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 1-7, 10, and 20-37 are pending. Claims 8, 9, and 11-19 are canceled. Claims 1, 7, and 10 were amended in the reply filed August 3, 2026. Applicant's election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed February 17, 2026, is acknowledged. The pending claims are treated as reading on the elected target-hit-indicator invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed May 9, 2024, has been considered to the extent compliant with 37 CFR 1.97 and 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 August 3, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 10 were amended to require one printed circuit board having a first region carrying the light source or light sources and located outboard of the target connector, a second region located behind the target connector and carrying the impact detector, and the board extending between the regions. Claim 7 was amended to place its positive-lead and ground-lead limitations expressly on the printed circuit board. Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 were canceled. The amendments do not place the application in condition for allowance. Hammond et al. (US 20120302294 A1), Chou (US 20080023308 A1), and Arnold et al. (US 20040240191 A1) are applied below with references previously of record.
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 1-5, 21, 26-34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman et al. (US 20200173758 A1, "Sitzman") in view of Hammond et al. (US 20120302294 A1, "Hammond").
Regarding claim 1, Sitzman teaches a target hit indicator for use with a target to indicate a hit to a shooter. Sitzman states that housing 110 defines "an interior volume 112 for holding components of the target hit indicator" and "comprises a mounting surface 114 for attaching the target hit indicator 100 to a target" ([0047]). Sitzman teaches target attachment structures including adhesives, straps, magnets, fasteners, and hook-and-loop fasteners ([0083]-[0084], [0104]). Sitzman teaches an impact detector in the form of impact sensor 750, including an accelerometer/comparator, MEMS sensor, piezo sensor, or induction circuit, connected to MCU 710 ([0061]- [0063]). Sitzman states that the illustrated indicators "are light sources in the form of a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs)" ([0048]) and that, upon determining a hit, "MCU 710 may activate a light source 720" ([0091]).
Sitzman's principal illustrated embodiments protect most of the indicator behind the target and direct light around the target edge ([0048], [0050]- [0053]) . Sitzman states that "the remaining portions of the target hit indicator 300 remain protected behind target 394" ([0053]). Sitzman also expressly teaches a direct-light alternative: "the light sources may be exposed around the edge of the target," and a hit-indicator light source may occupy "a visible position outside the edge of the target" on an arm ([0106]). Thus, Sitzman teaches or suggests arranging the light sources relative to the connector so that the sources are outboard of the target and directly visible to the shooter.
Sitzman does not expressly disclose, in that direct-light embodiment, one printed circuit board extending from an outboard light-source region to a protected impact-detector region behind the target connector.
Hammond teaches a compact, event-responsive illuminated device having one board-supported assembly. Hammond states that "[t]he LED, PCB and battery assembly 140 is generally planar rectangular shaped 141" and that "[t]he pair perimeter sides 146 include a plurality of LED lights 149" ([0024]; Fig. 1C). Hammond further states that "printed circuit board 141 also includes the one or more programmable microprocessors 152, the motion sensing chip 153, [and] the vibration switch 143'" and that "[t]he motion sensing chip 153 activates the plurality of LED lights 149 when motion is detected" ([0025]; Figs. 1C- 1D). Figure 1C depicts the LEDs distributed along peripheral portions of the same planar board-supported assembly while the sensor and control electronics occupy an interior portion.
