a series of movable joints such that the first end 58 is positionable relative to the second end 60. In this way, the placement of the display device 24 can be more easily adjusted as desired relative to an emission beam 36 and/or sight line 40.”).
Tallo is analogous to Gallery, as both are drawn to the art of marksmanship training. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system as taught by Gallery, to include wherein the bracket is configured to mount the display in front of the firearm, as taught by Tallo, since the modification would facilitate the incorporation of a display device on a firearm to create a virtual training system. In one form of the disclosed device and system, the display device displays a sight target on the graphic display wherein the sight target is visually perceived by a marksman. (see para. [0003] of Tallo). In this way, the placement of the display device 24 can be more easily adjusted as desired relative to an emission beam 36 and/or sight line 40. (see para. [0050] of Tallo). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been motivated to apply the prior art of Tallo to achieve the claimed invention and would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Gallery discloses wherein the display is configurable to display the virtual environment of a plurality of environments (see para. [0018] In some embodiments, the visual interface comprises a target and an environment. In some embodiments, the target is a simulated target and the environment is a real environment. In some embodiments, the target is a simulated target and the environment is a simulated environment. In some embodiments, the target is a simulated target and the simulated environment overlays virtual objects on a real environment. In some embodiments, the target is a simulated target and the simulated environment overlays and anchors virtual objects on a real environment. In some embodiments, the target is simulated as seen through a target acquisition device comprising a reticle. In some embodiments, the target is a moving target.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, 16 and 18-19 recite the limitation “the firearm.” The limitation “an operable firearm” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis; or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-5, 9, 11-13, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the one or more sensors and the display comprise sensors and a display of a portable computing device,” which does not provide sufficient clarity as to what is being claimed, since the claim language can be interpreted and examined in several ways. It is unclear as to what combination of “the one or more sensors” and/or “the display” further include “sensors” and/or “a display of a portable computing device.” Furthermore, it is unclear as to why “the one or more sensors” would further include more “sensors.” Therefore claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claims 16, 18 and 19 recite the limitation “the bracket.” The limitation “an adjustable bracket” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis; or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16, 18 and 19 recite the following limitations: “The firearms training system of claim 15” The claims are indefinite because they are dependent on newly cancelled claim 15. As such, it is unclear what the Applicant is particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming as the subject matter of the Applicant’s invention. Therefore claims 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on June 15, 2026 related to claims 1-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Argument Supporting Withdrawal Of Art Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
The Applicant respectfully argues “Unlike claim 1 (twice amended), previously rejected claim 14 did not require the display being positioned entirely above the barrel of the firearm. As previously submitted, neither Gallery nor Tello disclose, teach or suggest such a feature. The Examiner has not directly commented on the applicant's arguments on this point.
As previously submitted, Gallery does not disclose a system wherein the display is positioned forward of a scope or sighting system of the firearm and above a barrel of the firearm, such that the display is viewed through the scope or sighting system of the firearm. Claim 1 is now most clearly distinguished in part because Gallery, in contrast, only discloses the display being positioned to a side of the firearm, and beside the scope.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The display device shown throughout the prior art of Tello is depicted exactly as Applicant’s claimed limitation of “the display configured to be positioned forward of the scope or sighting system of the firearm and above a barrel of the firearm, such that the display is viewable viewed through the scope or sighting system of the firearm.” The Applicant’s alleged novelty of being “entirely” above the barrel is merely a design choice that fails to distinguish itself from the prior art. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Also, the embodiment(s) of Tello relied upon for the rejection disclose a display positioned forward of a scope or sighting system, but not entirely above the barrel of the firearm. In fact, in all embodiments of Tello where the display is forward of the scope or sighting system, the display is also forward of the barrel, and not entirely above the barrel as now claimed. This prior art configuration places the additional weight of the display to a far end of the firearm, which impacts the balance of the firearm more than if the display were positioned more centrally. When the display is positioned in front of the barrel, as taught by Tello, the firearm is unable to be shot, e.g., both with a blank or a live round, without damaging the display and/or firearm.
