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
Claims 1-12 and 20-37 are pending. Claims 13-19 have been canceled. Claims 1-9, 11, and 12 have been amended. Claims 20-37 are newly presented. Claims 1-12 and 20-37 are rejected below. Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed February 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 and 20-37 have been treated as reading on the elected invention and are examined on the merits in this Non-Final Office Action. Claims 13-19 are canceled and receive no further treatment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed May 9, 2024 has been considered. The references cited therein have been considered to the extent compliant with 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98.
Priority
The application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/484,307, filed February 10, 2023. For purposes of this action, February 10, 2023 is used as the effective filing date of the claimed invention, subject to the provisional application providing written description support for the pending claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 17, 2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1-9, 11, and 12, canceled claims 13-19, and added claims 20-37. Applicant elected Invention I without traverse and stated that claims 1-12 and 20-37 read on the elected invention. The newly added claims 20-37 have been reviewed and are treated as readable on the elected target-hit-indicator invention because they depend from claim 1 or from claims depending from claim 1. The preliminary amendment filed December 29, 2025 correcting the drawing label in Fig. 8A from "RI" to "Cl" has been considered. The amendments do not place the application in condition for allowance for the reasons 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 20, 23-30, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman et al. (US 2020/0173758 A1, "Sitzman") in view of Ramsay et al. (US 5,092,607 A, "Ramsay").
Regarding claim 1, Sitzman teaches a target hit indicator for use with a target to indicate a hit of the target to a shooter. Sitzman is directed to target hit indicators and teaches a unitary target hit indicator that "may be mounted to the rear of a target and detect an impact and signal to a viewer that an impact and/or a miss has occurred" ([0005], [0015]).
Sitzman teaches the claimed housing by disclosing "a housing 110 defining an interior volume 112 for holding components of the target hit indicator" and a mounting surface for attaching the target hit indicator to a target ([0047]).
Sitzman teaches the target connector by disclosing attachment structures for attaching the target hit indicator to a target, including adhesives, straps, magnets, fasteners, and hook-and-loop type fasteners ([0104]). Sitzman also teaches that base plate 1270 may be attached to a target by hook-and-loop fasteners ([0083]-[0084]).
Sitzman teaches the impact detector by disclosing an impact sensor 750 connected to MCU 710, wherein the impact sensor may comprise "an accelerometer and a comparator" and may communicate impact information to the MCU ([0061], [0063]).
Sitzman teaches a plurality of light sources supported by the housing and operatively coupled to the impact detector by disclosing light sources in the form of "a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)" and that, when the MCU determines that the target has been impacted, the MCU may activate light source 720 to signal an impact ([0048], [0091]).
Sitzman teaches positioning most of the target hit indicator behind the target for protection and using a light redirection element to make the light visible to a viewer, stating that the light redirection element may direct light "around the edge of the target toward a viewer" ([0048], [0050]-[0052]). Sitzman does not require that the plurality of light sources themselves are outboard of the target rather than using a light redirection element.
However, Sitzman itself teaches the known alternative of placing a light source outside the target edge by stating that a "light source may not require a light redirection element," that light sources "may be exposed around the edge of the target," and that a hit indicator light source may be located on "a movable arm" that moves to "a visible position outside the edge of the target" ([0106]).