Hammond is pertinent to the problem addressed by claim 1 because it concerns arranging sensor/control electronics and directly visible LEDs on a compact board-supported assembly. The prior art collectively contains every claimed element: Sitzman supplies the target connector, protected detector location, and outboard direct-view light location, while Hammond supplies the distributed one-board LED and sensor/control arrangement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Sitzman's protected sensor region and outboard direct-light region using Hammond's one-board distribution, shaping the board by ordinary PCB-layout and housing-design methods to extend from behind the target connector into the outboard arm or housing region. In the proposed combination, the detector would continue to detect an event, the controller would continue to activate the LEDs, the LEDs would continue to provide a visible indication, and the board would continue to support and interconnect those components. Both references use conventional low-voltage sensor, control, PCB, and LED components, so their electrical interfaces and operating functions are compatible. A person of ordinary skill therefore would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting the board outline and component locations. The predictable result would be one board that consolidates sensor/control and light-source interconnections, protects the detector behind the target, and retains direct shooter visibility of the LEDs. This is a combination of known prior-art elements according to known methods, with each element performing its established function and yielding a predictable result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, the combination teaches a printed circuit board having a first region carrying the plurality of light sources and located outboard of the target connector, a second region located behind the target connector and carrying the impact detector, and the board extending continuously from the first region to the second region.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator of claim 1. Sitzman further teaches that the plurality of light sources comprises a plurality of LEDs ([0048]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 2. Hammond states that "[t]here are eight sets of the plurality of LED lights 149 illustrated on FIG. 1C on the perimeter sides 146" ([0024]); Figure 1C depicts those LEDs in straight groups along the planar assembly, thereby teaching rows of LEDs. It would have been obvious to arrange the outboard LEDs of the modified indicator in Hammond's row using ordinary PCB component-placement methods because the same LEDs would continue to perform their established illumination function and the row would use board-edge space efficiently while producing a conspicuous linear signal along the target edge. Hammond demonstrates compatibility of the row with its planar board-supported assembly. A person of ordinary skill therefore would have had a reasonable expectation of success, and the result would have been the predictable row of visible LEDs recited by the claim. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 2. Sitzman teaches a protected housing portion containing the impact detector and other electronics ([0047]-[0048], [0050], [0055], [0061]-[0063]) and states that a hit-indicator light source "may be located on a movable arm" and moved to "a visible position outside the edge of the target" ([0106]). Although the housing and arm teachings are described in different configurations, they concern the same target-hit-indicator structure and complementary functions. It would have been obvious to use Sitzman's known arm configuration with its protected electronics housing, defining the protected portion as a main body and enclosing the outboard PCB/light region in an arm extending from that body by ordinary housing-fabrication methods. The main body would continue to protect the detector, the arm would continue to support the outboard light source, and the light source would remain directly visible. Sitzman expressly states that housing 110 "may provide protection from environmental conditions such as dust, dirt, etc., or debris such as flying rocks or shrapnel" ([0047]). A person of ordinary skill therefore would have expected the combined housing portions to operate successfully, and the predictable result would be protected and supported outboard components without loss of visibility. The claim does not require the arm to be movable. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 4. Sitzman states that "only light redirection element 230 extends beyond the top edge 292" while "the remainder of the target hit indicator 200 remains within the periphery of the target 290" ([0050]). Sitzman also teaches the arm/light source occupying "a visible position outside the edge of the target" ([0106]). In the modified arrangement, the connector is mounted at the rear of the target, the main body and detector region are shielded behind the target, and the arm and LEDs are exposed outboard of the target, as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 1. Hammond states that activation switch 143 "includes an 'on' setting, an 'off' setting and an 'auto' setting," with the ON setting activating and the OFF setting shutting off the device ([0024]). It would have been obvious to include Hammond's known ON/OFF switch in Sitzman's known portable battery-powered target indicator using the conventional series or logic-control interface taught by Hammond. The switch would continue to perform its established power-control function, while the target indicator and battery would continue to perform their established detection, indication, and supply functions. The compatible low-voltage components provide a reasonable expectation of success, and the predictable result would be direct user control and reduced battery consumption when the indicator is not in use. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 1. Sitzman states that “[o]ne or more batteries 556 may provide power to the target hit indicator 500” and identifies battery holder 554 ([0055]).
Regarding claim 27, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 26. Sitzman expressly teaches that the power supply includes battery holder 554 configured to hold one or more batteries 556 ([0055]).
Regarding claim 28, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 27. Sitzman expressly teaches one or more batteries 556 installed to power the target hit indicator ([0055]).
Regarding claim 29, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 28. Sitzman teaches one or more batteries but does not specify exactly three ([0055]). It would have been obvious to use three of Sitzman's disclosed battery units because this merely repeats a known unit, each battery performing the same power-supply function, to provide the electrical power required by the portable LED indicator. The claim does not recite a particular series or parallel arrangement or an interaction among the three batteries producing a new function or result. Repetition would preserve operability and predictably yield a three-battery supply. No evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with exactly three batteries is of record. The facts are therefore analogous to the duplication-of-parts principle applied in In re Harza, rather than a new combination requiring a separate reference-based motivation. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 30, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 1. Sitzman further teaches a target connector configured to releasably connect the housing to the target, stating that "[h]ook and loop fasteners are desirable because they provide inexpensive, easy, tool-less attachment and removal" ([0084]) and listing hook-and-loop fasteners among suitable attachment structures ([0104]).
