DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7, 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabush in view of Nolen. Dabash discloses in the Figures and specification a method of timing a discharge a firearm comprising the steps of initiating a timer of a shot timer (see paragraph [0081]), analyzing a posture change of an individual (paragraphs [0055] and [0058], wearable sensors on the limbs of a user which detect motion and position of the user inherently determine a posture of the user), analyzing movement of a firearm of the user (paragraph [0056], and outputting a time based on the analyses (see Fig. 12 & paragraphs [0060] and [0088]. While Dabush discloses the use of noise sensors at paragraph [0052], there is no explicit mention of steps of receiving an audio signal and performing analysis of the audio signal. These steps are known in the art, as taught for example by Nolen at paragraph [0040], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of determining additional information about the use of the firearm.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 14 and 15, Dabush discloses at paragraph 0081 that a user’s reaction time is measured “in response to hearing and/or seeing a simulated firearm discharge”. The simulated firearm discharge is a signal which indicates to one or more users to commence discharging a firearm, and also is an input that the training session has commenced. With respect to claim 4, Nolen discloses at paragraph [0021] the provision of a microphone as recited. With respect to claims 7 and 18, the recited steps are suggested by Dabush, which discloses at paragraph [0088] that its system is configured to determine via sensors on the limbs of a user whether the user is in a ready position. With respect to claims 12 and 20, Dabush discloses at Fig. 12 and paragraph [0088] a step of receiving an input that a signal was received by a specific individual. Combined with Nolen’s teaching of an audio signal, the teachings of the references suggest the claim limitations. With respect to claims 13 and 19, Dabush discloses at paragraph [0047] a system for implementing its method comprising a memory, a processor with instructions to carry out the method steps, and a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabush in view of Nolen, and further in view of Gulliver. Dabush as viewed in combination with Nolen discloses or suggests the limitations of claims 5 and 16 with the exception of the step of measuring a maximum amplitude of an audio signal to determine that the signal was generated by discharge of a firearm. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Gulliver at paragraph [0044], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing an additional means of determining that the firearm has been discharged. With respect to claims 6 and 17, the recited matching of a audio signal to a sound stored in a database is considered to be an obvious variant on the teachings of Broadway, given that the analysis related to measuring a maximum amplitude of an audio signal is inherently compared to a threshold amplitude to determine whether the audio signal was generated by the discharge of a firearm.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabush in view of Nolen, and further in view of Broadway. Dabush as viewed in combination with Nolen discloses or suggests the limitations of claim 8 with the exception of the step of determining that the firearm has moved to indicate a recoil action. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Broadway at paragraph [0112], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing an additional indication that the firearm has been discharged. With respect to claim 9, Broadway further discloses at paragraph [0120] a step of detecting a muzzle flash of the firearm. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Dabush as viewed in combination with Nolen by selecting a muzzle flash of a firearm for the purpose of providing an additional indication that the firearm has been discharged. With respect to claims 10 and 11, Broadway discloses at paragraph [0080] a step of identifying a firearm type or an ammunition type from signals received from the various sensors on firearms, wearable devices and stationary devices. Broadway additionally teaches e.g. at paragraph [0264] that the signals are received in part from audio sensors, such that the determination is part of an audio analysis. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Dabush as viewed in combination with Nolen by selecting a muzzle flash of a firearm for the purpose of providing additional information relating to the firearm simulation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
February 4, 2026