Ramsay further teaches a target impact indicator using a light directly visible to the marksman. Ramsay teaches a light triggered to create "an intense, focused flash of light" visible at a distance by the marksman and teaches that the housing may be elevated for easier viewing if obstacles hinder the view of the strobe flash tube (Col. 3, lines 30-40; Col. 5, lines 1-7; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sitzman by arranging the light sources themselves on an outboard housing portion or arm visible to the shooter, as taught by Sitzman's own alternative embodiment and reinforced by Ramsay, in order to provide direct shooter-visible hit indication while reducing the need for separate light-redirection components. This is a simple substitution of one known visible-indication arrangement for another and the use of a known lighting technique in a similar target-hit indicator to obtain the predictable result of shooter-visible hit indication. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 2, Sitzman, as modified above, teaches claim 1 and further teaches that the plurality of light sources comprises a plurality of LEDs because Sitzman discloses "a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)" ([0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Sitzman teaches multiple LEDs and, in one embodiment, a light source consisting of nine LEDs, each substantially aligned with a corresponding light pipe (Sitzman, [0074]). To the extent Sitzman does not expressly state that the LEDs are arranged in a row, arranging plural LEDs in a row on an outboard arm would have been an obvious arrangement of known light sources to provide a compact and visible signal along the target edge. Shifting the position or arrangement of components where such shifting would not modify the operation of the device is an obvious rearrangement of parts. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 8, Sitzman teaches an electronics module comprising a printed circuit board 552, one or more light sources 558, a battery holder 554, one or more batteries 556, sensors, an MCU, a processor, and other electrical components ([0055]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a first region and a second region of a printed circuit board are functional portions or areas of a board and are not limited to separately manufactured boards or a specifically shaped arm board, Sitzman, as modified for claim 1, places the light sources outboard of the target while the electronics and impact detector remain in the protected portion behind the target. It would have been obvious for the printed circuit board of the modified target hit indicator to include a first region carrying the plurality of light sources and a second region corresponding to the protected electronics/body portion, because the PCB must electrically and mechanically support the distributed light-source and sensor/electronics components in their respective locations. This is the predictable arrangement of known electronic components on a PCB according to their required physical locations. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 9, Sitzman teaches that the electronics module may additionally comprise sensors, an MCU, a processor, and other electrical components ([0055]), and teaches impact sensor 750 connected to MCU 710 ([0061], [0063]). Thus, in the modified target hit indicator discussed for claim 8, it would have been obvious for the second region of the PCB, corresponding to the protected electronics/body portion, to carry the impact detector so the sensor and electronics remain shielded behind the target while the light sources remain visible outboard of the target. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 20, Sitzman teaches electronic control of light sources responsive to target impact, including an MCU that activates a light source when impact information is determined to be above a vibration impact threshold ([0091]). Sitzman does not expressly teach a first transistor in an initial OFF state that switches to an ON state responsive to the impact detector detecting the hit.
Ramsay teaches transistor-based control circuitry for activating a light in response to a target hit. Ramsay teaches a controller circuit responsive to a vibration sensor and further teaches that, when the "POWER ENABLE" signal is high, resistor 206 provides bias current to transistor 210, enabling the gate of field effect transistor 212 and coupling the 12 volt supply to the switched power terminal for the strobe flash unit (Col. 8, lines 58-68; Col. 9, lines 1-2; Fig. 7). Ramsay also teaches a trigger signal driver transistor 246 for triggering a flash from the strobe unit (Col. 9, lines 43-49; Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to implement Sitzman's electronically controlled light activation using Ramsay's known transistor switching circuit because transistor switching was a known way to energize a light source in response to a sensor signal, and applying Ramsay's known circuit technique to Sitzman's target-hit-indicator platform would have yielded the predictable result of light activation responsive to target-hit detection. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 23, Ramsay teaches a capacitor charged by a power supply in response to impact detection. Ramsay teaches a sensor trigger circuit responsive to the vibration sensor, where "a 22 microfarad capacitor 136" extends between node 134 and ground and a charging resistor 138 extends between node 134 and the 12 volt power supply (Ramsay, col. 7, lines 1-4; Fig. 7). Ramsay further teaches that, during normal operation, detection of an impact by vibration sensor 102 temporarily causes the voltage at node 134 to rise and starts the control sequence (Ramsay, col. 7, lines 55-68; col. 8, lines 1-2; Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to use Ramsay's capacitor-based trigger circuit in the modified Sitzman device for the same reasons stated for claim 20, namely reliable sensor-triggered light activation using known circuitry. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 24, Ramsay teaches a second transistor and an oscillator for selectively energizing a light. Ramsay teaches that inverter 184 is configured as a one Hertz oscillator and that the oscillator output is coupled to decade counter 168, which determines the flash sequence and timing (Col. 8, lines 31-44; Fig. 7). Ramsay further teaches transistor 246 as a trigger signal driver for the strobe flash unit (Col. 9, lines 43-49; Fig. 7). Applying this oscillator-and-transistor circuit to Sitzman's target hit indicator would have predictably energized the light sources in a pulsed or selected manner to indicate a hit. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 25, Ramsay teaches an RC timing network electrically connected to an oscillator. Ramsay teaches that inverter 184 is configured as a one Hertz oscillator and that feedback resistor 186 and timing capacitor 188 are coupled with inverter 184 to set the oscillator timing (Col. 8, lines 31-39; Fig. 7). Ramsay also teaches a high-voltage strobe power supply oscillator whose base frequency is set by capacitor 302 and resistor 304 (Col. 10, lines 48-54; Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to include an RC timing network with the oscillator of the modified Sitzman and Ramsay circuit because RC components were a known way to set or adjust oscillator frequency, yielding the predictable result of selectable or controlled flashing frequency. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 26, 27, and 28, Sitzman teaches a power supply configured to power the light sources by disclosing that electronics module 550 includes a battery holder 554 and that "one or more batteries 556 may provide power to the target hit indicator 500" ([0055]). This teaches the power supply of claim 26, the battery holder of claim 27, and the at least one battery of claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, Sitzman teaches one or more batteries but does not expressly specify three batteries ([0055]). Selecting three batteries would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine selection from a finite number of predictable battery-count options to achieve desired voltage, current, packaging, and operating-life requirements in a portable LED target indicator. The claimed selection of three batteries is not shown by the present record to be critical or to produce an unexpected result. The mere duplication or selection of known components, absent a new and unexpected result, generally lacks patentable significance. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 30, Sitzman teaches a target connector configured to releasably connect the housing to the target. Sitzman teaches that hook-and-loop fasteners provide "inexpensive, easy, tool-less attachment and removal" to existing target designs ([0084]). Ramsay also teaches that its attachment means removably attaches the vibration sensor to the target and includes an adjustable clamp engaging an edge of the target (Claims 12-13; Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 36, Sitzman teaches that different flash patterns may be used responsive to different determinations, including hit determinations ([0049)). Ramsay teaches strobe flash operation and teaches circuitry for causing the strobe to flash repeatedly under certain conditions (Abstract; Col. 3, lines 18-40; claims 15-18). Thus, Sitzman and Ramsay teach light sources configured to flash to indicate a target hit. To the extent a particular flashing implementation is required, it would have been obvious to implement Sitzman's light sources using Ramsay's known flash control circuitry for the predictable result of a visible flashing hit signal. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 37, Sitzman teaches embodiments using a light redirection element, but also expressly teaches that a hit indicator comprising a tight source may not require a light redirection element," that light sources "may be exposed around the edge of the target," and that a hit indicator light source may be on a movable arm outside the target edge ([0106]). Ramsay teaches a directly visible light signal to the marksman without relying on a reflector or prism to redirect light from a rear-mounted LED (Col. 3, lines 18-40; Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to use direct, outboard. shooter-visible light sources instead of a reflector or prism because direct visible lighting is a known alternative for providing target-hit indication and would have predictably simplified the optical path while maintaining visible hit indication. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Ramsay, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mack (US 2020/0400409 A1, "Mack").
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sitzman teaches a housing holding electronic components, including sensors, a PCB, light sources, battery holder, batteries, MCU, and other electrical components ([0047], [0055], [0061]). Sitzman also teaches positioning most of the target hit indicator within the periphery of the target for protection while an indicator portion extends beyond an edge for visibility ([0050]). Sitzman itself teaches an embodiment in which a light source is located on a movable arm that extends to a visible position outside the edge of the target ([0106]). However, Sitzman and Ramsay do not expressly require the particular main-body-and-arm terminology of claim 4. Mack teaches a hit indicator housing 51 with a base portion 61 and an attachment system including arms 75 projecting outwardly from the base ([0035]-[0036]).
It would have been obvious to modify Sitzman by defining a main body portion housing the impact detector and power/electronic components and an arm carrying the LEDs, as suggested by Sitzman and Mack, in order to keep the sensitive electronics shielded behind the target while locating the lights outboard for shooter visibility. This combines known prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a protected target-hit-indicator body with an exposed visible lighting portion. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A). This modification teaches claim 4 and teaches claim 5 because the target connector attaches to the rear of the target so that the main body is shielded behind the target while the arm is exposed outboard of the target.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Ramsay, as applied to claims 1, 4, and 5 above, further in view of Mack, and further in view of Southard et al. (US 2005/0030765 A1, "Southard").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sitzman, Ramsay, and Mack teaches the target hit indicator of claims 1, 4, and 5, including a main body, an arm carrying plural LEDs, a power source, and a PCB/electronic module supporting the light sources and electronic components. Sitzman teaches one or more batteries providing power to the target hit indicator ([0055]).