Regarding claim 31, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 30. Sitzman teaches complementary hook-and-loop fastener materials between base plate 1270, which supports the indicator housing, and the target ([0082]-[0084]), and more broadly teaches attaching the target hit indicator to the target using hook-and-loop fasteners ([0104]). Sitzman's housing includes mounting surface 114 for attaching the indicator to the target ([0047]). It would have been obvious to combine the known housing mounting surface with the known complementary hook-and-loop attachment by securing one material directly to that surface and the mating material to the target using ordinary fastening methods. The housing would continue to support the indicator, and the hook-and-loop materials would continue to provide the inexpensive, tool-less, releasable attachment Sitzman identifies. The flat mounting interface and commercially available fastener materials are technically compatible, providing a reasonable expectation of success. The predictable result would be the claimed complementary arrangement without an unnecessary intermediate fastening interface. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 32, Regarding claim 32, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 31. Sitzman states that "mounting plate 1016 may be attached to a target via adhesive tape 1019" ([0068]) and separately teaches commercially available hook-and-loop material as a strong, flexible, tool-less attachment ([0083]-[0084], [0104]). It would have been obvious to use the disclosed adhesive attachment method to secure the target-side hook-or-loop material to the target. The adhesive would continue to bond an attachment member to the target, and the hook-and-loop material would continue to mate releasably with its complement. These conventional attachment materials are mechanically compatible, providing a reasonable expectation of success. The predictable result would be a target-side hook-or-loop material adhered to the target while preserving releasable connection of the housing. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 33, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 31. Sitzman does not require which complementary material is placed on which member. Locating loop material on the housing-side structure and hook material on the target would have been an obvious rearrangement of the complementary fastener parts because either orientation preserves operability and performs the same mating and releasable-attachment functions with predictable results. The claim does not recite an orientation-dependent function or result, and no evidence of criticality or unexpected results for this orientation is of record. The facts are therefore analogous to the placement-as-design-choice principle applied in In re Kuhle. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 34, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 31. For the same fact-matched reason stated for claim 33, locating hook material on the housing-side structure and loop material on the target would have been an obvious complementary rearrangement that preserves operability and performs the same releasable fastening function with predictable results. No orientation-dependent function, criticality, or unexpected result is recited or shown. See In re Kuhle; MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 36, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 1. Sitzman states that its light sources may emit "different flash patterns responsive to different determinations made by the microcontroller" ([0049]). Hammond likewise states that its plural LED lights "can flash, blink, glow or perform any other suitable plurality of LED lights function" under software control ([0024]). The references therefore teach LEDs configured to flash to indicate the detected event.
Regarding claim 37, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 1. Sitzman expressly states that "a hit indicator comprising a light source may not require a light redirection element" and that "the light sources may be exposed around the edge of the target" ([0106]). That embodiment is free of a reflector or prism configured to redirect light from the plurality of light sources toward the shooter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Hammond.
Regarding claim 10, Sitzman teaches a target hit indicator having a housing, at least one light source, an impact detector, and a target connector ([0047]-[0048], [0055], [0061]-[0063], [0083]-[0084], [0104]). Sitzman states that "the remaining portions of the target hit indicator 300 remain protected behind target 394" ([0053]) and that a hit-indicator light source on an arm may occupy "a visible position outside the edge of the target" ([0106]). The protected region provides the claimed impact-detector housing portion, and the outboard arm region provides the claimed light-source housing portion.
