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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on October 31, 2025 for the patent application 18/422,036 originally filed on January 25, 2024. Claims 1, 7, and 10 are amended. Claims 6 and 12 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-18 remain pending. The first office action of August 2, 2024, the second office action of December 10, 2024, and the third office action of July 31, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections. However, new 35 USC 103 rejections are applied to the claims, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendir (US 2005/0153262) in view of Hodge (US 2012/0274922), Shechter et al. (hereinafter “Shechter,” US 2003/0136900), and Swensen et al. (hereinafter “Swensen,” US 2004/0014010).
Regarding claim 1, Kendir discloses a target system (Kendir Abstract, “firearm laser training system according to the present invention includes a laser assembly, actuable target assemblies”), comprising:
a body (see Kendir Fig. 1, target object 12; also Kendir [0061], “a target object 12 or 16 in the form of a silhouette of a person”);
…
a laser detection unit configured for insertion into or attachment to the body (see Kendir Fig. 6B, showing detection units 70 disposed within target object 12); and
a shoot-back unit configured for insertion into or attachment to the body (Kendir [0154], “a target may include a laser transmitter to simulate return fire on a user”),
wherein the laser detection unit is configured to detect an incoming laser beam that strikes the laser detection unit and/or an area surrounding the laser detection unit (Kendir [0083], “Detection units 70, 72 are arranged to detect beam impact locations on specific areas of target object 12”).
Kendir does not teach every limitation of a mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying heights and rotations.
Kendir does teach a mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying heights (see Kendir Fig. 1, showing actuation unit 18; also Kendir [0061], “an actuation unit 18 to raise or lower a corresponding target object”), but does not teach the mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying rotations.
However, Hodge discloses the mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying rotations (Hodge [0031], “determine an origin (i.e., original location) of a shooter (in multi-shooter scenario) and where to orientate a rotating pop-up mannequin target”; also Hodge [0038], “a computing unit coupled to the system(s), could control a motor to rotate the target toward the shooter… a target may be controlled to fall down if lethally shot or rotate toward or move toward a shooter(s)”).
Hodge is analogous to Kendir, as both are drawn to the art of target systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir, to include the mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying rotations, as taught by Hodge, in order to correctly control a reactive target response (Hodge [0038]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kendir in view of Hodge does not teach the laser detection unit is configured to differentiate between laser beams fired from different laser transmitters according to a unique identifier in each of the fired laser beams.
However, Shechter discloses the laser detection unit is configured to differentiate between laser beams fired from different laser transmitters according to a unique identifier in each of the fired laser beams (Shechter [0078], “individual firearms can emit uniquely modulated or encoded laser pulses which are distinguishable to the laser light detectors, to allow the firearm training system to identify the individual source of each laser pulse detected”).
Shechter is analogous to Kendir in view of Hodge, as both are drawn to the art of target systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir in view of Hodge, to include the laser detection unit is configured to differentiate between laser beams fired from different laser transmitters according to a unique identifier in each of the fired laser beams, as taught by Shechter, so that more than one shooter may be simultaneously engaging a target (Shechter [0078]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kendir in view of Hodge and Shechter does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein the shoot-back unit is configured to respond to the detected incoming laser beam by continually emitting a shot back laser beam in a preconfigured direction.
Kendir does teach wherein the shoot-back unit is configured to respond to the detected incoming laser beam (Kendir [0154], “a target may include a laser transmitter to simulate return fire on a user and may be used with different target systems. The transmitter may be actuated by detection of the laser beam from a user”), but does not explicitly teach continually emitting a shot back laser beam in a preconfigured direction (emphasis added).
However, Swensen discloses continually emitting a laser beam in a preconfigured direction (Swensen [0062], “The laser beam may be visible or invisible (e.g., infrared), may be of any color or power level, may have a pulse of any desired duration and may be modulated in any fashion (e.g., at any desired frequency or unmodulated) or encoded in any manner to provide any desired information, while the transmitter may project the beam continuously or include a "constant on" mode. The system may be utilized with transmitters and detectors emitting and detecting any type of energy (e.g., light, infrared, etc.).”).
Swensen is analogous to Kendir in view of Hodge and Shechter, as both are drawn to the art of target shooting systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir in view of Hodge and Shechter, to include continually emitting a laser beam in a preconfigured direction, as taught by Swensen, because doing so is a simple substitution of a continuously emitting laser in a preconfigured direction of the target’s gun for a standard shooting mode of the target’s gun to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Kendir in view of Hodge, Shechter, and Swensen discloses wherein the body includes a torso and a head (see Kendir Fig. 1, showing target object 12 corresponding to the body; also Kendir [0061], “target object 12 or 16 in the form of a silhouette of a person”; also Kendir Fig. 6B, showing the target object 12 including a torso and a head).