Southard teaches an LED lighting arrangement using positive and negative LED conductive paths and parallel LED interconnection. Southard teaches that an LED system "puts all of the LEDs in parallel" and discloses an LED device having positive and negative leads communicating with respective conductors ([0004], [0009]-[0010]). Southard further teaches that each LED includes positive leads 130P electrically communicating with the positive terminal or anode and negative leads 130N electrically communicating with the negative terminal or cathode ([0064]). Southard also teaches that parallel interconnection of LEDs reduces the likelihood that a failed LED will adversely affect the performance of other LEDs on the same electrical circuit ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plurality of LEDs in the modified Sitzman target hit indicator with positive LED leads or conductive paths coupled to the power source in parallel, as taught by Southard, because the modified Sitzman device uses multiple LEDs for visible indication and Southard teaches a known LED interconnection technique that predictably powers multiple LEDs and improves fault tolerance if one LED fails. This is applying a known LED interconnection technique to a known LED target-hit-indicator device ready for improvement, yielding the predictable result of multiple light sources powered through parallel positive and return paths, See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sitzman, Ramsay, Mack, and Southard teaches the limitations of claim 6 above. Sitzman teaches an electronics module comprising a printed circuit board, light sources, a battery holder, batteries, sensors, an MCU, a processor, and other electrical components ([0055]). Southard teaches LED devices having positive leads and negative leads electrically communicating with respective positive and negative conductors, and teaches parallel interconnection of LEDs ([0009]-[0010], [0064]). Southard further teaches that parallel interconnection reduces the likelihood that a failed LED will adversely affect performance of other LEDs on the same electrical circuit ([0017]).
Southard does not expressly teach the claimed target-hit-indicator PCB having ground leads on a first side of the PCB and positive leads on an opposite second side of the PCB. However, Southard teaches the known LED wiring technique of arranging positive and negative LED conductive paths separately along a support structure and coupling the LEDs to power through those paths. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, positive leads and ground leads include positive-side and ground-side conductive paths, conductors, traces, leads, prongs, wires, or equivalent electrical pathways that electrically couple the LEDs to the positive and ground/return sides of the circuit. The recited first and second sides still require opposite physical PCB sides, faces, surfaces, or layers.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the modified Silzman target hit indicator using Southard's known separated positive and negative LED conductive path arrangement, and to place the ground-side paths on a first PCB side and the positive-side paths on the opposite PCB side, because the modified Sitzman device already uses a PCB to carry the light sources and electronics, and separating the positive and ground LED conductors on opposite PCB sides would predictably reduce routing congestion and reduce the likelihood of shorting between LED power and return paths, especially in a projectile-impact environment. This applies a known LED interconnection and conductor-separation technique to a known PCB-supported LED target-hit-indicator device ready for improvement, yielding the predictable result of separated positive and ground LED paths on opposite board sides. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Ramsay.
Regarding claim 10, Sitzman teaches a target hit indicator for use with a target to indicate a hit of the target to a shooter, including a housing, a target connector, an impact detector, and a light source. Sitzman teaches a housing defining an interior volume for electronic components and a mounting surface for attaching the target hit indicator to a target ([0047]). Sitzman teaches sensors for sensing an impact and light sources in the form of LEDs ([0048], [0061], [0063]).
Sitzman teaches positioning most of the target hit indicator behind the target for protection while an indicator portion provides visible output around the target edge ([0050]-[0052]). Sitzman further teaches the known alternative in which a hit indicator light source may not require a light redirection element, light sources may be exposed around the edge of the target, and a hit indicator light source may be located on a movable arm that moves to a visible position outside the edge of the target ([0106]). Ramsay teaches a target impact indicator using a light directly visible to the marksman, including an intense focused flash of light visible at a distance by the marksman (Col. 3, lines 30-40; Col. 5, lines 1-7; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Sitzman's protected housing region as an impact-detector housing portion and its outboard visible lighting region, as taught by Sitzman's own movable-arm alternative and reinforced by Ramsay's directly visible light, as a light-source housing portion. This would keep the impact detector protected behind the target while placing the light source outboard for visibility to the shooter, producing the predictable result of protected impact detection and shooter-visible hit indication. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Ramsay, as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 11, Sitzman teaches an electronics module comprising a printed circuit board 552, one or more light sources 558, a battery holder 554, one or more batteries 556, sensors, an MCU, a processor, and other electrical components ([0055]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first region and second region of the printed circuit board are functional portions or areas of a board. In the modified target hit indicator of claim 10, the light-source housing portion is outboard of the target and the impact-detector housing portion is protected behind the target. It would have been obvious for the PCB to include a first region corresponding to the light-source housing portion and a second region corresponding to the impact-detector housing portion because the PCB would predictably support and electrically connect the light sources and impact-detection/electronic components at their respective locations. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 12, Sitzman teaches that the electronics module may include sensors, an MCU, a processor, and other electrical components ([0055]) and teaches impact sensor 750 connected to MCU 710 ([0061], [0063]). Thus, in the modified target hit indicator discussed for claim 11, it would have been obvious for the second region of the PCB corresponding to the protected impact-detector housing portion to carry the impact detector, thereby protecting the detector and associated electronics behind the target while the light-source region remains visible outboard of the target. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Ramsay, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Mack.
