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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels, U.S. Patent No. 5,966,859, in view of Hall, U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0101229. As to Claim 1, Samuels teaches an automatic shooting device (50) comprising a detection device (52), Col. 15, ln. 35-36. The detection device detects whether a target object enters a range of detection of the detection device, Col. 5, ln. 38-42. A gun body (80) may be arranged at one side of the detection device, Col. 16, ln. 21-27 and see Figure 4B, noting that the detection device may be part of the automatic fire module (70). The body may comprise a shooting module (70) and an electronic trigger module (56, 57) operatively connected with the shooting module, Col. 16, ln. 18-22 and 25- 29, noting a mechanical interface to the trigger. Samuels teaches a control substrate (54, 56) in information connection with the detection device to receive a signal of detection and control the electronic trigger module to drive the shooting module to carry out a shooting operation, Col. 15, ln. 46-51, noting that the control substrate transmits a shooting signal to control the electronic trigger module (relayed) to drive the shooting module to carry out the shooting operation (actuating trigger). Immediate transmission of a signal of detection to the control substrate follows detection of a target by the detection device, Col. 15, ln. 46-49. An electrical power supply unit may be in electrical connection with the control substrate, Col. 18, ln. 29-31. The examiner finds that the gun automatic shooting device as disclosed by Samuels is capable of functioning as a toy gun automatic shooting device. Samuels provides that the gun automatic shooting device may be configured to provide fully automatic firing without human intervention, Col. 15, ln. 26-35, suggesting that a reaction device comprising a shot storage module receiving a plurality of shots may be arranged on the gun body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Samuels with a reaction device comprising a shot storage module and receiving a plurality of shots, as suggested. Samuels does not disclose that the detection device may be a laser detection device. Hall teaches a gun automatic shooting device (500) comprising a laser detection device, paragraphs 0052 and 0057. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a laser detection device, as taught by Hall to provide Samuels, as modified, with a known substitute type of detection device. As to Claim 4, Samuels teaches that an automatic firing assembly (50) including a detection device (52) may be coupled through a relay or may be coupled to a trigger actuation unit, Col. 15, ln. 5-39. It is inherent that a module is present to couple the automatic firing assembly to the weapon. The examiner finds that, given alternative positions of the detection device, it is further inherent that adjustable positions may be obtained by means of the adjustment module. As to Claim 5, Samuels teaches that an infrared detection device (52) may be in information connection with the control substrate to supply a detection signal to the control substrate to control the electronic trigger module to drive the shooting module to carry out a shooting operation, Col. 15, ln. 46-51 and Col. 16, ln. 29-35. As to Claims 8 and 9, Samuels teaches that the control substrate may be in information communication with an electronic target (IFF coded signal) or electronic detonator device (infrared LED) so that the electronic target controls operation of the control substrate, Col. 17, ln. 56-63, noting that the signal from the target or detonator prevents firing. As to Claim 10, Samuels teaches that the control substrate may be in electrical connection with an electrical power supply unit (battery), Col. 18, ln. 30-32. Samuels, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that a charging module is also present. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a charging module since it was known in the art that a battery powered device may be well maintained by providing a charging module.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels, in view of Hall, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Enderle et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,953,286. Samuels, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 2, Samuels, as modified, is silent as to the electric trigger module comprising an electronic trigger switch in electrical connection with an electronic trigger circuit board and a toothed wheel set. Enderle teaches a toy gun automatic shooting device (rapid fire toy launch apparatus) comprising an electronic trigger module (propelling mechanism) comprising an electronic circuit board (electronics logic element), an electronic trigger switch in electrical connection with the electronic trigger circuit board and a toothed wheel (gear) connected to the electronic trigger switch, Col. 5, ln. 56 – Col. 6 ln. 2, Col. 8, ln. 15-25, and see Figures 6 and 8, noting that the triggers activate a key and fire key to energize motors to rotate toothed wheels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Samuels, as modified, with the electronic trigger module comprising an electronic trigger circuit board, an electronic trigger switch in electrical connection with the electronic trigger circuit board and a toothed wheel set connected with the electronic trigger switch, as taught by Enderle, to provide Samuels, as modified, with a known substitute electrical firing sequence initiation.