Regarding claim 3, Kendir in view of Hodge, Shechter, and Swensen discloses wherein a first laser detection unit is positioned in the torso and wherein a second laser detection unit is positioned in the head (see Kendir Fig. 6B, showing detection units 70 positioned in the torso and in the head).
Regarding claim 4, Kendir in view of Hodge, Shechter, and Swensen discloses wherein the body has the size and dimensions of an average adult human male (see Kendir Fig. 1, target object 12 is the body; also Kendir [0061], “a target object 12 or 16 in the form of a silhouette of a person”).
Regarding claim 5, Kendir in view of Hodge, Shechter and Swensen discloses wherein the mounting system includes electronic actuators for adjusting the heights … of the body (see Kendir Fig. 1, showing actuation unit 18; also Kendir [0061], “an actuation unit 18 to raise or lower a corresponding target object”; also Kendir [0165], “The control electronics lowers the target in response to a hit”; also Kendir [0093], “The motor actuates arms 21 to raise and lower target object 12,16”).
Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen does not disclose wherein the mounting system includes electronic actuators for adjusting the rotations of the body.
However, Hodge discloses wherein the mounting system includes electronic actuators for adjusting the rotations of the body (Hodge [0031], “determine an origin (i.e., original location) of a shooter (in multi-shooter scenario) and where to orientate a rotating pop-up mannequin target”; also Hodge [0038], “a computing unit coupled to the system(s), could control a motor to rotate the target toward the shooter… a target may be controlled to fall down if lethally shot or rotate toward or move toward a shooter(s)”).
It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir in view of Hodge, Shechter and Swensen, to include wherein the mounting system includes electronic actuators for adjusting the rotations of the body, as further taught by Hodge, in order to correctly control a reactive target response (Hodge [0038]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Kendir in view of Hodge, Shechter, and Swensen discloses wherein, in response to detection of the incoming laser beam, the laser detection unit is configured to provide an audio or visual indication (Kendir [0083], “Detection units 70, 72 are arranged to detect beam impact locations on specific areas of target object 12”; also Kendir [0095], “In response to the laser beam impacting target object 12, 16, the target sends a signal to the control electronics indicating beam impact”; also Kendir [0092], “LED 162 is generally illuminated in response to detection of a hit”).
Regarding claim 9, Kendir in view of Hodge, Shechter and Swensen discloses wherein the mounting system is configured to adjust the body to varying heights and rotations in response to the detected incoming laser beam (see Kendir Fig. 1, showing actuation unit 18; also Kendir [0061], “an actuation unit 18 to raise or lower a corresponding target object”; also Kendir [0165], “The control electronics lowers the target in response to a hit”; also Kendir [0093], “The motor actuates arms 21 to raise and lower target object 12,16”).
Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen does not disclose the mounting system is configured to adjust the body to varying rotations in response to the detected incoming laser beam.
However, Hodge discloses the mounting system is configured to adjust the body to varying heights and rotations in response to the detected incoming laser beam (Hodge [0031], “determine an origin (i.e., original location) of a shooter (in multi-shooter scenario) and where to orientate a rotating pop-up mannequin target”; also Hodge [0038], “a computing unit coupled to the system(s), could control a motor to rotate the target toward the shooter… a target may be controlled to fall down if lethally shot or rotate toward or move toward a shooter(s)”).
It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir in view of Hodge, Shechter and Swensen, to include the mounting system is configured to adjust the body to varying rotations in response to the detected incoming laser beam, as further taught by Hodge, in order to correctly control a reactive target response (Hodge [0038]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendir in view of Carrillo Fuentevilla et al. (hereinafter “Carrillo,” US 2017/0184377), and in further view of Swensen.
Regarding claim 7, Kendir discloses a target system (Kendir Abstract, “firearm laser training system according to the present invention includes a laser assembly, actuable target assemblies”), comprising:
a body (see Kendir Fig. 1, target object 12; also Kendir [0061], “a target object 12 or 16 in the form of a silhouette of a person”);
…
a laser detection unit configured for insertion into or attachment to the body (see Kendir Fig. 6B, showing detection units 70 disposed within target object 12); and
a shoot-back unit configured for insertion into or attachment to the body (Kendir [0154], “a target may include a laser transmitter to simulate return fire on a user”),
wherein the laser detection unit is configured to detect an incoming laser beam that strikes the laser detection unit and/or an area surrounding the laser detection unit (Kendir [0083], “Detection units 70, 72 are arranged to detect beam impact locations on specific areas of target object 12”).
