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 (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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9-10, 14, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Janssen (US20180372458).
Regarding claim 1, Janssen teaches a body; a target positioned on the body, and comprised of a ring; and a recording area (Paragraph 15, Fig 1A). “Recording area” is taken to mean any area outside of the target where information could be written.
Regarding claim 2, Janssen teaches that the target is comprised of a crosshair (Paragraph 15, Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Janssen teaches that the crosshair is positioned within a center of the ring (Paragraph 15, Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 6, Janssen teaches that the body is comprised of a paper material (Paragraph 65, “the target illustration 92 of Figs. 9-10 can include… paper… having a target imagine printed on a front surface”).
Regarding claim 9, Janssen teaches a body; a target positioned on the body, and comprised of a ring (Paragraph 15, Fig 1A); and a mobile application (Paragraph 9, “The present invention discloses a system, method and computer readable medium for providing real time feedback of ballistic impact of a remote target utilizing a sensor impregnated sheet and which signals a ballistic impact event as data transmitted to a remote device, such further including but not limited to a mobile application enabled smartphone”).
Regarding claim 10, Janssen teaches a mobile application allows a user to record a factor (Paragraph 9, “which signals a ballistic impact event as data transmitted to a remote device, such further including but not limited to a mobile application enabled smartphone,” where “data” in Janssen is equivalent to “a factor” in claim 10).
Regarding claim 14, Janssen teaches that the body is comprised of a paper material (Paragraph 65, “the target illustration 92 of Figs. 9-10 can include… paper… having a target imagine printed on a front surface”).
Regarding claim 15, Janssen teaches recording factor related to shooting the target in recording area (Paragraph 9, “which signals a ballistic impact event as data transmitted to a remote device, such further including but not limited to a mobile application enabled smartphone,” where data transmitted to a remote device is equivalent to recording a factor in a recording area). positioning the target body at a distance from the user and shooting the target of the target body are considered inherent.
Regarding claim 17, Janssen teaches that the recording area is located on a mobile application (Paragraph 9, “which signals a ballistic impact event as data transmitted to a remote device, such further including but not limited to a mobile application enabled smartphone”)
Printed Matter
In regard to claims 2-5, 7-8, 11, 16, 18 the Examiner cites MPEP 2111.05 in pertinent part regarding to limitations directed towards printed matter:
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated, see Lowery, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2nd at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404).” Moreover “where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists... another example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 2009 U.S. Appl. LEXIS 6667 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ... These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product… Additionally, where the printed matter and product do not depend upon each other, no functional relationship exists.” However, “once a functional relationship between the product and associated printed matter is found, the investigation shifts to the determination of whether the relationship is new and unobvious.... The claim may, however, be anticipated by prior art that reads on the claimed invention, or by a combination of prior art that teaches the claimed invention”.
The Examiner finds that there is no new and unobvious functional relationship between the claimed shooting target system and the printed matter printed on across all of claims 2-5, 7-8, 11, 16, 18, e.g. “target is comprised of a crosshair,” “crosshair is positioned within a center of the ring,” “recording area is comprised of a box,” “recording area is comprised of a line,” “recording area is comprised of an indicia,” “the indicia is comprised of a letter, a word, a phrase or a symbol,” the factors the system can record, “recording area is located on target body.” None of these additions to the shooting target system change the function of the shooting target system itself. The printed matter is merely directed towards contents that are related to the visual of the system and therefore has no obvious functional relationship between the printed matter and substrate.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen (US20180372458) in view of Lebbing (US20200088500).
As previously described Janssen teaches data transmitted to a remote device, such further including but not limited to a mobile application. Janssen does not teach the data transmitted to be a photo. However, Lebbing teaches “utilizing the smartphone camera to verify the target is original and readable by the smartphone camera; recording video and sound of shooting session of a player shooting the target; generating still photographs of the target from the shooting session; comparing the still photographs of the target from beginning of the shooting session and after the shooting session to determine score of the target based on detected apertures in the target; and displaying score of the player on the smartphone” (Claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to take Lebbing’s use of still photographs and include them as one of the types of “data transmitted to a remote device” taught in Janssen to have a mobile application that allows the user to upload a photo of the target.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen (US20180372458) in view of Morgan (US 20220065585).
As previously described Janssen teaches a method of using a shooting target system by positioning the target body at a distance from a user, shooting a target of the target body, and recording a factor related to the shooting of the target in a recording area (Paragraph 9). Janssen does not disclose a method for aligning a crosshair of an optic of a firearm with the crosshair and shooting at the target or repeating the aligning of crosshair and shooting the target until the firearm is zeroed. However, Morgan teaches a crosshair optic (Figure 8), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that aligning an optic with the target is necessary for the proper use of the firearm. Morgan also teaches that “Boresighting is typically used to provide efficient zeroing (or sighting in) of a firearm, which consists of aligning the point of impact of a bullet with a point of aim of a sighting device” (Paragraph 5); “Zeroing may typically include firing one or more rounds of ammunition at a target and aligning the sighting device to the point of impact” (Paragraph 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to use Janssen’s target system to align the crosshairs of an optic to shoot the target, and to repeat this process to zero the firearm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE FLORENCIA NERENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-9599. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/R.F.N./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711