Sitzman does not expressly disclose one PCB extending between those housing portions and carrying the light source in an outboard region and the impact detector in a region behind the connector. Hammond states that its LED/PCB assembly "is generally planar rectangular shaped" ([0024]), that "printed circuit board 141 also includes" the programmable microprocessors, motion-sensing chip, and vibration switch ([0025]), and that plural LEDs are "disposed on the pair of perimeter sides 146" ([0024]). The prior art therefore collectively contains every claimed element, with the difference being their actual arrangement on one board extending between Sitzman's two housing portions. It would have been obvious to implement those portions with Hammond's one-board distribution using ordinary PCB-layout and housing-design methods. The detector, controller, and light source would continue to perform their established sensing, control, and indication functions, while the board would continue to support and interconnect them. The conventional low-voltage components and interfaces are compatible, providing a reasonable expectation of success. The predictable result would be consolidated electrical interconnections and simplified assembly while retaining protection of the detector and direct visibility of the light source. This is a combination of known elements according to known methods in which each element performs its established function and the result is predictable. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 20 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Hammond, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramsay et al. (US 5092607 A, "Ramsay").
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 1, including sensor-responsive activation of the light sources, but does not expressly require the recited first transistor switching arrangement. Ramsay teaches transistor-based control circuitry in a target-hit indicator. Ramsay states that "[t]he 'POWER ENABLE' signal serves to switch power on to the strobe flash unit," and explains that transistor 210 enables field-effect transistor 212, thereby coupling the 12-volt supply to the strobe unit (col. 8, lines 55-68; col. 9, lines 1-2; Fig. 7). Before POWER ENABLE, the switched-power path is off. Thus, field-effect transistor 212 is initially OFF and changes to an ON state responsive to the hit-detection sequence to activate the light source.
Ramsay is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it is directed to detect projectile impact on a target and produce a visible hit indication. It would have been obvious to combine Ramsay's known hit-responsive transistor switching stage with the modified Sitzman-Hammond indicator using ordinary low-voltage circuit-interconnection methods. In the combination, the detector and controller would continue to produce a hit responsive control signal, the transistor would continue to switch from OFF to ON in response to that signal, and the light sources would continue to provide the visible hit indication. These sensor-logic and transistor-switching functions are technically compatible, and Ramsay demonstrates their successful use in a target-hit indicator. A person of ordinary skill, therefore, would have had a reasonable expectation of success, and the predictable result would be efficient electronic energization of the LED load after impact detection. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Sitzman, Hammond, and Ramsay teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 20. Ramsay teaches capacitor 136 between node 134 and ground and "charging resistor 138 (100K ohms)" between node 134 and the 12-volt power supply (col. 7, lines 1-4; Fig. 7). Ramsay further states: "During normal operation, the detection of an impact by vibration sensor 102 temporarily causes the voltage at node 134 to rise," producing a positive going START pulse (col. 7, lines 55-68; Fig. 7). That sequence ultimately places transistor 212 in its ON state (col. 8, lines 55-68; col. 9, lines 1-2; Fig. 7). Thus, capacitor 136 is charged from the supply in association with impact detection, and the first transistor switches ON responsive, through the disclosed control chain, to the charged-capacitor voltage. It would have been obvious to retain Ramsay's capacitor-based trigger stage with Ramsay's transistor power switch because Ramsay teaches them as cooperating portions of the same hit-responsive circuit. The capacitor would continue to develop the trigger voltage, the transistor would continue to respond to the resulting control sequence, and the lights would continue to indicate a hit. Using the components together exactly in their disclosed circuit relationship provides technical compatibility and a reasonable expectation of success. The predictable result would be capacitor-triggered transistor switching in the modified indicator. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 24, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 20. Ramsay states that "Inverter 184 (Part No. 40106) is configured as a one Hertz oscillator" whose output clocks decade counter 168 (col. 8, lines 31-44; Fig. 7). Ramsay further states that transistor 246 "is the trigger signal driver for the strobe flash" (col. 9, lines 43-55; Fig. 7). The timed logic therefore controls a second transistor for selectively energizing the light. It would have been obvious to combine Ramsay's known oscillator and second-transistor driver with the modified indicator using Ramsay's disclosed timing-and-switching relationship. The oscillator would continue to generate timed pulses, the second transistor would continue to drive the light in response to those pulses, and the light would continue to provide a visible indication. Ramsay demonstrates the electrical compatibility of these components in a target-hit strobe, providing a reasonable expectation of success. The predictable result would be a conspicuous pulsed hit indication. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 25, the combination teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 24. Ramsay teaches feedback resistor 186 and timing capacitor 188 coupled to oscillator 184 (col. 8, lines 31-39; Fig. 7). Ramsay also expressly states that "the base frequency" of the disclosed strobe oscillator "is set by capacitor 302 (0.01 microfarads) and resistor 304 (3.16K ohms)" (col. 10, lines 48-54; Fig. 8). The resistor-capacitor network therefore adjusts or establishes the frequency of the pulsed oscillator output as claimed.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Hammond, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chou (US 20080023308 A1, "Chou")
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 1. Hammond further teaches vibration switch 143' in the LED/PCB assembly and states that, in AUTO, "the case detects incoming calls, text or e-mail by the phones' vibrating motion or by the user's motion" ([0024]-[0025], [0030]; Figs. 1C-1D). Hammond does not expressly describe the switch contacts as momentarily closing.