Kendir does not explicitly teach every limitation of a mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying heights and rotations, wherein the mounting system includes a mechanical mounting system including a leg mount and a base, and wherein the base is adjustable to substantially level the target system.
Kendir does teach a mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying heights (see Kendir Fig. 1, showing actuation unit 18; also Kendir [0061], “an actuation unit 18 to raise or lower a corresponding target object”), but not varying rotations.
However, Carrillo discloses a mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying rotations, wherein the mounting system includes a mechanical mounting system including a leg mount and a base, and wherein the base is adjustable to substantially level the target system (see Carrillo Fig. 8A, showing post 140 with support 110 [leg mount], and base 120; also Carrillo [0009], “The mounting frame may allow the target body to be reoriented and the height of target body to be adjusted”; also Carrillo [0011], “The mounting frame may include adjustable legs. The mounting frame may be directly coupled to the target body”; also Carrillo [0007], “The orientation of the target body may be adjustable such that the target body may be at least one of rotated or flipped”).
Carrillo is analogous to Kendir, as both are drawn to the art of target systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir, to include a mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying rotations, wherein the mounting system includes a mechanical mounting system including a leg mount and a base, and wherein the base is adjustable to substantially level the target system, as taught by Carrillo, in order to increase user satisfaction by allowing different target heights with a single target body (Carrillo [0062]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kendir in view of Carrillo does not teach every limitation of wherein the shoot-back unit is configured to respond to the detected incoming laser beam by continually emitting a shot back laser beam in a preconfigured direction.
Kendir does teach wherein the shoot-back unit is configured to respond to the detected incoming laser beam (Kendir [0154], “a target may include a laser transmitter to simulate return fire on a user and may be used with different target systems. The transmitter may be actuated by detection of the laser beam from a user”), but does not explicitly teach continually emitting a shot back laser beam in a preconfigured direction (emphasis added).
However, Swensen discloses continually emitting a laser beam in a preconfigured direction (Swensen [0062], “The laser beam may be visible or invisible (e.g., infrared), may be of any color or power level, may have a pulse of any desired duration and may be modulated in any fashion (e.g., at any desired frequency or unmodulated) or encoded in any manner to provide any desired information, while the transmitter may project the beam continuously or include a "constant on" mode. The system may be utilized with transmitters and detectors emitting and detecting any type of energy (e.g., light, infrared, etc.).”).
Swensen is analogous to Kendir in view of Carrillo, as both are drawn to the art of target shooting systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir in view of Carrillo, to include continually emitting a laser beam in a preconfigured direction, as taught by Swensen, because doing so is a simple substitution of a continuously emitting laser in a preconfigured direction of the target’s gun for a standard shooting mode of the target’s gun to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendir in view of Shechter, and in further view of Swensen.
Regarding claim 10, Kendir discloses a method, comprising:
providing a target system including a body, a shoot-back unit and a laser detection unit (see Kendir Fig. 1, target object 12; also Kendir [0061], “a target object 12 or 16 in the form of a silhouette of a person”; also Kendir Fig. 6B, showing detection units 70 disposed within target object 12; also Kendir [0154], “a target may include a laser transmitter to simulate return fire on a user”); and
shooting a laser beam at the target (Kendir [0165], “The user subsequently aims firearm 6 at the raised target to project laser beam 11 at that target”),
wherein the laser detection unit is configured to detect the shot laser beam (Kendir [0083], “Detection units 70, 72 are arranged to detect beam impact locations on specific areas of target object 12”).
Kendir does not teach the laser detection unit is configured to differentiate between laser beams fired from different laser transmitters according to a unique identifier in each of the fired laser beams.
However, Shechter discloses the laser detection unit is configured to differentiate between laser beams fired from different laser transmitters according to a unique identifier in each of the fired laser beams (Shechter [0078], “individual firearms can emit uniquely modulated or encoded laser pulses which are distinguishable to the laser light detectors, to allow the firearm training system to identify the individual source of each laser pulse detected”).
Shechter is analogous to Kendir, as both are drawn to the art of target systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir, to include the laser detection unit is configured to differentiate between laser beams fired from different laser transmitters according to a unique identifier in each of the fired laser beams, as taught by Shechter, so that more than one shooter may be simultaneously engaging a target (Shechter [0078]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kendir in view of Shechter does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein the shoot-back unit is configured to respond to the detected laser beam by continually emitting a laser beam in a preconfigured direction.
