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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-9, 10-12 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,262 in view of Schmehl (2016/0033221). In this instant case, claims 1-2, 7-9, 10-12 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,262 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1-6, 9 and 15-19 of the instant application except for the feature of communicating the performance metric to a user device of the firearm, such as VR device or headset, for displaying in real-time. Since Schmehl suggests a similar system (See figs. 1-3), wherein a performance metric is determined based on data identified/collected by the event detection module (See par [0019-0024]) and communicate to user device of the firearm such as user’s smart phone for displaying in real-time (See fig. 4 and par [0025-0026]), and VR device or headset (i.e. VR glasses), Official Notice taken by the examiner, is well known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system and method of claims 1-6, 9 and 15-19 with features suggested by Schmehl such that the performance metric is communicated to user’s VR device or headset for displaying in real time, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system in order to accommodate the desired intentions.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7,10-11, 14-15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,474 in view of Schmehl (2016/0033221). In this instant case, claims 1, 4-7,10-11, 14-15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,474 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1-3, 9 and 15-18 of the instant application except for the feature of communicating the performance metric to a user device of the firearm for displaying in real-time. Since Schmehl suggests a similar system (See figs. 1-3), wherein a performance metric is determined based on data identified/collected by the event detection module (See par [0019-0024]) and communicate to user device of the firearm such as user’s smart phone for displaying in real-time (See fig. 4 and par [0025-0026]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system and method of claims 1-3, 9 and 15-18 with features suggested by Schmehl such that the performance metric is communicated to user’s VR device or headset for displaying in real time, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system in order to accommodate the desired intentions.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNelis (8,706,440) in view of Schmehl (2016/0033221).
Regarding claims 16-18, McNelis discloses a system for determining a performance metric based on a discharge event of a firearm, the system comprising: a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) disposed on a first firearm that senses movement including at least one of accelerations and rotations (See figs. 1, 2A, 3A and col. 3 line 69 to col. 4 line 37); a first event detection module that receives a plurality of first input signals from the first IMU indicative of the movement (See figs. 4A-4B, 5A-5B, 6 steps 601-603 and col. 11 lines 25-46) and that is configured to: identify an occurrence of a first shot discharge of the first firearm at a shot time based on the plurality of first input signals (See fig. 6 steps 604, 605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 37, col. 13 lines 1-19). However, McNelis does not explicitly mention that determining a performance metric based on the identifying; and a user display, such as VR device or headset, that displays the performance metric in real-time. Since Schmehl suggests a similar system (See figs. 1-3), wherein a performance metric is determined based on data identified/collected by the event detection module (See par [0019-0024]) and communicate to user device of the firearm such as user’s smart phone for displaying in real time (See fig. 4 and par [0025-0026]), and VR device or headset (i.e. VR glasses), Official Notice taken by the examiner, is well known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the McNelis’ system with features suggested by Schmehl such that the performance metric is communicated to user’s VR device or headset for displaying in real time, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system in order to accommodate the desired intentions.
Claims 1-3 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 16-18, as method.
Regarding claim 4, McNelis & Schmehl disclose as cited in claim 1. Schmehl further discloses receiving a signal indicative of a shot accuracy metric, wherein the performance metric comprises the shot accuracy metric (See fig. 4 and par [0025]).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, McNelis & Schmehl disclose as cited in claims 1 and 16. Schmehl further discloses the performance metric includes a first split time, the method further comprising: identifying, by the first event detection module, an occurrence of a second shot discharge of the first firearm at a second time based on the plurality of first input signals; and determining the first split time for the first user based on a difference between the first and second times (i.e. firing intervals) (See fig. 4 and par [0021]).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNelis & Schmehl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stewart (2016/0169603).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, McNelis & Schmehl disclose as cited in claim 1. However, they do not mention that the step of identify/detect the occurrence of the first shot comprises: receiving a first acceleration input signal along a first axis, a second acceleration signal along a second axis and a third acceleration input signal along a third axis; and receiving a first rotation input signal around the first axis, a second rotation input signal around the second axis and a third acceleration input signal around the third axis; assigning respective acceleration and rotation input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time; comparing the acceleration signals of the sampled event candidates to a discharge acceleration template that represents a confirmed weapon discharge event; identifying a subset of accepted accelerations from the sampled event candidates that satisfy the discharge acceleration template; comparing a first rotation input signal from the sample window of time associated with each accepted acceleration in the subset to a first rotation template that represents a confirmed weapon discharge event; and determining whether the sampled event candidate is a discharge event based on satisfying both the discharge acceleration template and the first rotation template. Since Stewart suggests as similar system, wherein the step of identify/detect the occurrence of the first shot comprises: receiving a first acceleration input signal along a first axis, a second acceleration signal along a second axis and a third acceleration input signal along a third axis; and receiving a first rotation input signal around the first axis, a second rotation input signal around the second axis and a third acceleration input signal around the third axis; assigning respective acceleration and rotation input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time (See fig. 3 and par [0031-0035]); comparing the acceleration signals of the sampled event candidates to a discharge acceleration template (i.e. signature) that represents a confirmed weapon discharge event; identifying a subset of accepted accelerations from the sampled event candidates that satisfy the discharge acceleration template; comparing a first rotation input signal from the sample window of time associated with each accepted acceleration in the subset to a first rotation template (i.e. signature) that represents a confirmed weapon discharge event; and determining whether the sampled event candidate is a discharge event based on satisfying both the discharge acceleration template and the first rotation template (See fig. 11 and par [0051-0054]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the system of McNelis & Schmehl with shot firing/discharge capability as suggested by Stewart, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various methods to monitor/detect the discharge of the firearm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 10-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, McNelis & Schmehl disclose as cited in claim 5. However, they do not mention that receiving, by a second event detection module associated with a second firearm of a second user, a plurality of second input signals over a sample window of time from a second IMU configured on the second firearm; identifying, by the second event detection module, an occurrence of a first shot discharge of the second firearm at a first time based on the plurality of second input signals; identifying, by the second event detection module, an occurrence of a second shot discharge of the second firearm at a second time based on the plurality of second input signals; determining a second split time for the second user based on a difference between the first and second times; comparing the first split time of the first user to the second split time of the second user; ranking a performance of the first user relative to the second user based on the comparing; and displaying the ranking on the user display.
Claims 7-8 and 10-14 are objected for being dependent upon dependent claim 6 which has been objected.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 20, McNelis & Schmehl disclose as cited in claim 19. However, they do not mention that the performance metric comprises a stability index, wherein the first event detection module is further configured to: determine a first orientation of the first firearm at a shot time; determine a second orientation of the first firearm at a first time before the shot time; compare the first and second orientations; assign a first stability index based on the first and second orientations; determine a third orientation of the first firearm at a second time after the shot time; compare the first and third orientations; and assign a second stability index based on the first and third orientations.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO-892 for a listing of cited prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/TUAN A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648