Chou teaches a vibration switch having a moving element 60 and resilient conductive member 80. At rest, the moving element "is spaced apart from the second end 71 of the first electrode 70 when no external force is received" ([0026]) . Chou states that, "when the vibration switch is vibrated," the moving element pushes contact portion 804 into electrical contact with electrode end 71; when the moving element stops pushing, "electrical connection between the first and second electrodes 70, 516 is cut" ([0029]; Fig. 5). Chou therefore teaches a vibration switch that momentarily closes during vibration and reopens afterward. Chou further states that the switch "can operate reliably and simply" and "can generate stable and accurate switching signals" ([0031]).
Chou is pertinent to the problem addressed by claim 22 because it concerns producing a reliable electrical switching signal in response to vibration. The base combination differs from claim 22 only in that Hammond does not expressly identify its known vibration switch as a momentary-closing contact switch. Chou teaches a known alternative vibration switch whose normally separated contacts close during vibration and reopen afterward, performing the same established function of converting vibration into an electrical switching signal. It would have been obvious to substitute Chou's contact switch for Hammond's vibration switch because Chou expressly identifies simple, reliable operation, high sensitivity, and stable, accurate signals as benefits of that alternative ([0031]). The substitution would require only conventional two-terminal switch-input interfacing; the controller and light-activation circuitry would remain in place and continue their established functions. A person of ordinary skill therefore would have had a reasonable expectation of success, and the predictable result would be a transient electrical input responsive to target vibration. This is a simple substitution of one known vibration-switch element for another known vibration-switch element to obtain a predictable result. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 6 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Hammond, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Southard et al. (US 20050030765 A1, "Southard").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 4, including a protected main body with a power source and an outboard arm carrying plural LEDs on a PCB. Sitzman teaches one or more batteries powering the indicator ([0055]). The combination does not expressly describe a group of positive leads extending from the main body to the arm and coupling the LEDs in parallel.
Southard teaches plural LEDs electrically connected in parallel through common positive and negative conductive paths. Southard states: "Each LED device includes an LED having a positive lead electrically communicating with the first parallel conductor and a negative lead electrically communicating with the second parallel conductor" ([0009]). Southard further teaches "[a] plurality of LEDs electrically parallel-interconnected" by communication of each LED's anode and cathode with the two conductors ([0010]) and states that the parallel interconnection "reduces the likelihood that a failed LED will adversely affect performance of other LEDs" ([0017]). Southard further identifies positive leads 130P connected to the anode and negative leads 130N connected to the cathode ([0064]; Figs. 11-12).