Regarding claim 21, Mack teaches an ON/OFF switch by disclosing that the cover of housing 51 is provided with an on/off switch button 57 (Mack, [0035]). Ramsay also teaches a slide switch 28 on the housing front face used by the user to select operation timing (Col. 4, lines 50-65; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to include an ON/OFF switch in the modified Sitzman device to allow a user to turn the portable battery-powered target hit Indicator on and off, thereby conserving power and controlling operation. This is the use of a known switch- control technique in a similar battery-powered device to yield the predictable result of user-selectable operation. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Ramsay, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Knight (US 4357531 A, "Knight").
Regarding claim 22, Sitzman teaches an impact detector but does not require a vibration switch configured to momentarily close. Ramsay teaches a target-impact vibration sensor in a ballistic impact indicator, including a resilient metal arm with a weight and contact that changes electrical state when the target is struck (Col. 5, lines 37-68; Col. 6, lines 1-13; Fig. 4). Ramsay also claims a vibration sensor adapted to produce an electrical impulse when a bullet strikes the target (claim 1). Knight separately teaches hit detection using an inertia switch, stating that the hit detecting means may be "an inertia switch 38," and teaches an inertia switch actuated by vibrations resulting from impact of the projectile on the target member (Col. 5, lines 1-15; claim 2). Knight further teaches momentary electrical contact used for projectile-hit indication (claim 3).
It would have been obvious to substitute a normally-open, momentary-closing vibration switch, as evidenced by Knight, for Sitzman's impact sensor in the modified target hit indicator, or to implement Ramsay's vibration-sensor state-change circuitry using the complementary normally-open switch arrangement, because normally-open and normally-closed vibration switches were predictable alternatives for generating an electrical impact signal. The substitution would have yielded the predictable result of impact detection responsive to target hit while simplifying the sensor implementation. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Ramsay, as applied to claim 30 above.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Sitzman teaches hook-and-loop materials by disclosing that base plate 1270 may be attached to a target using "hook and loop fasteners" and that hook-and-loop fasteners between base plate 1270 and the target provide a strong yet flexible bond ([0083]-[0084]). Sitzman also broadly teaches that target attachment structures may include adhesives and hook-and-loop type fasteners ([0104]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure one hook-and-loop material to be secured to the housing and the other to be secured, including adhered, to the target to provide the predictable benefit of easy, tool-less releasable attachment.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Sitzman teaches complementary hook-and-loop fasteners but does not require which side carries the hook material and which side carries the loop material ([0083]-[0084], [0104]). Assigning the loop material to the housing and the hook material to the target, or assigning the hook material to the housing and the loop material to the target, would have been an obvious design choice because the two arrangements are complementary reversals performing the same fastening function with predictable results. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Ramsay, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Southard.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Sitzman and Ramsay teaches the target hit indicator of claim 1 having a plurality of LEDs/light sources. Sitzman teaches light sources in the form of a plurality of LEDs ([0048]) and teaches an electronics module comprising a printed circuit board, light sources, a battery holder, batteries, sensors, an MCU, and other electrical components ([0055]).
Southard teaches a plurality of LED devices connected in parallel. Southard states that a conventional LED channel lettering system "puts all of the LEDs in parallel" ([0004]). Southard further teaches a flexible cable including at least two flexible parallel conductors and "a plurality of LEDs electrically parallel-interconnected by communication of the anode and cathode of each LED with the at least two conductors of the flexible cable" ([0010]). Southard also teaches that parallel interconnection of the LEDs reduces the likelihood that a failed LED will adversely affect performance of other LEDs on the same electrical circuit ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically connect the plurality of light sources of the modified Sitzman target hit indicator in parallel, as taught by Southard, because both Silzman and Southard use electrically powered LEDs for visible indication and Southard teaches a known LED interconnection technique that predictably powers multiple LEDs and improves fault tolerance if one LED fails. This is combining known prior-art elements according to known methods and applying a known LED interconnection technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-421; MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and § 2143(I)(D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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, 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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights