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 .
Response to Request for Reconsideration
This is a Final Office action in response to communications filed on February
19, 2026. Applicant did not amend any of the claims 1-20. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable under US 20180306560 A1 (“Salisbury”).
In regards to claim 1, Salisbury discloses
An electrode for ([0012], “training may include using a CEW to launch actual darts (e.g., electrodes)”) a conducted electrical weapon comprising ([0001], “Embodiments … relate to a conducted electrical weapon (“CEW)””): an electrode body ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … body”);
an electrode head coupled to the electrode body ([0005], “FIG. 3 is an expanded view of the dart” Examiner notes that the dart is a practice electrode and that an electrode head is inherently located at the front of the electrode. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.);
PNG
media_image1.png
720
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a training attachment coupled to the electrode head, wherein the training attachment comprises: an attachment elongated extension opposite an attachment base ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can refer to a training attachment. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.);
and a plurality of wings coupled to a forward surface of the attachment elongated extension, wherein the plurality of wings are configured to operate from a first position to a second position responsive to an impact of the training attachment with a target ([0014], “Spear typically include … one or more barbs mechanically couple to clothing or target” Examiner notes that the barbs of the spear behave similarly to wings of the attachment.).
In regards to claim 2, Salisbury discloses
wherein each wing of the plurality of wings comprises a mating surface configured to couple to the target in the second position ([0016], “The spear of the darts may have barbs to retain the dart in target clothing and/or tissue”).
In regards to claim 3, Salisbury discloses
wherein each wing of the plurality of wings is axially disposed along the attachment elongated extension in the first position ([0038], “Barbs … are positioned at various positions along a length of spear” Examiner notes that the barbs may be aligned axially along the spear. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.).
In regards to claim 4, Salisbury discloses
wherein the plurality of wings are disposed forward the attachment base in the first position and the second position ([0038], “Barbs … are positioned at various positions along a length of spear” Examiner notes that the barbs are disposed forward relative to the spear base. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.).
In regards to claim 5, Salisbury discloses
wherein the attachment base comprises a first diameter, wherein the attachment elongated extension comprises a second diameter, and wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that the diameter of the base of the spear is greater than the diameter of the elongated extension of the spear. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.).
In regards to claim 6, Salisbury discloses
wherein the attachment base comprises a first length, wherein the attachment elongated extension comprises a second length, and wherein the second length is greater than the first length ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that the length of the elongated extension of the spear is greater than the length of the base of the spear. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.).
In regards to claim 7, Salisbury discloses
wherein the training attachment comprises a channel defined through the attachment elongated extension and the attachment base ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can have a channel.).
In regards to claim 8, Salisbury discloses
further comprising a pin inserted into the channel at the attachment elongated extension ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can have a channel with a pin inserted into the channel.).
In regards to claim 9, Salisbury discloses
wherein the pin ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can have a channel with a pin inserted into the channel.) couples the plurality of wings to the forward surface of the attachment elongated extension ([0014], “Spear … include … one or more barbs mechanically couple to … target tissue to retain the spear” Examiner notes that the barbs of the spear behave similarly to wings of the attachment and that the barbs may couple with a pin.).
In regards to claim 10, Salisbury discloses
wherein each wing of the plurality of wings comprises a mating surface ([0016], “The spear of the darts may have barbs to retain the dart” Examiner notes that the retention capability of the barbs may act as a mating surface.), and wherein the pin comprises a smooth surface ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can have a channel with a pin inserted into the channel and that the pin can have a smooth surface.).
In regards to claim 11, Salisbury discloses
A training attachment for a projectile of a conducted electrical weapon, the training attachment comprising: an attachment body defining an attachment elongated extension opposite an attachment base ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can refer to a training attachment. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.);
a plurality of wings coupled to a front surface of the attachment elongated extension and extending axially aft the front surface of the attachment elongated extension ([0014], “Spear typically include … one or more barbs mechanically couple to clothing or target” Examiner notes that the barbs of the spear behave similarly to wings of the attachment.);
and a pin inserted into the front surface of the attachment elongated extension, wherein the pin is configured to couple the plurality of wings to the front surface of the attachment elongated extension ([0014], “Spear … include … one or more barbs mechanically couple to … target tissue to retain the spear” Examiner notes that the barbs of the spear behave similarly to wings of the attachment and that the barbs may couple with a pin.).
In regards to claim 12, Salisbury discloses
wherein the pin comprises a T-shape ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can have a channel with a pin inserted into the channel and that a pin may have a T-shape.).
In regards to claim 13, Salisbury discloses
wherein the attachment body comprises a channel defined through the attachment elongated extension and the attachment base, and wherein the pin is inserted into the channel ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can have a channel with a pin inserted into the channel.).
In regards to claim 14, Salisbury discloses
wherein each wing of the plurality of wings comprises a flap disposed against the attachment elongated extension ([0041], “a cap may be placed over the … barbs” Examiner notes that a cap may serve the same purpose as a flap.).
In regards to claim 15, Salisbury discloses
wherein the flap comprises a mating surface configured to couple to a training surface ([0043], “the cap may include … protruding lips … … which interfere with one or more barbs of the spear to retain the cap around the spear.” Examiner notes that a cap may serve the same purpose as a flap and that protruding lips may be a mating surface.).
In regards to claim 16, Salisbury discloses
An electrode for ([0012], “training may include using a CEW to launch actual darts (e.g., electrodes)”) a conducted electrical weapon comprising ([0001], “Embodiments … relate to a conducted electrical weapon (“CEW)””): an electrode body ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … body”);
an electrode head coupled to the electrode body, wherein the electrode head comprises a first head end opposite a second head end ([0005], “FIG. 3 is an expanded view of the dart” Examiner notes that the dart is a practice electrode and that an electrode head is inherently located at the front of the electrode. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.);
and a training attachment coupled to the electrode head between the first head end and the second head end, wherein the training attachment comprises ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can refer to a training attachment. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.): a plurality of wings coupled to a forward surface of the training attachment, wherein the plurality of wings are configured to operate from a first position to a second position responsive to an impact of the training attachment with a target ([0014], “Spear typically include … one or more barbs mechanically couple to clothing or target” Examiner notes that the barbs of the spear behave similarly to wings of the attachment.).