Southard is reasonably pertinent to the problem of electrically interconnecting multiple LEDs so that they continue to provide visible output despite failure of an individual LED. It would have been obvious to combine Southard's known parallel LED conductors with the modified Sitzman-Hammond indicator by routing the common positive conductor from the protected main-body power source across the board into the outboard arm and branching it to the respective LEDs. The power source would continue to supply power, each LED would continue to emit light, and the parallel conductors would continue to distribute the same supply potential to the LED branches. The conventional low-voltage conductors and LEDs are electrically compatible, providing a reasonable expectation of success. The predictable result would be the claimed positive leads extending from the main body to the arm and coupling the LEDs in parallel, with the fault-tolerance benefit Southard expressly identifies. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Sitzman and Hammond teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 1 but does not expressly teach that the plurality of LEDs is connected in parallel. Southard teaches "[a] plurality of LEDs electrically parallel-interconnected" through common anode and cathode conductors ([0010]) and states that this arrangement "reduces the likelihood that a failed LED will adversely affect performance of other LEDs" ([0017]) . It would have been obvious to combine Southard's known parallel interconnection with the modified board-supported LED assembly because Southard identifies continued operation of remaining LEDs after failure of one LED as a benefit. Each LED would continue to emit light, and the common conductors would continue to distribute supply power to independent LED branches. The conventional low-voltage conductors and LEDs are electrically compatible, providing a reasonable expectation of success. The predictable result would be parallel illumination with improved fault tolerance. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sitzman in view of Hammond and Southard, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Arnold et al. (US 20040240191 A1, "Arnold").
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sitzman, Hammond, and Southard teaches the target hit indicator as claimed in claim 6, including one board extending from the protected main body into the arm, parallel positive paths extending from the power-source region to the respective LEDs, and parallel return paths from the LEDs. The combination does not expressly place the group of ground paths on one physical side of the PCB and the group of positive paths on the opposite physical side.
Arnold teaches that "[d]ouble sided printed circuit boards 10 have conductive traces on both the first and second surfaces" ([0068]). Arnold further teaches that multiple double-sided layers may be used "[t]o increase the number of conductive traces” and that layers may be dedicated to power and ground planes ([0069]-[0070]).
Arnold is pertinent to the particular problem of routing power and ground conductors on a printed circuit board. The modified Sitzman-Hammond board is a known PCB ready for routing improvement because the elongated board must carry multiple positive and ground paths between the main body and outboard LED arm. Arnold teaches the applicable known technique of placing conductive traces on both board surfaces to increase routing capacity and using dedicated power and ground routing ([0068]-[0070]). It would have been obvious to apply that technique by allocating Southard's positive group to one surface and its ground group to the opposite surface. The technique is applicable without changing the circuit: the positive paths would continue to supply the parallel LEDs, the ground paths would continue to provide their returns, and the vias and traces would use conventional PCB construction. Arnold's disclosure of double-sided traces and power/ground layers provides a reasonable expectation that the allocation would work. The predictable improved result would be increased routing capacity and separated conductor groups on the elongated board while preserving the parallel LED connections. This applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Response to Applicant's Arguments
The amendment filed August 3, 2026, has been fully considered. The amendments materially changed the limitations relied upon in the previous prior-art rejections by incorporating the coordinated one-board location limitations into independent claims 1 and 10, conformingly amending claim 7 to refer to the printed circuit board already recited through amended claim 1, and canceling claims 8, 9, 11, and 12. The present action therefore does not maintain the prior Sitzman-Ramsay base grounds or the former Mack-and Knight-based grounds and instead applies new grounds based on Sitzman with Hammond, and, where indicated, Ramsay, Chou, Southard, and Arnold, as set forth above.
Applicant's arguments that Ramsay's separate sensor and strobe housings do not disclose the claimed one-board layout, and that Mack and Southard do not cure that former PCB deficiency, concern teachings for which those references are not relied upon in the present grounds.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 10, 20, 21, and 23-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Hammond, not Ramsay, Mack, or Southard, is relied upon for the one-board component distribution. No further substantive response to those moot portions of the arguments is necessary. Arguments directed to canceled claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 are moot because those claims are no longer pending; no substantive response is provided.
Applicant's argument that Knight does not disclose a normally open, momentarily closing inertia switch is persuasive as to the former Knight ground.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks at page 11, paragraph beginning "The Office relies on Knight," with respect to the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Sitzman, Hammond, and Chou. The present claim 22 ground does not rely on Knight, and no further substantive response to the Knight argument is provided.