Additionally, Gallery discloses using the barrel angle relative to the simulated target to provide sighting information, i.e. to adjust the downrange aiming point (see paragraph [0079] for reference). This method would not be compatible with the configuration disclosed by Tello, as the sighting system of Tello would move with the angle of the barrel and the change in the position of the barrel would not be detected, i.e., such that an aiming point could not be adjusted. Tello does not include any orientation sensors that would allow it to detect such a change in barrel position relative to a target.
Instead, it relies on a laser emission beam 36 from a chamber insert 74 in the barrel to display the bore alignment point 34 on a graphic display 26. No modification of the barrel angle of the firearm would result in a change in the position of the emission beam 36 viewable on the graphic display 26, or to a calculated point of impact 32 viewable on the display 26.
In view of the above, the combination of the Gallery and Tello references is not suitable. Additionally, even if the unsuitable combination of the Gallery and Tello was made by the skilled person, the features of the claimed invention would not result. As such, claim 1 is clearly non-obvious in light of Gallery and Tello for at least these reasons.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the display device shown throughout the prior art of Tello is depicted exactly as Applicant’s claimed limitation of “the display configured to be positioned forward of the scope or sighting system of the firearm and above a barrel of the firearm, such that the display is viewable viewed through the scope or sighting system of the firearm.” The Applicant’s alleged novelty of being “entirely” above the barrel is merely a design choice that fails to distinguish itself from the prior art. Furthermore, the Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the limitations of claim 1 (i.e. “impacts the balance of the firearm” and “the firearm is unable to be shot”). As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16, and 18-20 all depend from claim 1, and thus include all features of claim 1. As such, claims 2-6, 9-13, 16, and 18-20 are also clearly non-obvious in light of Gallery and Tello for at least the same reasons. For at least these reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the 35 USC § 103 rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons stated here and above. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 are not withdrawn.
Argument Supporting Withdrawal Of The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C §101
Step 2A, Prong 1 - Claim 1 is not "directed to" an abstract idea
The Applicant respectfully argues “The applicant respectfully rejects the premise that using a combination of known elements to perform an abstract concept amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. Any patent claim for a mechanical invention can be boiled down to a list of conventional or generic elements that have been arranged in a unique manner to perform an abstract idea. It is the specific arrangement of features as a whole that must be considered, not the constituent elements of the invention in isolation. The claimed invention provides a unique arrangement of physical features that provides an improvement in firearms training, including a display positioned forward of the scope or sighting system of the firearm, and above a barrel of the firearm, and one or more sensors. As discussed below, this combination of elements is not known in the prior art base, and is non-obvious in light of the prior art base.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is not based in the analysis at Step 2A, Prong 1. Regardless, the Applicant’s “premise” misses the point that “firearms training in a virtual environment,” using routine and conventional hardware without any advancement in technology is not subject-matter eligible. Furthermore, the Applicant’s argument with regard to “this combination of elements is not known in the prior art base, and is non-obvious in light of the prior art base,” is not only an improper and unfounded step in the subject-matter eligibility analysis, but is also without merit in view of the 35 U.S.C> §103 rejection provided above. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Claim 1 as amended recites physical components and their interrelation in a unique, non-generic hardware arrangement, including one or more sensors, a display, and a scope or sighting system, a portable computing device, and an adjustable bracket. The additional limitation of an adjustable bracket is a structural feature which further distinguishes claim 1 from a process of data gathering and manipulation, and clearly does not amount to generic hardware when combined with the other structural features of a display, the one or more sensors, and a portable computing device.
The physical limitations of claim 1, namely sensors mounted to the firearm to track firearm orientation, a display mounted to the firearm and placed forward of a scope such that the virtual environment is viewed through the scope, and a computing device mounted to the firearm by an adjustable bracket do not fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" groupings identified in the USPTO Guidance. Tracking the orientation of a firearm using sensors and updating a virtual environment accordingly requires physical sensors and computer-implemented rendering of the virtual scene in response to sensor data. A human cannot, in the mind, mount sensors to a firearm or cause a physical display to update in real time as the firearm moves.
The Guidance's "certain methods of organizing human activity" examples include economic practices (e.g., hedging), managing relationships or transactions, legal obligations, and other schemes involving fundamental economic or interpersonal interactions. Claim 1 does not recite any such activities. It does not manage contracts, scheduling, sales, or social interactions. It instead defines a technical configuration of hardware that yields a particular training experience.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is worth noting in MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “firearms training in a virtual environment,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions).
With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required. Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite “a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept of firearms training which has been done in the analog for decades if not centuries. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The claimed subject matter is much closer to the inertial tracking system held patent-eligible in Thales Visionix Inc. V. United States, where the Federal Circuit found claims to an arrangement of inertial sensors mounted on a helmet and on an aircraft to determine the helmet's position and orientation relative to the aircraft to be not directed to an abstract idea.
As the court explained, those claims were "directed to a system that uses inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame."
Here, similarly, claim 1 is directed to a system that uses sensors mounted on a firearm and a display mounted forward of the firearm's scope and above the barrel of the firearm to provide a virtual environment that is viewed directly through the real scope. This is a specific improvement in firearms training technology and motion-tracking display systems, not an abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s interpretation of Thales is incorrect. Thales used a particular configuration of specific sensors (i.e. inertia sensors) to overcome a real-world problem “recognizing that conventional solutions for tracking inertial motion of an object on a moving platform were flawed because both object- and platform-based inertial sensors measured motion relative to earth, and the error-correcting sensors on the tracked object measured position relative to the moving platform. Id. at 1:23–42. Attempting to fuse this data produced inconsistent position information when the moving platform accelerated or turned. Id.”
Thales demonstrated a technical solution to this problem: “The inertial sensors disclosed in the ’159 patent do not use the conventional approach of measuring inertial changes with respect to the earth. Id. at 7:12–23. Instead, the platform (e.g., vehicle) inertial sensors directly measure the gravitational field in the platform frame. Id. at 7:12–49, fig. 3D.”
In the Applicant’s case, generic sensors which are described in paras. [0082]-[0083] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following:
“[0082] The components 605-630 may be provided in a single portable computing device, such as a smartphone or a tablet computer.” “[0083] The firearm may comprise a rifle, which may have a scope, and the sensors and display may comprise sensors and a display of a portable computing device attached to the scope. The portable computing device may be mounted to the firearm by a bracket.”
As such, the Applicant’s sensors are not invented by the Inventor, but in fact provided by the original equipment manufacture of “a portable computing device.” Furthermore. The Applicant’s “portable computing device,” is reasonably understood to be “a smartphone or a tablet computer,” which are ubiquitous in modern day computing and are readily available. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Action analogizes the claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results" as in Electric Power Group V. Alstom.
In Electric Power, the claims were directed to monitoring power-grid data and presenting results using generic computers, without any improvement in the functioning of computers or other technology. The Federal Circuit emphasized that the claims were "directed to a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not to any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions."
By contrast, claim 1 does not simply collect and display abstract data. Rather, it recites:
1) a particular placement of sensors on a firearm to track firearm orientation; and
2) a display physically mounted on the firearm and positioned forward of the firearm's scope so that the user experiences the virtual environment by looking through the real scope.
These structural features define how the system is implemented in the physical world and how the training experience is provided, i.e., by integrating a virtual environment with a real firearm and its optics, not merely by displaying information on a generic screen. This is much closer to the technology-improving claims in Thales than to the abstract data-monitoring claims in Electric Power Group.
Accordingly, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the USPTO framework, claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception at all, but rather to a concrete machine and an improvement in a technical field (firearms training and motion-tracked display systems).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s invention appears to be an app on a smartphone that is attached to a physical object to further the illusion of virtual firearms training that appears realistic. This is done by collecting sensor/motion data, analyzing it, and displaying the results of that analysis to appear as training in a virtual environment. Electric Power Group, is absolutely on-point in view of the Applicant’s claims. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong 2 - Even if an abstract idea were implicated, the claim integrates it into a practical application
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Examiner submits that the claimed invention is not considered a "Practical Application" of an abstract idea as it does not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition,
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim,
Effecting a transformation or reduction or a particular article to a different state or thing,
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead, the examiner submits that the applicant's claims are merely claimed to use a display and sensors which are part of a smartphone/tablet computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The applicant respectfully disagrees with the above. The examiner has reduced the unique physical arrangement of a features as claimed in claim 1 to a display and sensors of a smartphone/tablet computer, without considering the contribution or effect provided by the unique structural arrangement of physical features defined in claim 1. Generic smartphone/tablet computer hardware does not encompass a specific arrangement including one or more sensors mounted to a firearm configured to track the firearm's orientation, a display positioned forward of a scope or sighting system of a firearm and above a barrel of the firearm, and a portable computing device mounted to the firearm by an adjustable bracket.
In view of the above, claim 1 clearly provides a particular machine that is integral to the claim, SO any putative abstract concept satisfies bullet point 3 of the "Practical Application" test set out by the examiner.
Any putative abstract concept is integrated into a specific practical implementation as the sensors are configured to be physically mounted to the firearm to track its orientation, and the display is configured to be securely mounted on the firearm and to display a virtual environment whose content is updated according to the tracked orientation of the firearm.
The display is positioned forward of the firearm's scope or sighting system and above the barrel of the firearm, with the express result that "the display is viewed through the scope or sighting system of the firearm."
These limitations ensure that any abstract notion of "training with a virtual environment" is applied in a particular technical context, namely, a firearm equipped with a real scope or sight, with a display mounted in a specific location relative to that scope so that the trainee uses the firearm and its optics in substantially the same way as in live-fire scenarios.
This physical arrangement yields real-world benefits including, for example, allowing trainees to use the same firearm and optics they use in live training, while operating in a virtual environment, and providing a realistic sight picture through the trainee's existing scope/sighting system to simulate use in a different environment; and enabling safe and repeatable firearms training in environments where live ammunition cannot be used.
Under the USPTO Guidance, claims that apply an abstract idea in a "meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" are considered to integrate the exception into a practical application and are therefore eligible at Step 2A, Prong 2. Claim 1 does exactly that by specifying the physical hardware configuration that achieves the training effect.
As in Thales, where the claimed sensor arrangement constituted an improvement in tracking technology, the present claim's particular arrangement of sensors and display on a firearm constitutes an improvement in firearms training technology and VR integration, and thus constitutes a practical application of any underlying abstract concept.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2B - The claim recites "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea
The Applicant respectfully argues “Even if the Office were to find that claim 1 is "directed to" an abstract idea at Step 2A, it would still be patent-eligible because the additional elements-considered individually and as an ordered combination-amount to significantly more than that idea.
The Action asserts that "a firearm," "one or more sensors," and "a display" are generic, well- known, and conventional, relying primarily on the Specification's description of these items.
But under Berkheimer and the USPTO's implementing memorandum, the question is not whether isolated components are known, but whether the claimed combination and claimed arrangement were well-understood, routine, and conventional as a whole at the relevant time.
The Specification's recognition that firearms, sensors, or displays may be implemented using commercially available hardware does not establish that the particular configuration recited in claim 1, namely sensors mounted to a firearm to track orientation, with a display mounted forward of a scope such that the display is viewed through the scope, is itself well-understood, routine, and conventional.