Kendir does teach wherein the shoot-back unit is configured to respond to the detected incoming laser beam (Kendir [0154], “a target may include a laser transmitter to simulate return fire on a user and may be used with different target systems. The transmitter may be actuated by detection of the laser beam from a user”), but does not explicitly teach continually emitting a laser beam in a preconfigured direction (emphasis added).
However, Swensen discloses continually emitting a laser beam in a preconfigured direction (Swensen [0062], “The laser beam may be visible or invisible (e.g., infrared), may be of any color or power level, may have a pulse of any desired duration and may be modulated in any fashion (e.g., at any desired frequency or unmodulated) or encoded in any manner to provide any desired information, while the transmitter may project the beam continuously or include a "constant on" mode. The system may be utilized with transmitters and detectors emitting and detecting any type of energy (e.g., light, infrared, etc.).”).
Swensen is analogous to Kendir in view of Schechter, as both are drawn to the art of target shooting systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir in view of Schechter, to include continually emitting a laser beam in a preconfigured direction, as taught by Swensen, because doing so is a simple substitution of a continuously emitting laser in a preconfigured direction of the target’s gun for a standard shooting mode of the target’s gun to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen discloses wherein, in response to detection of the shot laser beam, the laser detection unit is configured to provide an audio or visual indication (Kendir [0083], “Detection units 70, 72 are arranged to detect beam impact locations on specific areas of target object 12”; also Kendir [0095], “In response to the laser beam impacting target object 12, 16, the target sends a signal to the control electronics indicating beam impact”; also Kendir [0092], “LED 162 is generally illuminated in response to detection of a hit”).
Regarding claim 14, Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen discloses wherein the body includes a torso and a head (see Kendir Fig. 1, showing target object 12 corresponding to the body; also Kendir [0061], “target object 12 or 16 in the form of a silhouette of a person”; also Kendir Fig. 6B, showing the target object 12 including a torso and a head).
Regarding claim 15, Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen discloses wherein a first laser detection unit is positioned in the torso and wherein a second laser detection unit is positioned in the head (see Kendir Fig. 6B, showing detection units 70 positioned in the torso and in the head).
Regarding claim 16, Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen discloses wherein the body has the size and dimensions of an average adult human male (see Kendir Fig. 1, target object 12 is the body; also Kendir [0061], “a target object 12 or 16 in the form of a silhouette of a person”).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen, and in further view of Hodge.
Regarding Claim 11, Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen discloses wherein the target further includes a mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying heights in response to the detected laser beam (see Kendir Fig. 1, showing actuation unit 18; also Kendir [0061], “an actuation unit 18 to raise or lower a corresponding target object”; also Kendir [0165], “The control electronics lowers the target in response to a hit”; also Kendir [0093], “The motor actuates arms 21 to raise and lower target object 12,16”). Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen does not disclose the mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying rotations in response to the detected laser beam.
However, Hodge discloses the mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying rotations in response to the detected laser beam (Hodge [0031], “determine an origin (i.e., original location) of a shooter (in multi-shooter scenario) and where to orientate a rotating pop-up mannequin target”; also Hodge [0038], “a computing unit coupled to the system(s), could control a motor to rotate the target toward the shooter… a target may be controlled to fall down if lethally shot or rotate toward or move toward a shooter(s)”).
It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen, to include the mounting system configured to adjust the body to varying rotations in response to the detected laser beam, as further taught by Hodge, in order to correctly control a reactive target response (Hodge [0038]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen discloses wherein the mounting system includes electronic actuators for adjusting the heights … of the body (see Kendir Fig. 1, showing actuation unit 18; also Kendir [0061], “an actuation unit 18 to raise or lower a corresponding target object”; also Kendir [0165], “The control electronics lowers the target in response to a hit”; also Kendir [0093], “The motor actuates arms 21 to raise and lower target object 12,16”).
Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen does not disclose wherein the mounting system includes electronic actuators for adjusting the rotations of the body.
However, Hodge discloses wherein the mounting system includes electronic actuators for adjusting the rotations of the body (Hodge [0031], “determine an origin (i.e., original location) of a shooter (in multi-shooter scenario) and where to orientate a rotating pop-up mannequin target”; also Hodge [0038], “a computing unit coupled to the system(s), could control a motor to rotate the target toward the shooter… a target may be controlled to fall down if lethally shot or rotate toward or move toward a shooter(s)”).
Hodge is analogous to Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen, as both are drawn to the art of target systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir in view of Shechter and Swensen, to include wherein the mounting system includes electronic actuators for adjusting the rotations of the body, as taught by Hodge, in order to correctly control a reactive target response (Hodge [0038]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendir in view of Shechter, Swensen, and Hodge, and in further view of Carrillo.
