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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention a statutory category of invention?
Claims 1 are directed to a real-time position location system (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
The limitation of steps: … one or more location modules configured to be attached to a user or a weapon of the user and to output location data associated with each user; one or more kinematic base station modules configured to receive the location data from each location module; a position module operatively connected to the one or more kinematic base stations and configured to determine a real-time location of each of the one or more location modules and to output module position data for each of the one or more location modules in real-time as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claimed method akin to mental process of observations, evaluations, and judgements. Thus, the claim recites a mental process (Step 2A, Prong 1: yes).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Per the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, if a claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, a claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception. Alternatively, a claim that does not integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application is directed to the exception. Evaluating whether a claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application is performed by a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea, and b) evaluating those additional elements individual and in combination to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. Exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have or has not been integrated into a practical application are set forth in the 2019 PEG.
With respect to the instant claims, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: location / kinematic base station modules and a position module. Each of the components are disclosed as being software modules or programs. As such, the claims are drawn to a computer program or software per se and are thus drawn to non-statutory subject matter. Even in combination, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits, such as an improvement to a computing system, on practicing the abstract idea (STEP 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: location / kinematic base station modules and a position module set forth above for Step 2A, Prong 2. Dependent claims 2 – 20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims through their dependencies and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claims to more than the claimed abstract idea, and are thus rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1 - 4, 8, 10 - 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Broadway et al. (US 2023/0288167 A1).
Re claim 1:
Broadway teaches 1. A real-time position location system (Broadway, [0073], “geolocation sensor”; Abstract; fig. 32), comprising:
one or more location modules configured to be attached to a user or a weapon of the user and to output location data associated with each user (Broadway, [0114], “representing real-time position and orientation of firearms in a deployment location”; [0092], “the illustration of FIG. 2 is intended to describe locations of firearm 200 at which various sensors or other components may be included or coupled. Examples of sensors or other components which may be included in or coupled to the various locations shown include, but are not limited to, an IMU (e.g., including an accelerometer and/or a gyroscope), a geolocation sensor …” );
one or more kinematic base station modules configured to receive the location data from each location module (Broadway, fig. 1, 102, 112; [0071], “Application 102 is run, executed, interpreted, or otherwise operated at server device 112, which communicates, directly or indirectly, with firearms 104, wearable devices 106, and/or stationary devices 108 using network 114 and connection point 116”; [0074]; [0176], “the dashboard of application 102 may include communication and mapping features, such as to track the location of all weapons in real-time, to highlight relevant events (such as weapons being gripped, weapons being raised, or weapons that have been discharged)”);
a position module operatively connected to the one or more kinematic base stations and configured to determine a real-time location of each of the one or more location modules and to output module position data for each of the one or more location modules in real-time (Broadway, [0075], “The application 102 monitors the status of firearms 104 including by performing real-time updates to cones corresponding to firearms 104. For example, where a GUI of application 102 visually represents users within a deployment location and shows cones, application 102 can automatically update locations and orientations of the cones, for example, based on signals received from firearms 104”; [0138]; [0147]; [0149]; fig. 18).
Re claims 2 – 4:
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising one or more weapon tracking modules operatively associated with the weapon of the user and configured to provide weapon data to the one or more kinematic base station modules in real-time (Broadway, [0147], “application 102 can be used to determine firearm movements that may indicate a discharge from a firearm”; [0149], “application 102 may determine combinations of data, such as motion, orientation and multi-modal sensor information that are indicative of imminent discharge of the firearm”; [0158]; [0410]).
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the weapon data includes a trigger fire data that indicates whether a simulated shot has occurred, and a weapon orientation that indicates a directionality of the simulated shot (Broadway, [0147], “application 102 can be used to determine firearm movements that may indicate a discharge from a firearm”; [0149], “application 102 may determine combinations of data, such as motion, orientation and multi-modal sensor information that are indicative of imminent discharge of the firearm”; [0158]; [0410]).
4. The system of claim 3, further comprising a shot adjudication module operatively connected to the one or more kinematic base station modules to receive the weapon data of an associated user and the module position data of the associated user in real-time (Broadway, [0147], “application 102 can be used to determine firearm movements that may indicate a discharge from a firearm”; [0149], “application 102 may determine combinations of data, such as motion, orientation and multi-modal sensor information that are indicative of imminent discharge of the firearm”; [0158]; [0410]) and to output shot trajectory data of the simulated shot based on the weapon data and the module position data of the associated user when the simulated shot occurred (Broadway, [0184]; [0470], “the signal processing module 4430 can calculate a projected bullet ("virtual bullet") path and destination … indoor shooting exercises are carried out UWB emitters 4730 cooperating with the sensors 4720 and 4722 can provide precise weapon orientation whereby bullet trajectory and final destination can be estimated”).
Re claim 8:
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more location modules include an acoustic and/or haptic feedback system configured to alert the wearer of one or more events through acoustic and/or haptic feedback (Broadway, [0112]; [0139]; [0144]).
Re claims 10 – 13, 20:
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more location modules include a digital radio for bi-directional communication with the one or more kinematic base-station modules (Broadway, [0071]; [0137]; [0474]) to provides localization enhancement to have precision within about a centimeter (Broadway, [0444]).
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the one or more location modules include one or more sensors configured to output sensor data to determine one or more user characteristics (Broadway, [0113]; [0121]; [0129]).
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more user characteristics include at least one of head orientation, velocity, or local pressure conditions (Broadway, [0113]; [0121]; [0129]).