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels, in view of Hall, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang H, Korean Patent Application No. KR 20170115651. Samuels, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 3, Samuels, as modified, does not disclose that the shot storage module may include a shot accommodation space, a shot accommodation conveyance passage, and an elastic element. Kang teaches a gun automatic shooting device (100) with a shot storage module (20), paragraphs 0020 and 0021. The shot storage module may include a shot accommodation space (22), a shot accommodation conveyance passage (23) connected to and communicating with the shot accommodation space, paragraph 0022 and see Figure 1. Kang teaches an elastic element (spring) arranged in the accommodation conveyance passage, paragraph 0022 and see Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Samuels, as modified, with the shot storage module including a shot accommodation space, a shot accommodation conveyance passage, and an elastic element configured as claimed and as taught by Kang, to provide Samuels, as modified, with known substitute components to deliver projectiles from the shot storage module to the gun.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels, in view of Hall, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Son et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0204745. Samuels, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 6, Samuels, as modified, is silent as to a wireless receiver. Son teaches a gun automatic shooting device (30) including a control substrate (35) paragraphs 0028, 0043, and 0052. Son teaches shooting by remote control, paragraph 0052, suggesting a wireless receiver module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Samuels, as modified, with a wireless receiver module receiving a control signal for controlling the electronic trigger module for driving, as taught and suggested by Son, to provide Samuels, as modified with the capability of remote operation to yield the predictable result of improving versatility of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner maintains the position that Samuels teaches detection of a target followed by a signal to a control substrate which, in turn, issues a signal to operate a shooting operation. Hall teaches that a laser may be used as a detection device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the teaching of the references in combination to suggest the use of a laser detection device to signal the control substrate. The advantages in using a laser associated with the absence of the influence of thermal radiation would naturally follow from a substitution of a laser as the detection device.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Samuels reference is inapplicable because it includes a manual priming step, the examiner maintains the position that the presence of an additional feature does not overcome the rejection based on the disclosure of claim limitations. The examiner finds that the device of Samuels and the inventive device must both be set in an operating mode, in order to perform the automatic shooting function. The manual press of the trigger in Samuels does not initiate shooting. It is the signal from the detection device which initiates shooting.
In response to applicant’s argument that Samuels does not teach a laser detection device, the examiner maintains the position that the laser detection device is taught by a secondary reference and the rejection is based on the combination of the teaching of the primary reference with that of the secondary reference. As discussed above, the rejection may not be overcome based on the failure of the primary reference to teach all of the claimed limitations.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hall also teaches that a trigger may be pulled or held to enable automatic shooting, the analysis of Samuels is equally applicable. As discussed above, the examiner maintains the position that it is the detection device which initiates the signal to the control substrate rather than the pull of the trigger.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner maintains the position that the failure of the secondary reference to teach all claim limitations does not overcome the rejection based on the combined teaching of the references. Hall is cited for the disclosure of a laser detection device which, in combination with the teaching of the primary reference would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that Hall teaches a weapon enabled by an operator and there is no explanation as to why and how the reaction device and shot storage module may be incorporated in a laser based automatic shooting architecture, 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).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Samuels and Hall references teach devices for detecting a target and operating an automatic shooting function. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the teaching in combination to use the laser detection device disclosed by Hall to serve as the detection device of Samuels.
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach automatic firing without regard to a specific electromagnetic signature and without manual intervention, the examiner maintains the position that Samuels, as modified by Hall, discloses a laser detection device generating a signal to a shooting module. The automatic shooting device of prior art includes the structural features of the inventive device and is considered capable of performing in the same manner, namely by initiating a shooting operation regardless of an electromagnetic signature. Further, the examiner finds that the presence of the manual process of setting the trigger does not overcome the rejection based on the disclosure of the claimed limitation providing a signal from the detection device automatically leading to the shooting operation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 10 February 2026