To the contrary, the Specification describes this configuration as inventive.
The Office Action does not cite any prior art, official notice, or other evidence showing that the specific ordered combination of: sensors mounted on the firearm to track orientation; a display mounted on the firearm; and the display being positioned forward of the firearm's scope so that the scope is used to view the display was routine or conventional at the time. Reliance solely on the fact that the basic components (firearm, sensors, and display) exist in commerce is legally insufficient under Berkheimer to establish conventionality of the claimed combination.
In Thales, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a specific configuration of inertial sensors were patent-eligible even though inertial sensors themselves were known, because the claims recited a particular, non-conventional configuration that improved the functioning of a tracking system.
Similarly, here, claim 1 does not merely say "use a generic sensor and a generic display". It recites: mounting sensors on the firearm such that they track the orientation of the firearm itself; mounting a display on the firearm and updating a virtual environment according to the tracked orientation; and positioning the display forward of a scope or sighting system so the trainee looks through the real scope at the virtual environment.
This ordered combination of elements is specifically tailored to solve a technical problem in firearms training and simulation, namely, how to provide a realistic, scope-through virtual training experience using a physical firearm and its optics, without requiring a purpose-built simulator weapon or altering the firearm's basic operation.
Under the Alice/Mayo framework and the Federal Circuit's guidance, such a non-conventional arrangement of known components that improves the technology constitutes "significantly more" than any underlying abstract concept and satisfies Step 2B.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, there is prior art above in the rejection (please see above).
Second, with regard to Berkheimer, in a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of four options:
Option 1 – Statement(s) by Applicant
Option 2 – Court Decisions in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)
Option 3 – Publication(s)
Option 4 – Official Notice
Here, the Examiner has chosen to apply Option 1 – Statement(s) by Applicant as support of the rejection at step 2B of the analysis.
Statement(s) by the Applicant is/are defined as the following:
(1) An explanation based on an express statement in the specification (e.g., citation to a relevant portion of the specification) that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional element(s) as conventional (or an equivalent term); as a commercially available product; or, in a way that shows the element is widely prevalent or in common use; or
(2) A statement made by an applicant during prosecution, that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
Here, the Examiner has chosen to incorporate the first definition (i.e.(1)) within the subject-matter eligibility analysis as provided above in the rejection. Specifically, the Examiner has identified that the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a firearm,” “one or more sensors,” “a display,” “a portable computing device,” and “a scope or sighting system,” are claimed these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements and/or are commercially available elements.
The Examiner, provides evidence of this by citing an express statement in the specification (e.g., citation to a relevant portion of the specification) that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). This requirement is achieved by citing the Applicant’s own written description of the specification as originally filled at paras. [0082], [0083] and [0098], which are clearly and reasonably understood to be commercially available products that are widely prevalent and in common use. Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed “a scope or sighting system,” is not found in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Specifically, the specification fails to provide any detail beyond what is reasonably understood to be so sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element. As such, the Applicant’s claimed “a scope or sighting system,” is reasonably interpreted to be a generic, well-known, and conventional optical element that is commonly and commercially available today. Therefore, it is the express statement in the specification at paras. [0082], [0083] and [0098], and the lack of any statement pertaining to the “scope or sighting system,” that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s) that satisfies the Examiner’s burden of providing evidence under the required Berkheimer analysis at step 2B and ultimately overcoming the Applicant’s inaccurate argument.
Finally, the Applicant’s argument with regard to Thales has been asked and answered above. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16, and 18-20 further limit the system, including by specifying additional technical details regarding the sensors, tracking, and/or other structural aspects (as indicated in the Office Action's §103 discussion). These additional features further confine the claims to specific technical implementations and thus are, a fortiori, at least as patent-eligible as claim 1.
For at least the reasons outlined above, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-6, 9-13,16, and 18-20 recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 and respectfully requests withdrawal of the §101 rejection.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 also do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16 and 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights