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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, the term “weight of a traditional loaded magazine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The weight of loaded magazines can vary largely, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 8, the term “conventional replaceable batteries” is being interpreted to refer to the following definition provided in paragraph 0056 of the Applicant’s specification: “conventional replaceable batteries such as nickel-based cylindrical cells. In some embodiments, these battery cells can be recharged.” However, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, the “conventional replaceable batteries” will be interpreted to specifically refer to nickel-based cylindrical cells.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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 1-5, 7-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0300766 (“Sims”), and further in view of US 2015/0226509 (“Hadler”).
Regarding Claim 1, Sims discloses a bolt carrier group trigger resetter (figs. 13-16: assembly 52 replaces BCG; par. 0047: “a motorized embodiment of the dry fire trigger device 52 including a lever 54, a push rod 56, and a motor 58. The lever 54 is hingedly secured to the motorized dry fire trigger device 52 and configured to contact the hammer 22 of a firearm in which the motorized dry fire trigger device 52 is installed;” par. 0052: “In operation, the motorized dry fire trigger device 52 is configured to contact the hammer 22 of a firearm and automatically reset the hammer 22 to its initial cocked position upon dry firing the firearm”).
Sims does not explicitly disclose a battery. However, Hadler discloses a battery (par. 0018: “Battery 20 is a battery or other source of stored electrical energy. Battery 20 is utilized to provide electrical power to simulated firearm 10 as described herein”).
Sims and Hadler are analogous arts because they both teach firearm training systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery of Hadler with the training firearm of Sims in order to provide a simple internal power supply to power the system (Hadler, fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Sims further discloses said bolt carrier group trigger resetter is configured to replace a bolt carrier group of a rifle and a charging handle of said rifle (figs. 13-16: assembly 52 replaces BCG; par. 0047: “a motorized embodiment of the dry fire trigger device 52 including a lever 54, a push rod 56, and a motor 58. The lever 54 is hingedly secured to the motorized dry fire trigger device 52 and configured to contact the hammer 22 of a firearm in which the motorized dry fire trigger device 52 is installed;” par. 0052: “In operation, the motorized dry fire trigger device 52 is configured to contact the hammer 22 of a firearm and automatically reset the hammer 22 to its initial cocked position upon dry firing the firearm”).
Regarding Claim 3, Sims discloses a rifle (par. 0046: “which may include a selector switch to change the rifle from automatic to semi-automatic fire”).
Regarding Claim 4, Sims discloses a laser module (par. 0053: “The dry fire trigger device 52 may be configured to operate in conjunction with an electronic trainer, such as a laser or other device for training with a firearm. For example, the dry fire trigger device 52 may include a switch or other actuator that activates a laser of an electronic trainer when a firearm is dry fired”).
Regarding Claim 5, Sims modified by Hadler further discloses said battery is a magazine battery pack that includes a contact to connect said magazine battery pack to said bolt carrier group trigger resetter (Hadler, fig. 1: magazine battery pack connects to bolt carrier group and electric motor therein; par. 0027: “When trigger 16 is activated by the trainee, a pulse of electric current is also released from battery 22 and applied to the magnetic coil contained within the interior space of solenoid 28”).
The combination of the training firearm of Sims with the battery of Hadler described above for Claim 1 would have included the connection method of that battery.
Regarding Claim 7, Hadler further discloses said magazine battery pack includes a lithium-ion battery (par. 0018: “For example, battery 20 may be any of a lithium ion battery”).
The combination of the training firearm of Sims with the battery of Hadler described above for Claim 1 would have included the type of battery.
Regarding Claim 8, Hadler further discloses said magazine battery pack is configured to work with conventional replaceable batteries (par. 0018: “For example, battery 20 may be any of… a nickel metal hydride battery, a nickel cadmium lead acid battery, or any other suitable battery technologies”).
The combination of the training firearm of Sims with the battery of Hadler described above for Claim 1 would have included the type of battery.
Regarding Claim 9, Sims further discloses said bolt carrier group trigger resetter comprises an electric motor (figs. 13-16: motor 58; par. 0049: “The switch 68 is in electrical communication with the motor 58 such that when the switch 68 is contacted by the slider 66, the motor 58 is activated”).
Regarding Claim 10, Sims discloses a motor but does not specify a solenoid. However, Hadler further discloses said electric motor is a solenoid (Hadler, fig. 1: solenoid 28; par. 0027: “When trigger 16 is activated by the trainee, a pulse of electric current is also released from battery 22 and applied to the magnetic coil contained within the interior space of solenoid 28”).
The combination of the training firearm of Sims with the battery of Hadler described above for Claim 1 could have included the type of motor the battery powers.
Regarding Claim 12, Sims further discloses said firearm training system is configured to reset a trigger of a rifle during dry firing (abstract; par. 0008: “the lever further includes a lower reset portion, the lower reset portion positioned adjacent the trigger of the lower receiver when the dry fire trigger device is secured in the magazine well of the firearm;” par. 0047: “a motorized embodiment of the dry fire trigger device 52 including a lever 54, a push rod 56, and a motor 58. The lever 54 is hingedly secured to the motorized dry fire trigger device 52 and configured to contact the hammer 22 of a firearm in which the motorized dry fire trigger device 52 is installed;” par. 0046: “which may include a selector switch to change the rifle from automatic to semi-automatic fire”).
Regarding Claim 13, Sims further discloses said rifle is a semi-automatic rifle (par. 0052: “The motorized dry fire trigger device 52 may be used with either an automatic or semi-automatic firearm;” par. 0046: “which may include a selector switch to change the rifle from automatic to semi-automatic fire”).
Regarding Claim 14, Sims further discloses said rifle is an automatic rifle (par. 0052: “The motorized dry fire trigger device 52 may be used with either an automatic or semi-automatic firearm;” par. 0046: “which may include a selector switch to change the rifle from automatic to semi-automatic fire”).
Regarding Claim 15, Hadler further discloses said firearm training system allows for a finite number of shots before requiring a user to reload said magazine battery pack (par. 0030: “Simulated firearm 10 is outfitted with a reset switch to require the user to periodically simulate the reloading of simulated firearm 10 in the same fashion and manner that a user would have to reload an actual firearm… the process of reloading simulated firearm 10 is accomplished by removing and reinserting battery 20 after a predetermined number of shots”).
The combination of the training firearm of Sims with the battery of Hadler described above for Claim 1 could have included the finite usage of the battery.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims in view of Hadler as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 5,119,576 (“Erning”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Sims does not explicitly disclose the weight of the magazine battery pack. However, Erning discloses said magazine battery pack (col. 4, lines 34-39 “The batteries 16a are insertable into the magazine 4 instead of a clip of live ammunition”) is weighted to simulate the weight of a traditional loaded magazine (col. 5, lines 49-68: “the weight of the batteries 16a can be selected in such a way that the weight distribution along the firearm 1… ensures that the ‘feel’ or balance of the firearm 1 in the hand of an operator is the same”).
Sims and Erning are analogous arts because they both teach firearm training systems which employ dry firing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the weighted magazine battery pack with the training firearm of modified Sims in order to better simulate a typical loaded firearm (Erning, col. 5, lines 49-68).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims in view of Hadler as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 9,618,284 (“Hoffman”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sims does not disclose a servomotor. However, Hoffman discloses said electric motor is a servomotor (figs. 13A-13B: servomotor 203; col. 21, line 62 – col. 22, line 18: “an electric servo motor 203”).
Sims and Hoffman are analogous arts because they both teach firearm systems in which a motor drives the bolt carrier group. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the servomotor of Hoffman as the motor of modified Sims because servomotors are well-known to offer a high level of power efficiency (Hoffman, col. 22, lines 3-18).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims in view of Hadler as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2011/0281242 (“Charles”).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Sims does not disclose a simulation of a firing failure. However, Charles discloses said firearm training system simulates a firing failure (par. 0085: “Preferably, capacitor 36 is geared toward providing the ability to create a simulated jam in the firearm, such that the user shall be required to perform a predetermined manipulation of the firearm prior to capacitor 36 reengaging and facilitating the continuation of the string of fire”).
Sims and Charles are analogous arts because they both teach firearm training apparatuses involving dry firing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the firing failure simulation of Charles with the training firearm of modified Sims in order offer a fuller and more realistic training experience (Charles, pars. 0085-0086).
Regarding Claim 17, Charles further discloses said firing failure is a gun jam (par. 0085: “Preferably, capacitor 36 is geared toward providing the ability to create a simulated jam in the firearm, such that the user shall be required to perform a predetermined manipulation of the firearm prior to capacitor 36 reengaging and facilitating the continuation of the string of fire”).
The combination of the training firearm of modified Sims with the firing failure simulation of Charles described above for Claim 16 would have included the firing failure being a gun jam.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims in view of Hadler as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2018/0259307 (“Billings”).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Sims does not disclose a simulation of a firing malfunction. However, Billings discloses said firearm training system simulates a firing malfunction (par. 0011: “the present invention provides a unique structure and operation that realistically simulates a feed malfunction in a firearm”), wherein said firearm training system prevents said rifle from firing until a user performs an action (par. 0013: “it is proposed in accordance with the present invention to create truly life like situations wherein firearms will become jammed during firearm training such that the jam must be quickly and effectively cleared in order to continue use of the firearm”).
Sims and Billings are analogous arts because they both teach firearm training apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the firing malfunction simulation of Billings with the training firearm of modified Sims in order in order offer a fuller and more realistic training experience and improve a user’s skill in fixing common firing malfunctions (Billings, par. 0034).
Regarding Claim 19, Billings further discloses said firearm training system is configured so said firing malfunction activates after a random number of shots (par. 0014: “To insure jamming of ammunition from clips or magazines, specially configured double feed training rounds or cartridges are placed randomly in training clips or magazines”).
The combination of the training firearm of modified Sims with the firing malfunction simulation of Billings described above for Claim 18 would have included the randomization of the malfunction.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims in view of Hadler as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 10,247,505 (“Baxter”).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Sims does not explicitly disclose a sensor unit. However, Baxter discloses said firearm training system further comprising a sensor unit (col. 11, lines 1-22: “a motion sensing circuit 50 is also disposed on firearm body 11… includes an accelerometer 54 and a first gyroscope”).
Sims and Baxter are analogous arts because they both teach firearm training apparatuses involving dry firing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensor unit of Baxter with the training firearm of modified Sims in order more accurately monitor training progress and the movement of the firearm during training (Baxter, abstract; col. 6, lines 31-48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0262752 (Seigler) teaches a dry firing training device which replaces the bolt carrier group of a semi-automatic rifle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715