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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brune (US 20110175293 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brune teaches 1. A reactive firearm target device, comprising: a shoot-through, ricochet-free surface; See Fig. 1A-1B, a rigid support having a first end coupled to a portion of the shoot-through, ricochet-free surface; and See Fig. 1A; (90), a hinge mechanism coupled to a second end of the rigid support, wherein the hinge mechanism is configured to swing from a first position to a second position when the shoot-through, ricochet-free surface is contacted by a firearm projectile. See Fig. 1A-1B; (14).
Regarding claim 3, Brune teaches 3. The reactive firearm target device of claim 1, wherein the rigid support is a multi-channel reinforced stiff polymer board. See [0048+] which speaks of the post being made from molded polymer or the like….
Regarding claim 4, Brune teaches 4. The reactive firearm target device of claim 3, wherein the first end of the rigid support is rigidly coupled to the portion of the shoot-through, ricochet-free surface. See Fig. 1A-1B; (100) which is rigidly coupled to the post (90).
Regarding claim 6, Brune teaches 6. The reactive firearm target device of claim 1, wherein a first end of the hinge mechanism is coupled to the second end of the rigid support, and wherein a second end of the hinge mechanism is configured to be mounted to a rigid backing. See Fig. 1A-1B; (14)(12) wherein the base (12) is a rigid backing.
Regarding claim 7, Brune teaches 7. The reactive firearm target device of claim 6, wherein the second end of the hinge mechanism includes one or more openings for mounting the second end of the hinge mechanism to the rigid backing with one or more couplers. See Fig. 3; (46)(48)(41) the openings can be considered between the plates and the couplers the channels (41).
Regarding claim 8, Brune teaches 8. The reactive firearm target device of claim 1, wherein the hinge mechanism is open when in the first position and is at least partially closed when in the second position. See Fig. 1A-1B.
Regarding claim 9, Brune teaches 9. The reactive firearm target device of claim 1, wherein the hinge mechanism is at 180 degrees when in the first position and is at less than 180 degrees when in the second position. See Fig. 1A-1B.
Regarding claim 10, Brune teaches 10. A firearm training system, comprising: at least one reactive firearm target device, each reactive firearm target device including: a shoot-through, ricochet-free surface, See Fig. 1A-1B, a rigid support having a first end coupled to a portion of the shoot-through, ricochet-free surface, and See Fig. 1A; (90), a hinge mechanism coupled to a second end of the rigid support; and See Fig. 1A-1B; (14), a rigid backing to which a second end of the hinge mechanism of each reactive firearm target device is mounted; See Fig. 1A-1B; (14)(12) wherein the base (12) is a rigid backing., wherein the hinge mechanism is configured to swing from a first position to a second position when the shoot-through, ricochet-free surface is contacted by a firearm projectile. See Fig. 1A-1B; (14).
Regarding claim 11, Brune teaches 11. The firearm training system of claim 10, wherein the rigid backing includes an opening that frames the shoot-through, ricochet-free surface. See Fig. 1A; (38) the open area above (38) is considered the opening which frames the surface as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Brune teaches 14. The firearm training system of claim 10, wherein the hinge mechanism is configured to swing in a knock-down motion. See Fig. 1A-1B.
Regarding claim 15, Brune teaches 15. The firearm training system of claim 10, wherein the hinge mechanism is configured to swing in a swing up motion. See Fig. 1A-1B.
Regarding claim 16, Brune teaches 16. The firearm training system of claim 10, wherein the hinge mechanism is configured to swing in a side swing motion. See Fig. 8A-8B.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune (US 20110175293 A1) in view of Boring (US 20190383585 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Boring teaches 2. The reactive firearm target device of claim 1, wherein the shoot-through, ricochet-free surface is a flexible self-healing polymer. See [0022+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Brune with Boring to allow for continuous use without the need to replace the target (See [0022+]).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune (US 20110175293 A1) in view of Steen (US 20200018577 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Steen teaches 5. The reactive firearm target device of claim 1, wherein the hinge mechanism is a long fiber reinforced material. See [0022+] which speaks of the pivot section being made from carbon fiber a long fiber reinforced material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Brune with Steen as the courts held that the selection of a known material to make an apparatus of a type made of similar material prior to the invention was held to be obvious. (See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960))
Regarding claim 12, Steen teaches 12. The firearm training system of claim 10, wherein the firearm training system includes a plurality of reactive firearm target devices. See Fig. 1 which shows a plurality of target devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Brune with Steen to provide multiple different targets for the shooter to shoot at.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune (US 20110175293 A1) in view of Henson (US 20120193872 A1) and Steen (US 20200018577 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Henson teaches 13. The firearm training system of claim 12, wherein the rigid backing includes a plurality of openings that each frame the shoot-through, ricochet-free surface of a respective one of the reactive firearm target devices. See Fig. 3A which shows a plurality of openings for multiple different targets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Brune with Henson to provide multiple different targets which may be desirable for a shooter to hit. (See [0011+]).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune (US 20110175293 A1) in view of Doss (US 5403017 A).
Regarding claim 17, Doss teaches 17. The firearm training system of claim 10, further comprising:at least one sensor that: detects when the hinge mechanism swings from a first position to a second position, and responsive to the detection, causes instant feedback to be provided to an operator of the firearm. See 7:54+ which teaches the hit sensing circuitry like the claimed limitations (See "Limit switch array 73 includes an up limit switch and a down limit switch. These limit switches are used to sense whether preset desired extreme positions of target 11 have been reached." for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Brune with Doss to determine with extreme positions of the target have been reached. (See 7:54+).
Regarding claim 18, Doss teaches 18. The firearm training system of claim 17, wherein each sensor of the at least one sensor is one of: an optic switch, a magnetic switch, a proximity switch, or a contacts switch. See 7:54+ wherein the limit switch may be considered a magnetic, proximity or contacts switch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Brune with Doss to determine when extreme positions of the target have been reached. (See 7:54+).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune (US 20110175293 A1) in view of Campbell (US 20200132420 A1) and Doss (US 5403017 A).
Regarding claim 19, Campbell teaches 19. The firearm training system of claim 17, wherein the instant feedback is at least one of:an audible sound, a light output, a message output, a vibration, or a visual display. See [0009+] wherein the use of the circuity of Doss may easily be used to generate the feedback of Campbell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Brune with Campbell to provide hit detection feedback to the shooter.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brune (US 20110175293 A1) in view of Campbell (US 20200132420 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Campbell teaches 20. The firearm training system of claim 10, further comprising:a shoot back flash simulating device that is triggered to emit a simulated shoot back flash when the shoot-through, ricochet-free surface is contacted by a firearm projectile. See [0009+] wherein the use of the circuity of Doss may easily be used to generate the feedback of Campbell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Brune with Campbell to provide hit detection feedback to the shooter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peterman US 20220178660 A1 - teaches self-healing target that pivots about a rod.
Baron US 20140042700 A1 - teaches a self-healing target.
Stutz US 20050098954 A1 - teaches a target support and hinge.
Morrow US 7681886 B2 - teaches a support and hinge mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711