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 .
Procedural Summary
The previous Office action dated 1/29/2026 is replaced due to Applicant’s telephone election:
This is responsive to Applicant’s election on 2/2/2026 of Species b), drawn to the scissors gear-type drive system.
At this time, Claims 1-15 are encompassed by Species b).
Since Claim 2 for example includes recitations of a non-elected drive system, examination is only of the encompassed species.
Applicant is advised that divergence from the scissors gear-type drive system will result in an election by original presentation.
The Drawings filed 6/24/2023 are noted.
Pro Se
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
And/or Language
It is noted that claims reciting “and/or” limitations, (e.g., “A and/or B”), are construed as requiring element A alone, element B alone, or elements A and B taken together.1 While not indefinite, in the Gross decision, the PTAB suggested that the preferred verbiage of such limitations is “at least on of A and B”.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claim 1 includes “hereafter” limitations in parentheses but the subject matter within the parentheses is not referred to as so in subsequent parts of the claims. For example, “control unit” and “master control unit” appear interchangeably used with the terms “master microcontroller” and “master controller” in the claims. Examiner has construed the claims as requiring a microcontroller for performing the invention. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 1 recite “a wi-fi enabled master microcontroller … created wi-fi network and associated webpage menu to raise and lower said strike faces …”. It is unclear what component is creating the wi-fi network and how the wi-fi network raises and lower a strike face. This is construed as requiring a connection to a wi-fi network through which users access the target system.
It is also unclear from the Specifications and claim language whether a user is wirelessly raising and lowering the strike face or whether the strike face is raised and lowered, and the system is in wireless communication with a user. The latter interpretation is applied to the claims.
Claim 1 also recites a “variety” of training scenarios. This is indefinite because it is unclear what scenarios are encompassed. Examiner has construed the term as requiring a shooting training scenario.
Certain claims contain multiple sentences.2 A claim cannot contain more than one sentence. Examiner has only given weight to the first sentence appearing in a claim containing multiple sentences. Correction is required.
Claims 1-15 are replete with intended usage “capable of” limitations. While Examiner has given these limitations patentable weight, they are anticipated and/or rendered obvious so long as the prior art structure is capable of performing the limitations.3 Applicant is encouraged to positively recite these limitations. As demonstrated infra, prior art not being specifically disclosed as performing claim limitations nonetheless renders certain limitations obvious since its structure is inherently capable of performing the functions.
The term lightweight in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightweight” 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. Since the claims and Specifications make clear the invention is portable and foldable, this apprises a person of ordinary skill of the invention’s lightweight characteristic. Thus, dispensing with the qualifier “lightweight” would overcome the objection.
Claim 11 improperly refers back to 2 dependent claims. Patentable weight has only been given to the limitation referring to Claim 1.
Claims 1-15 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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, 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 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, 3-7 & 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuosa (U.S. Pub. No.: 2005/0116421 A1) in view of Kazakov et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2013/0193645 A1).
Kuosa discloses a target system and target unit, (Fig. 1a). The target is lightweight, portable and foldable, (Fig. 1a, related description, ¶ 11). The target assembly supports a vertically sliding lift mechanism, (Fig. 1a, related description) attached to a strike face. It is controlled by a user striking the target and a motor/carriage returning the target to its unfolded orientation. (¶¶ 17-23). It is usable in a variety of training scenarios.
Kuosa anticipates the claimed structure but does not make explicit that the system is coupled to a microcontroller and connection to a wi-fi network through which users access the target system. However, in a related invention, Kazakov teaches a projectile target system with a microcontroller and internet connectivity with a webpage and client/users connected to wi-fi for accessing real-time target scoring data, (Kazakov, e.g., ¶¶ 30, 86, 87, 102, 139.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have coupled the target system shown by Kuosa to a microcontroller-based internet system as suggested by Kazakov for the purpose of facilitating real-time remote access to scoring data.
Kuosa and Kazakov show the invention substantially but do not make explicit that the target structure can be formed from plastic. The type of material used for the target assembly is an obvious design consideration failing to patentably distinguish over the prior art. For example, so long as the prior art structure is foldable and portable, a person of ordinary skill would realize that many materials can be chosen from which to form the structural elements needed to support the assembly. Consequently, replacing the prior art structure with plastic would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuosa (U.S. Pub. No.: 2005/0116421 A1) in view of Kazakov et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: 2013/0193645 A1) and Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Kuosa discloses a vertically sliding lift mechanism but does not make explicit that it uses a “scissors gear-driven type system.” However, Applicant admits that a “scissors gear-driven type system” is well-known lifting mechanism.4 Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have replaced the prior art lifting mechanism of Kuosa with a “scissors gear-driven type system” as admitted by Applicant to be known in the art, for the purpose of using a cheap, simple and lightweight solution. Changes to the prior art utilizing known methods yielding predictable and expected results are considered obvious.
Conclusion
Additional Relevant References: See 892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Ex Parte Gross, App. 11/565/441, (PTAB 2014)
2 See Claims 2, 4, 5. This is not exemplary and not exhaustive.
3 See MPEP 2114. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
4 [0016] The lifting mechanism of the invention is derived from the window lifting mechanism of a car door window. Since the automotive industry has already evolved the cheapest, simplest, most lightweight solution to this problem, this was the mechanism chosen for the invention, with the addition of a faster turning motor derived from a cheap, battery powered electric drill to facilitate quicker raising of the plastic strike surface.
[0017] The two most prevalent lifting mechanism designs used in the auto industry for car windows are the “cable and pulley” model and the gear driven “scissors” model. Claims are submitted here for both designs as the lifting mechanism for the strike face of an electronic shooting target system.