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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on November 13, 2025 for the patent application 17/924,793 filed on November 11, 2022. Claims 1, 9, 19 and 20 are amended. Claims 7, 8, 14 and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1-6, 9-13 and 15-20 are pending. The first office action of August 15, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this 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 and 15-20 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 an orientation of the firearm;
…display a virtual environment in which the firearm may operate, the virtual environment automatically updated according to… an orientation of the firearm;
wherein the display is mounted to 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,” 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,” 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,” and “a display,” 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,” 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 and 15-20 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 and 15-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-6, 9-13 and 15-20 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 and 15-20 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 the firearm and to track an 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 a 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 updated according to sensor data from the one or more sensors and the 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; wherein the firearm includes a scope or sighting system (see FIG. 11).
Gallery does not explicitly disclose, wherein the display is positioned forward of a scope or sighting system of the firearm, such that the display is viewed through the scope or sighting system of the firearm. However, Tello teaches wherein the display is positioned forward of a scope or sighting system of the firearm, such that the display is viewed through the scope or sighting system of the firearm (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).
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 display is positioned forward of a scope or sighting system of the firearm, such that the display is viewed through the scope or sighting system 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. 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 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 15, Gallery discloses wherein the one or more sensors and the display comprise sensors and a display of a portable computing device, wherein the portable computing device is mounted to the firearm (see para. [0010] “In some embodiments, the personal computer is a desktop personal computer or a laptop personal computer. In some embodiments, the computing device is a hand-held computing device. In some embodiments, the hand-held computing device is a hand-held communication device. In some embodiments, the hand-held communication device comprises cellular telephone capacity. In some embodiments, the hand-held device is a smartphone comprising a central processing unit (CPU), a graphical display, and inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a camera. In some embodiments, the hand-held computing device is in physical contact with the controller. In some embodiments, a hand-held computing device comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU). In some embodiments, a target acquisition device, for example, a riflescope comprises a processor. In some embodiments, user performance data is displayed on a computing device, a personal computer, a laptop computer, a hand-held computing device, a hand-held communication device, or a device with cellular telephone capacity.”;
see para. [0014]: “In some embodiments, a visual interface is mounted on a firearm in the position of a target acquisition device, for example, a riflescope. In some embodiments, the visual interface is a target acquisition device. In some embodiments, graphical display is provided inside the body of a target acquisition device, for example, inside a riflescope.”;
see para. [0037] “In some embodiments, the present invention provides one or more kits comprising a plurality of a controller, a viewer comprising at least one visual interface, a base, at least one sensor, at least one laser position sensor, at least one user interface, at least one processor, software on non-transitory computer readable media, a statistics application, a computing device, a virtual reality unit, a virtual reality headset, gloves worn by a user, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a gyroscope, a global positioning system (GPS), a camera, a power source, memory, a communication interface, a display unit, goggles, a video screen, an optic clip-on display, and/or a training table. In some embodiments, the IMU detects vibrations in 3 axes.”;
see para. [0122]: “In some embodiments, the simulation applications, systems and methods of the present invention provide a virtual reality controller mounted on a firearm that comprises options for adjustment of windage/lead, elevation, parallax and/or diopter. In certain embodiments, the mounted controller further comprises a trigger adapter. In further embodiments, the virtual reality firearm and or target acquisition device is otherwise identical to a real-world firearm and/or target acquisition device that has been adapted for use in a virtual reality context.”)
Gallery does not explicitly disclose a bracket. However, Tello teaches a bracket (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.”)
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 a 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). This virtual system reduces wear on the firearm and cost of ammunition (see para. [0038] 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 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 17, Gallery does not explicitly disclose wherein the bracket is adjustable. However, Tallo teaches wherein the bracket is adjustable. (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. 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 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.”).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on November 13, 2025 related to claims 1-6, 9-13 and 15-20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Objection to the Drawings is Overcome.
The Applicant respectfully argues “In response to the Examiner’s objection to Figure 4, that the image lacks sufficient reproducible quality, the applicant submits a replacement figure herewith rendering the objection moot.”
The Examiner respectfully agrees. As such, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objections are withdrawn.
The Rejection Under 35 USC § 101 is Traversed
The Applicant respectfully argues “All of the claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Although applicant respectfully disagrees with this rejection. Nonetheless, to the extent any question has existed with regard to compliance with § 101, claim 1 (amended) is now most certainly not limited to an abstract idea because the claimed firearms training system now comprises all of:
“one or more sensors, configured to be mounted to the firearm and to track an orientation of the firearm”
“a display, configured to be mounted to a firearm and to display a virtual environment in which the firearm may operate, the virtual environment automatically updated according to sensor data from the one or more sensors and the 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” and
“wherein the firearm includes a scope or sighting system, wherein the display is 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 viewed through the scope or sighting system of the firearm.”
Thus, the invention of claim 1 covers particular structural configurations of sensors and a display mounted on a firearm, with the display physically located forward of the firearm’s scope. Advantageously, the user is able to view the virtual environment through the actual scope/sighting system of the firearm. Thus, the scope of claim 1 cannot be found limited to an abstract idea because it requires an improved physical training system that integrates a virtual environment with a real firearm and real optics via a specific, non-generic hardware arrangement. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 1 fully satisfies Step 2A, Prong 1 of the USPTO subject matter eligibility analysis and, for such an alleged abstract idea, solely contended as the basis for this rejection, the claim also satisfies Step 2A, Prong 2 of the USPTO subject matter eligibility analysis because the invention of claim 1 integrates such an alleged judicial exception into a practical application. In part, this is because the claimed invention improves the functioning of a firearms training system.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is merely advancing an abstract idea of “firearms training in a virtual environment,” that fails to provide any advancement in technology using generic, well-known, and conventional generic, well-known, and conventional hardware to carry out the abstract idea. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “With regard to the requisite of satisfying Prong 1, the Office Action incorrectly states that the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “providing a food preparation instruction.” Such subject matter appears nowhere in the claims or Specification, and the invention plainly relates to an entirely different technology. Making such a statement indicates that the basis for the rejection, i.e., alleging there is no more than an abstract idea, is perhaps based on boilerplate text for a rejection and the result of analyzing the subject matter of the present claims. The rejection fails to identify all of what claim 1 is “directed to” under the Alice/Mayo framework and the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Thus, for at least a second reason the rejection must be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has obviously merely made a typographical error. The remainder of the rejection clearly address all points of the subject-matter eligibility decision tree as discussed in MPEP §2106 in view of the Applicant’s invention. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The rejection suggests that the claims recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes” because they allegedly manage personal behavior or teaching and following rules. Claim 1, however, does not recite any rules, instructions, lesson plans, or other content defining training behavior. Rather, it recites specific hardware components and their interrelation.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims are directed to “firearms training in a virtual environment.” Specifically, “firearms training” as claimed reads on “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). In the present case, any form of “training” clearly reads on as teaching and following rules or instructions. Therefore, the Applicant’s claims are reasonably classified as “certain methods of organizing human activity.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Moreover, features of an embodiment according to claim 1, namely having (i) sensors mounted to a firearm . . . to track firearm orientation, and (11) a display mounted to the firearm and placed forward of a scope such that the virtual environment is viewed through the scope:
cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind and cannot be construed to 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. It is respectfully urged that a human mind cannot read sensors to track changes in orientation of a firearm for training in the claimed system or cause a physical display to update in real time as the firearm moves.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, 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 Appellant 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 independent claim limitation performs steps that are performed on a generic “display” which is part of a “portable computing device” as claimed in claim 15 to further provide a computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept.
Second, “…to track an orientation of the firearm; …display a virtual environment in which the firearm may operate, the virtual environment automatically updated according to… an orientation of the firearm; wherein the display is mounted to the firearm in a manner to that simulates the firearm being used in the virtual environment…” reads on “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Specifically, the Applicant’s “to track an orientation of the firearm,” clearly reads on an observation that can be performed in the human mind. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Examples in the Guidance of “certain methods of organizing human activity” 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 was never the intent of The Supreme Court of the United States of America to identify each and every possible abstract idea. Instead, their intent was to provide the framework from which subject-matter eligibility could be determined. This was, and presently is, the process used to determine subject-matter eligibility as applicable to this application. 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, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Summarily, 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. Rather, as understood from the opinion, those claims were subject matter eligible because they 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. See, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I which explains disposition of the issue in Thales as follows:
... determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using ‘mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame’ ."). For example, a limitation that is merely based on or involves a mathematical concept described in the specification may not be sufficient to fall into this grouping, provided the mathematical concept itself is not recited in the claim.
Here, claim 1 is similarly directed to a system that uses sensors mounted on a firearm and a display mounted forward of the firearm’s scope 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 and is therefore 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 are described as follows:
“[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.”
“Smartphones” and “tablets” are ubiquitous in modern day computing and are commercially available. The use of such generic devices to capture motion is insufficient to claim a “practical application,” nor is it “significantly more.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The rejection analogized the claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results” as in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, (Fed. Cir. 2016), but in Electric Power, the claims were directed to monitoring power-grid data and presenting results using generic computers, i.e., without any improvement in the functioning of computers or other technology. See, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I which references disposition of the issue in Electric Power:
Examples of claims that recite mental processes include .. . a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Electric Power,830 F. 1353-54.
As understood from the Federal Circuit opinion and the MPEP, the claims at issue in Electric Power 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. But by contrast, claim 1 does not merely recite collecting and displaying abstract data. Rather, it is directed to:
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, e.g., by integrating a virtual environment with a real firearm and its optics, i.e., not merely by displaying information on a generic screen. This is much closer to eligibility of the technology-improving claims in Thales than to the abstract data- monitoring claims in Electric Power.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously discussed above, Thales is not on point and “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group) is clearly on point, in view of the Applicant’s claims which are merely collecting orientation data to output on a generic display to advance an abstract idea of firearms training. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “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). As for Step 2A, Prong 2, even if an abstract idea were implicated, the claim integrates it into a practical application.
Assuming, purely for the sake of argument, t