Applicant argues that Sitzman's movable-arm embodiment would require the light source to be on a different circuit board from the impact detector and therefore cannot teach one board spanning an outboard light-source region and a protected detector region (Remarks, pp. 8-10). This argument remains relevant because Sitzman is still relied upon for the protected detector location and the outboard direct-light location.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, neither claim 1 nor claim 10 requires movement, extension, rotation, or retraction. Sitzman's disclosure at [0106] is relied upon for its express teaching that a light source may be positioned outside the target edge for direct user visibility, not for a requirement to reproduce every mechanical detail of the movable embodiment. Further, "a printed circuit board" requires the same board to have the claimed first and second regions and to carry the recited components, but it does not exclude additional boards or require that board to be rigid, flat, rectilinear, monolithic, or of a particular outline. The claimed regions identify portions of that board without reciting a particular boundary, shape, or angular relationship. "Outboard of" and "behind" recite relative locations, and "carrying" requires support of the recited component without imposing a particular package or solder-joint configuration. Applicant's argument does not, by itself, narrow the claims by importing unrecited mechanical features.
In response to Applicant's argument that Sitzman's movable arm would require a separate circuit board and could not be implemented using Hammond's one-board arrangement, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The present rejection does not rely on Sitzman alone to supply the one-board layout. Hammond teaches a single planar LED/PCB assembly with LEDs along peripheral regions and sensor/control components on the same board-supported assembly ([0024]-[0025]; Fig. 1C). The rejection proposes implementing Sitzman's protected sensor region and expressly disclosed outboard direct-light region with Hammond's one-board distribution. The rejection above separately states the known implementation method, continued functions of the components, technical compatibility, predictable result, and reasonable expectation of success required by MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Applicant relies on the same asserted PCB deficiency for independent claim 10 and for the pending dependent claims. For the reasons stated in the rejection of claim 10 and above, that assertion does not overcome the current Hammond combination. Each pending dependent claim's additional limitation is separately addressed in the rejection.
Applicant states that claims 31-34 depend from claim 10. The entered claim listing instead shows claim 31 depending from claim 30, claim 30 depending from claim 1, and claims 32-34 depending from claim 31. Claims 31-34 therefore ultimately depend from claim 1 and are evaluated under that dependency chain.
Applicant argues that replacing Sitzman's accelerometer/digital-output sensor with a two-terminal vibration switch would make Sitzman's 100-millisecond acceleration integration and hit/miss discrimination inoperable (Remarks, pp. 11-12). Although the former Ramsay-Knight switch ground has been withdrawn, the underlying operability contention remains relevant to the present Hammond-Chou switch ground and is therefore addressed.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The present claim 22 rejection substitutes Chou's known momentary-closing vibration switch for Hammond's known vibration switch input; it does not substitute that switch directly for Sitzman's accelerometer data interface. The controller and light-activation circuitry remain in the combination, and a conventional switch-input interface provides the transient signal described in the rejection. Hammond itself teaches a vibration switch in the LED/PCB assembly that activates the lights in response to vibration ([0024]-[0025], [0030]), and Chou teaches the particular momentary-closing contact structure.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to preserve acceleration-magnitude data, a time-varying acceleration signal, a 100-millisecond integration interval, and classification of a hit versus a miss, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies are not recited in claim 22. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 22 requires a vibration switch configured to momentarily close in response to a target hit. The proposed substitution retains that claimed function and the existing controller and light-activation functions. Chou identifies simple, reliable operation, high sensitivity, and stable, accurate switching signals, and conventional two-terminal switch interfacing provides a reasonable expectation of success. The modified system therefore remains operative for the claimed purpose of detecting target vibration caused by a hit and activating a visible indicator. The simple-substitution rationale and its evidentiary predicates are set forth in the rejection under MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
The prior rejections based on Sitzman in view of Ramsay as the base combination, the additional reliance on Mack, and the additional reliance on Knight are withdrawn. Withdrawal of those grounds does not indicate allowance because the new grounds set forth above reject every pending claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows:
Knight (US 4357531 A) is pertinent for a projectile-target indicator employing an inertia-responsive switch to initiate an indication of a target hit.
Mack (US 20200400409 A1) is pertinent for a projectile-target hit indicator having a housing, an impact or vibration sensor, a light source, a battery power source, and an ON/OFF control ([0035]-[0039]).
Sender et al. (US 20230061730 A1) is pertinent for target-hit detection using target-associated conductive circuitry, a connector, external processing circuitry, and a hit indicator ([0007], [0011]-[0013], [0049]-[0053]).
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 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