Regarding claim 18, Kendir in view of Shechter, Swensen, and Hodge does not teach the mounting system includes a mechanical mounting system including a leg mount and a base, and wherein the base is adjustable to substantially level the target system.
However, Carrillo discloses the mounting system includes a mechanical mounting system including a leg mount and a base, and wherein the base is adjustable to substantially level the target system (see Carrillo Fig. 8A, showing post 140 with support 110 [leg mount], and base 120; also Carrillo [0009], “The mounting frame may allow the target body to be reoriented and the height of target body to be adjusted”; also Carrillo [0011], “The mounting frame may include adjustable legs. The mounting frame may be directly coupled to the target body”; also Carrillo [0007], “The orientation of the target body may be adjustable such that the target body may be at least one of rotated or flipped”).
Carrillo is analogous to Kendir in view of Shechter, Swensen, and Hodge as both are drawn to the art of target systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Kendir in view of Shechter, Swensen, and Hodge to include the mounting system includes a mechanical mounting system including a leg mount and a base, and wherein the base is adjustable to substantially level the target system, as taught by Carrillo, in order to increase user satisfaction by allowing different target heights with a single target body (Carrillo [0062]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on October 31, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Applicant respectfully argues, “Rosenblum fails to teach the amended limitation. A handheld toy gun cannot ‘preconfigure’ direction, as its orientation is determined by the user at the moment of play. Further, its ‘continuous’ mode is a trigger-held stream controlled by manual operation, not an automatic emission initiated by detection of an incoming beam as claimed. The Examiner stated that Rosenblum is analogous to Kendir in view of Hodge and Shechter, as both are drawn to the art of target systems, however, while Rosenblum teaches a targeting system, there is no teaching or suggestion of the target having a shoot-back system or that such a system has the limitations recited in claim 1. The Examiner's statement of ‘emitting a shot back laser beam in a preconfigured direction or to continually emit a shot back laser beam, as taught by Rosenblum’, improperly extends the teaching of Rosenblum that does not teach or suggest such features from the stationary target itself, nor from a mobile user-controlled toy weapon.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the rejections above, Rosenblum is replaced with newly cited prior art Swensen. This was done to emphasize that the target’s laser emitting device is not being replaced with a toy gun (as in Rosenblum), but rather the target’s laser emitting device is being replaced with the more versatile laser emitting device of Swensen. While Kendir discloses a laser emitting device attached to the target for shooting back at shooters, Kendir does not provide details as to the whether the laser beam is continual or pulsed, or how the shooter is targeted. However, Swensen explicitly describes a laser that may be continually emitted.
As for shooting in a “preconfigured direction,” no details are provided in the claims for determining how the direction is preconfigured. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “preconfigured direction” is simply shooting the laser in whatever direction the laser happens to be pointing in at the target. That is, the laser is not actively reoriented before shooting. Neither Kendir nor Swensen disclose actively reorienting the target’s laser.
The Applicant further respectfully argues, “The proposed combination of Hodge and Kendir remains improper. Hodge teaches proactive orientation toward a shooter using LIDAR tracking, whereas the present invention reacts only upon detecting an incoming beam. Incorporating Hodge's proactive tracking into Kendir's pop-up and hit-detection system would overhaul its operation and render Kendir unsuitable for its intended purpose, contrary to MPEP §2143.01(VI).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Hodge is only relied upon for its teaching of targets that can be rotated. The primary reference Kendir clearly discloses that the targets can be adjusted for height, but is silent about rotation. The claims do not impose any further limitations about adjusting the rotation of targets. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person can physically and manually turn the targets to adjust them, and it would read on the claims. Hodge was only relied upon for its explicit disclosure showing that the targets can be adjusted by rotation.
The Applicant also respectfully argues, “Shechter does not remedy these deficiencies. Although Shechter acknowledges that laser beams may include unique identifiers, its system depends on a central computer to process and assign hits. By contrast, the present invention locally decodes identifiers and immediately actuates a shoot-back response. Shechter's architecture is network-dependent, while the claimed system is autonomous and self-contained.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shechter is only relied upon for its teaching that laser beams can encode unique identifiers for differentiating between detected laser beams. This was a common technique in the art of lasers, and Shechter shows that it would have been obvious to use it in the manner of the instant invention. Newly cited prior art Swensen paragraph [0062] also discloses this technique, “The laser beam… may be modulated in any fashion (e.g., at any desired frequency or unmodulated) or encoded in any manner to provide any desired information.”
For the above reasons, the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Abe (US 2003/0228914) Electronic competition system, electronic competition method, server and computer program
Kendir et al. (US 2007/0190495) Sensing device for firearm laser training system and method of simulating firearm operation with various training scenarios
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 Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715