In regards to claim 17, Salisbury discloses
wherein in the first position the plurality of wings are disposed in an axial direction towards the electrode head ([0038], “Barbs … are positioned at various positions along a length of spear” Examiner notes that the barbs may be aligned axially. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.), and wherein in the second position the plurality of wings are disposed in a radial direction ([0038], “Barbs … are positioned at various positions along a length of spear” Examiner notes that the barbs may be aligned radially. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.).
In regards to claim 18, Salisbury discloses
wherein the training attachment comprises a mating surface ([0016], “The spear of the darts may have barbs to retain the dart” Examiner notes that the retention capability of the barbs may act as a mating surface.).
In regards to claim 19, Salisbury discloses
wherein in the first position the mating surface is located on a radially outward surface of the training attachment ([0038], “Barbs … are positioned at various positions along a length of spear” Examiner notes that the barbs may act as a mating surface and may be aligned radially. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.).
In regards to claim 20, Salisbury discloses
where in the second position the mating surface is located on an axially forward surface of the training attachment ([0038], “Barbs … are positioned at various positions along a length of spear” Examiner notes that the barbs may act as a mating surface and may be aligned axially. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. With respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues that “Salisbury does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1” (See RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 1.111, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102, page 6, paragraph 3) and “dependent claims 2-10 are differentiated from the cited references for at least the same reasons as set forth above” (See RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 1.111, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102, page 6, paragraph 3). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 1, Salisbury discloses an electrode for ([0012], “training may include using a CEW to launch actual darts (e.g., electrodes)”) a conducted electrical weapon comprising ([0001], “Embodiments … relate to a conducted electrical weapon (“CEW)””): an electrode body ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … body”); an electrode head coupled to the electrode body ([0005], “FIG. 3 is an expanded view of the dart” Examiner notes that the dart is a practice electrode and that an electrode head is inherently located at the front of the electrode. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.); and a training attachment coupled to the electrode head, wherein the training attachment comprises: an attachment elongated extension opposite an attachment base ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can refer to a training attachment. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.); and a plurality of wings coupled to a forward surface of the attachment elongated extension, wherein the plurality of wings are configured to operate from a first position to a second position responsive to an impact of the training attachment with a target ([0014], “Spear typically include … one or more barbs mechanically couple to clothing or target” Examiner notes that the barbs of the spear behave similarly to wings of the attachment.).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. The Patent and Trademark Office determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, the BRI of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Therefore, the rejections of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10, as anticipated by Salisbury, are maintained.
With respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues that “Salisbury similarly does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 11” (See RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 1.111, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102, page 8, paragraph 1) and “dependent claims 12-15 are differentiated from the cited references for at least the same reasons as set forth above” (See RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 1.111, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102, page 8, paragraph 2). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 11, Salisbury discloses a training attachment for a projectile of a conducted electrical weapon, the training attachment comprising: an attachment body defining an attachment elongated extension opposite an attachment base ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can refer to a training attachment. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.); a plurality of wings coupled to a front surface of the attachment elongated extension and extending axially aft the front surface of the attachment elongated extension ([0014], “Spear typically include … one or more barbs mechanically couple to clothing or target” Examiner notes that the barbs of the spear behave similarly to wings of the attachment.); and a pin inserted into the front surface of the attachment elongated extension, wherein the pin is configured to couple the plurality of wings to the front surface of the attachment elongated extension ([0014], “Spear … include … one or more barbs mechanically couple to … target tissue to retain the spear” Examiner notes that the barbs of the spear behave similarly to wings of the attachment and that the barbs may couple with a pin.).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. The Patent and Trademark Office determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, the BRI of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Therefore, the rejections of independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12-15, as anticipated by Salisbury, are maintained.
With respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues that “Salisbury similarly does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 16” (See RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 1.111, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102, page 8, paragraph 4) and “dependent claims 17-20 are differentiated from the cited references for at least the same reasons as set forth above” (See RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 1.111, REMARKS, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102, page 8, paragraph 5). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 16, Salisbury discloses an electrode for ([0012], “training may include using a CEW to launch actual darts (e.g., electrodes)”) a conducted electrical weapon comprising ([0001], “Embodiments … relate to a conducted electrical weapon (“CEW)””): an electrode body ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … body”); an electrode head coupled to the electrode body, wherein the electrode head comprises a first head end opposite a second head end ([0005], “FIG. 3 is an expanded view of the dart” Examiner notes that the dart is a practice electrode and that an electrode head is inherently located at the front of the electrode. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.); and a training attachment coupled to the electrode head between the first head end and the second head end, wherein the training attachment comprises ([0011], “The numerical designators in the drawing indicate the … spear” Examiner notes that a spear can refer to a training attachment. See annotated Salisbury FIG. 3.): a plurality of wings coupled to a forward surface of the training attachment, wherein the plurality of wings are configured to operate from a first position to a second position responsive to an impact of the training attachment with a target ([0014], “Spear typically include … one or more barbs mechanically couple to clothing or target” Examiner notes that the barbs of the spear behave similarly to wings of the attachment.).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. The Patent and Trademark Office determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, the BRI of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Therefore, the rejections of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 17-20, as anticipated by Salisbury, are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is (571)272-4252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:30 pm 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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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. 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.
LISA H ANTOINE
Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715