13. The system of claim 11, wherein each location module is configured to communicate its location data and sensor data over the digital radio to allow determination of ground truth location and orientation of the user (Broadway, [0085], “GPS”; [0113]; [0121]; [0129]).
20. The system of claim 11, wherein the one or more sensors include one or more inertial measurement units (IMU's) (Broadway, [0073]) and/or one or more camera vision systems configured to provide motion data (Broadway, [0085]) and/or position data when external location systems are inaccurate.
Re claim 14:
14. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more location modules include an internal battery (Broadway, [0305]), wherein the one or more location modules are configured to operate in a low power mode to enable use over multiple days without recharging (Broadway, [0202]; [0341]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 5 – 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadway et al. (US 2023/0288167 A1) in view of Ferren et al. (US 2021/0302128 A1).
Re claim 5:
Broadway does not explicitly disclose a hit module; nor disclose terrain map. Ferren teaches a laserless combat simulation device includes at least one processing device and a memory device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processing device cause the at least one processing device to receive a trigger event from a weapon device (Ferren, Abstract). Ferren teaches 5. The system of claim 4, further comprising a hit module configured to receive the shot trajectory data and the position data of a second user and to determine if a position of the second user intersects the simulated shot in real-time based on the shot trajectory data to determine if the second user has been virtually hit by the simulated shot (Ferren, [0003], “The optical sensing arrays may receive target identifiers from any targets within the field of view for subsequent determination of ballistic hit/miss outcomes”; [0037], “simulated shot results in a hit or miss, and for hits, what the result of a hit may be (kill, injury, etc.)”; [0046], “a hit or be targeted by someone else in their current posture. Ballistic trajectory mapping will be based on weapon orientation at time of fire, and can be compared to entity positions (and silhouette plus orientation)”). 6. The system of claim 5, wherein the hit module comprises a terrain map and is configured to determine whether the second user is obscured by terrain such that the shot intersects terrain in front of the second user (Ferren, [0039]; [0053], “if a target beacon 102 is positioned behind a boulder (identified by a fiducial beacon), the weapon device 100 knows that the target may not be hit”). 7. The system of claim 6, wherein the hit module is configured to determine an effect of the terrain and whether the shot would hit the second user through the terrain (Ferren, [0039]; [0053], “if a target beacon 102 is positioned behind a boulder (identified by a fiducial beacon), the weapon device 100 knows that the target may not be hit”). 9. The system of claim 8, wherein the feedback system is configured to notify a user if they are hit by a simulated shot, or whether the user is out of bounds (Ferren, [0048]; [0055]).
Therefore, in view of Ferren, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system described in Broadway, by providing the hit module as taught by Ferren, since the trainee holding the weapon that fired the simulated round and/or the trainee that was shot (if a hit was determined) may be notified of the result of the shot, which may include a hit/miss status, location of the hit (head, neck, torso, limb, etc.), and/or whether the hit resulted in injury or death (Ferren, [0055]). Therefore, in view of Ferren, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system described in Broadway, by providing terrain map as taught by Ferren, in order to allow a trainee to take cover when he/she conduct target practice.
Claims 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadway et al. (US 2023/0288167 A1) in view of Robinette et al. (US 2014/0240088 A1).
Re claims 15 – 17:
Broadway does not explicitly disclose intermittent to locate a user. Robinette teaches A real-time automated data security system protects both data and devices from loss, theft, and unauthorized access or activity (Robinette, Abstract). Robinette teaches 15. The system of claim 14, wherein the low power mode includes intermittent listening for signals and/or intermittent transmission of signals. 16. The system of claim 15, the one or more location modules are configured to operate in a low power beacon mode configured to output intermittent beacon signals to locate a user in distress. 17. The system of claim 16, wherein the one or more location modules are configured to intermittently listen for a finder signal, and to output an acoustic signal as the finder signal is heard by the one or more location modules to help locate a user in distress (Robinette, [0025], “the apparatus consists of an active RFID tag
attached to an object to be to tracked, located, controlled, or recognized by a controller”; [0083], “The response time of the tag is normally between 1 and 5 seconds, and the tag consumes minimum power while waiting for a request”; [0098], “The tag 101, which wakes up periodically to listen, responds by emitting a signal”; [0147], “this system is a find/rescue mode”). Therefore, in view of Robinette, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system described in Broadway, by providing the tracking tags as taught by Robinette, since there is a need for an apparatus that is miniature, inexpensive, versatile, active, reliable, easy to operate, and adaptable to a variety of locations and ID uses. In its basic configuration, the apparatus consists of an active RFID tag attached to an object to be to tracked, located, controlled, or recognized by a controller. When the user activates the controller, the controller transmits an inquiry to the RFID tag, which then responds with an audible, visual, tactile or other detectable signal so that the user can find the object (Robinette, [0025]).
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadway et al. (US 2023/0288167 A1) in view of Ditges et al. (US 2012/0175321 A1).
Re claims 18 – 19:
Broadway does not explicitly disclose a pole mount for a computer. Ditges teaches a modular pole system is used to support office systems or equipment (Ditges, Abstract). Ditges teaches 18. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more kinematic base station modules include a housing having a pole mount (Ditges, [0063]; fig. 24). 19. The system of claim 18, wherein the pole mount is a threaded opening (Ditges, [0063]; fig. 24). Therefore, in view of Ditges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system described in Broadway, by providing the pole mounting mechanism as taught by Ditges, since by providing an equipment mounting structure in a modular form that that is quickly installed, easily alterable as to content, and selectively adjustable (Ditges, [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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 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.
/JACK YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715