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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/3/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 11 are objected to for lack of a period at the end of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin US 5716216 in view of Vlva EP 1648369.
Regarding claim 1, O’Loughlin discloses a shooting range system comprising:
a facility for housing a shooting range (col. 3 ln. 26-36); wherein the shooting range includes:
at least one trap for launching a clay target (26, col. 4 ln. 9-11);
at least one screen (300) for presenting an image; wherein the image is a moving or a still image (printed matter, shot pattern);
at least one computing device (306);
wherein the at least one computing device is coupled to the at least one screen (Fig. 18);
wherein the computing device is configured to present the moving or still image (Fig. 18);
However, it does not teach all the limitations of the claim.
Ylva teaches a movable platform (17) movable in at least one dimension (abstract), controlled by at least one computing device (abstract) and moved by at least one movement device (abstract), and moves in relation to the moving or still image (abstract). Ylva so teaches in order to stimulate motor functions within people and give a positive playing experience (abstract). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system as taught by O’Loughlin by utilizing the movable platform as taught by Ylva in order to provide a positive playing experience and stimulate the player.
Regarding claim 4, O’Loughlin further discloses that the shooting range comprises a shooting field (col 3 ln. 26-36).
Regarding claim 5, O’Loughlin further discloses that the shooting field comprises at least one of: a skeet field, a trap field, an international trap field, a universal trap field, an international skeet field, a five-stand field, or a sporting clays field (inherent).
Regarding claim 6, O’Loughlin further discloses that the screen is a projection screen (Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 7, O’Loughlin further discloses that the screen has one or more light-emitting devices (314).
Regarding claim 8, O’Loughlin further discloses that the at least one screen is positioned by an offset length (col. 19 ln. 60).
Regarding claim 9, the combination does not teach that the offset length is at least 60 yards from the at least one trap.
It has been held, see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the screen at a distance of at least 60 yards solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that screen of the combination would perform equally well with a length of 60 years or more as claimed by applicant, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the distance as taught by the combination by utilizing the length as claimed for the purpose of displaying the screen information. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A), Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 10, Vlva further teaches that the movable platform can be moved in at least two dimensions or along at least two axes (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Vlva further discloses that the movable platform can be moved in at least three dimensions or along at least three axes (abstract)
Regarding claim 12, Vlva further teaches that the at least one movement system further comprises at least one motor, at least one connection system, and at least one sensor (Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, the combination does not teach that the movable platform supports a load of 300 lbs.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the platform weight capacity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that it must support the player and the combination would perform equally well with a weight capacity of 300 lbs as claimed by applicant, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the weight capacity of the platform as taught by the combination by utilizing the capacity as claimed for the purpose of supporting the user during play. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A), Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Loughlin US 5716216 in view of Vlva EP 1648369 as applied above and further in view of Gibson US 20190128651.
Regarding claim 2, the combination does not teach that the facility is climate controlled.
Gibson teaches a firing range facility that it climate controlled in order to simulate mission conditions ([0080]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the facility as taught by O’Loughlin by utilizing HVAC systems that control climate as taught by Gibson in order to simulate temperature conditions in a particular environment.
Regarding claim 3, Gibson further teaches that the climate control can go down to at least 32 degrees Fahrenheit, and up to at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit ([0080]).
Regarding claim 13, Gibson further teaches at least one climate control device, wherein the at least one computing device controls the at least one climate control device ([0080]).
Regarding claim 21, see claim 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights