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 .
Application Status
Present office action is in response to application filed 03/31/2024. Claims 1-22 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Baskett (US 20230243624 A1).
Re claims 11 and 19:
[Claim 11] Baskett discloses a device to record video during handling of a firearm, the device comprising: a housing configured to replace a portion of a guide rod of the firearm, the housing having a shape of the replaced portion of the guide rod; a camera configured to record video; memory configured to store recorded video; a control unit configured to control the device; a battery configured to power the device; wherein the memory, control unit, and battery are secured within the housing or the firearm; and the camera is positioned at a front end of the housing such that the recorded video depicts an environment in front of the firearm (at least ¶ 12: the firearm camera system is comprised of a traditional front sight post on a firearm, such as a handgun, pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc., and an integrated camera assembly … the camera may take a single photograph, a rapid burst of photographs, or a video, as specified by the user via a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device … ; ¶¶ 23, 24; ¶ 26: The sight post camera system 100 of the present invention is preferably comprised of a front sight post 110, a camera assembly 130, and a transmitter 170. Front sight post 110 is preferably identical in form and dimensions to traditional front sight posts … the rear 119 of the front sight post 110 is preferably identical in appearance to a traditional front sight post, thereby not eliminating the ability for the front sight post 110 to function as intended, and allowing a user to more successfully aim and fire the handgun 10; ¶ 27: … The camera system 130 is preferably comprised of a protective bezel 132, a protective outer lens 134, and a camera lens 136, but may also be comprised of a memory 137 and a processor 138 …; ¶ 30: FIG. 3B illustrates a perspective view of one possible embodiment of the firearm front sight post camera system 100 of the present invention integrated into a handgun in accordance with the disclosed architecture, wherein the sight camera system 100 is integrated into a front sight post 110 of a handgun 10; ¶ 32: … powered by a micro-battery (e.g., watch, cell-phone or hearing aid battery) that may be wired or wirelessly rechargeable …).
[Claim 19] Baskett discloses an activation element; wherein the device records video when an activation condition of the activation element is met (at least ¶ 2: The camera mechanism is actuated by a mechanical or electrical connection to the trigger assembly of the firearm, and is activated when the trigger wall is met in the act of pulling the trigger of a firearm).
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 17-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baskett.
Re claims 1 and 22:
[Claim 1] Baskett discloses a device to record video during handling of a firearm, the device comprising: a camera configured to record video; memory configured to store recorded video; a control unit configured to control the device; a battery configured to power the device; wherein the memory, control unit, and battery are secured within a cavity in a guide rod of the firearm; the camera is positioned at a front end of the guide rod such that the recorded video depicts an environment in front of the firearm (at least ¶ 2: firearm front sight post camera system … a firearm front sight post that is comprised of a camera assembly or mechanism which captures an image or video, or a series of images or videos of what is in front of the firearm…; ¶ 12: the firearm camera system is comprised of a traditional front sight post on a firearm, such as a handgun, pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc., and an integrated camera assembly … the camera may take a single photograph, a rapid burst of photographs, or a video, as specified by the user via a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device … ; ¶¶ 23, 24; ¶ 26: The sight post camera system 100 of the present invention is preferably comprised of a front sight post 110, a camera assembly 130, and a transmitter 170. Front sight post 110 is preferably identical in form and dimensions to traditional front sight posts … the rear 119 of the front sight post 110 is preferably identical in appearance to a traditional front sight post, thereby not eliminating the ability for the front sight post 110 to function as intended, and allowing a user to more successfully aim and fire the handgun 10; ¶ 27: … The camera system 130 is preferably comprised of a protective bezel 132, a protective outer lens 134, and a camera lens 136, but may also be comprised of a memory 137 and a processor 138 …; ¶ 30: FIG. 3B illustrates a perspective view of one possible embodiment of the firearm front sight post camera system 100 of the present invention integrated into a handgun in accordance with the disclosed architecture, wherein the sight camera system 100 is integrated into a front sight post 110 of a handgun 10; ¶ 32: … powered by a micro-battery (e.g., watch, cell-phone or hearing aid battery) that may be wired or wirelessly rechargeable …).
[Claim 22] Baskett discloses a device to record video during handling of a firearm, the device comprising: a housing configured to replace a portion of a guide rod of the firearm, the housing having a shape of the replaced portion of the guide rod; a camera configured to record video; memory configured to store recorded video; a control unit configured to control the device; a battery configured to power the device; a communication element configured to enable communication with an external computing device; wherein the memory, control unit, and battery are secured within the housing or the firearm; and the camera is positioned at a front end of the housing such that the recorded video depicts an environment in front of the firearm (at least ¶ 12: the firearm camera system is comprised of a traditional front sight post on a firearm, such as a handgun, pistol, shotgun, rifle, etc., and an integrated camera assembly … the camera may take a single photograph, a rapid burst of photographs, or a video, as specified by the user via a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device … ; ¶¶ 23, 24; ¶ 26: The sight post camera system 100 of the present invention is preferably comprised of a front sight post 110, a camera assembly 130, and a transmitter 170. Front sight post 110 is preferably identical in form and dimensions to traditional front sight posts … the rear 119 of the front sight post 110 is preferably identical in appearance to a traditional front sight post, thereby not eliminating the ability for the front sight post 110 to function as intended, and allowing a user to more successfully aim and fire the handgun 10; ¶ 27: … The camera system 130 is preferably comprised of a protective bezel 132, a protective outer lens 134, and a camera lens 136, but may also be comprised of a memory 137 and a processor 138 …; ¶ 30: FIG. 3B illustrates a perspective view of one possible embodiment of the firearm front sight post camera system 100 of the present invention integrated into a handgun in accordance with the disclosed architecture, wherein the sight camera system 100 is integrated into a front sight post 110 of a handgun 10; ¶ 32: … powered by a micro-battery (e.g., watch, cell-phone or hearing aid battery) that may be wired or wirelessly rechargeable …). The wireless communication element communicating with the external computing device would be performed regardless of the specific owner of the external computing device. As a result, the external computing device being associated with an owner of the firearm would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Re claims 2, 5, 7-8, 13 and 18:
[Claim 2] Baskett discloses a wireless communication element configured to enable wireless communication with an external computing device (at least ¶ 2: … The firearm/camera system is also comprised of a wireless transmitter, such as a Bluetooth transmitter …; ¶ 8: documented photographs/film and related date (e.g., the location of the firearm at the time of its discharge) to be automatically and securely transferred to a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device for record keeping or evidentiary purposes, preferably in an encrypted and unaltered manner; ¶ 10: The sight post camera of the present invention provides a convenient and secured means for transferring captured images and/or video upon discharge of a firearm to a mobile phone or other smart device for record keeping purposes; ¶ 12: camera may take a single photograph, a rapid burst of photographs, or a video, as specified by the user via a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device; ¶ 13: the camera assembly is also in electrical communication with a Bluetooth or other wireless transmitter that may be mounted within the frame of the firearm …; ¶ 24: camera assembly is further comprised of a Bluetooth or other wireless transmitter and GPS unit that is mounted within the frame of the pistol or handgun. The transmitter is preferably in electrical communication with the camera assembly, and allows the images/videos from the camera and GPS data to be automatically transmitted in a secure, encrypted, and time-stamped manner to the mobile application, which can run on a mobile phone or other smart device; ¶ 26: The sight post camera system 100 of the present invention is preferably comprised of a front sight post 110, a camera assembly 130, and a transmitter 170. Front sight post 110 is preferably identical in form and dimensions to traditional front sight posts; ¶ 28: camera system 130, once activated, is capable of capturing photos and/or video, as preselected by the user via a mobile application 32 on a smart phone or other device). The wireless communication element communicating with the external computing device would be performed regardless of the specific owner of the external computing device. As a result, the external computing device being associated with an owner of the firearm would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Baskett does not explicitly disclose the wireless communication element being secured within the cavity. However, this modification would only require relocating the wireless communication element (Bluetooth transmitter 170) from a location within the frame of the firearm to the front sight post 110 of Baskett. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Baskett as claimed because this rearrangement of parts would have been a routine engineering choice. In particular, where an inventor simply rearranges or relocates old elements to make a new structure in which each part operates substantially as in the prior art structure, and with the same result, involving only routine skill in the art, the result is not patentable over the prior art structure. Office Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co., 174 U.S. 492, 498 (1899); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (determining the location of a component is an obvious design choice as it provided no novel or unexpected results); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of -ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
[Claim 5] Baskett discloses a microphone configured to record audio; and the device to record video is further configured to enable storing recorded audio (at least ¶ 28: Memory 137 may be any form of memory device known in the art for receiving and storing data such as, but not limited to, the photos and/or video captured by the camera system 130, time and date information, the identity of the user of the handgun 10, etc; ¶ 31: the actuation mechanism 142 repeatedly activates the camera assembly 130 for every trigger pull thereafter, thereby allowing for the conditions/factors present before/during each shot to be accounted for and documented in memory 137 and/or smart device 30; ¶ 34: the system 100 is comprised of at least one microphone 230 positioned on the handgun 10. The microphone 230 records audio in the area around the handgun 10; ¶ 35: Recorded audio clips from the microphone are sent via an encrypted transmission to the mobile application 32 for saving/listening).
Baskett appears to be silent on the memory being further configured to store recorded audio. Based at least on Baskett’s teaching that “Memory 137 may be any form of memory device known in the art for receiving and storing data such as, but not limited to …” the data noted above, modifying Baskett as claimed would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Baskett also appears to be silent on wherein the microphone is secured within the cavity. However, this modification would only require relocating the microphone (microphone 230) from a location within the frame of the firearm to the front sight post 110 of Baskett. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Baskett as claimed because this rearrangement of parts would have been a routine engineering choice. In particular, where an inventor simply rearranges or relocates old elements to make a new structure in which each part operates substantially as in the prior art structure, and with the same result, involving only routine skill in the art, the result is not patentable over the prior art structure. Office Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co., 174 U.S. 492, 498 (1899); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (determining the location of a component is an obvious design choice as it provided no novel or unexpected results); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
[Claims 7 and 18] Baskett appears to be silent on wherein the memory is removable. The Examiner takes official notice that the concept and advantages of using removable memory in video recording devices were old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Baskett as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
[Claim 8] Baskett discloses an activation element; wherein the device records video when an activation condition of the activation element is met (at least ¶ 2: The camera mechanism is actuated by a mechanical or electrical connection to the trigger assembly of the firearm, and is activated when the trigger wall is met in the act of pulling the trigger of a firearm).
[Claim 13] Baskett discloses wherein a wireless communication element configured to enable wireless communication with an external computing device (at least ¶ 28: camera system 130, once activated, is capable of capturing photos and/or video, as preselected by the user via a mobile application 32 on a smart phone or other device; ¶ 32: … wiring 150 may run from the trigger 15 to the actuation mechanism 142 to the camera 130 (and its processor) and then to the transmitter 170, all of which may be powered by a micro-battery (e.g., watch, cell-phone or hearing aid battery) that may be wired or wirelessly rechargeable). The wireless communication element communicating with the external computing device would be performed regardless of the specific owner of the external computing device. As a result, the external computing device being associated with an owner of the firearm would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Baskett does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless communication element is secured within the housing. However, this modification would only require relocating the wireless communication element (Bluetooth transmitter 170) from a location within the frame of the firearm to the front sight post 110 of Baskett. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Baskett as claimed because this rearrangement of parts would have been a routine engineering choice. In particular, where an inventor simply rearranges or relocates old elements to make a new structure in which each part operates substantially as in the prior art structure, and with the same result, involving only routine skill in the art, the result is not patentable over the prior art structure. Office Specialty Mfg. Co. v. Fenton Metallic Mfg. Co., 174 U.S. 492, 498 (1899); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (determining the location of a component is an obvious design choice as it provided no novel or unexpected results); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baskett, as applied to claims 1 and 11 in view of Campbell (US 20230142324 A1).
Re claims 3-4 and 14-15:
[Claims 3-4 and 14-15] Baskett discloses a wired communication element configured to enable communication with an external computing device (at least ¶ 28: camera system 130, once activated, is capable of capturing photos and/or video, as preselected by the user via a mobile application 32 on a smart phone or other device; ¶ 32: … wiring 150 may run from the trigger 15 to the actuation mechanism 142 to the camera 130 (and its processor) and then to the transmitter 170) that may be wired or wirelessly rechargeable). The wireless communication element communicating with the external computing device would be performed regardless of the specific owner of the external computing device. As a result, the external computing device being associated with an owner of the firearm would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Baskett does not explicitly disclose but Campbell teaches or at least suggests wired communication with an external computing device associated with an owner of the firearm; wherein the wired communication element is accessible through a port in the guide rod or the firearm, wherein the wired communication element is used to charge the battery (at least ¶ 127: taking a tiny spy digital image sensor, radio transmitting module and a couple of digital image sensor batteries, on/off switch and charging port all wired and held together in a section of heat shrink tubing, then installed same inside a regular tube type reflex sight housing, with the lens of the digital image sensor in close proximity to the forward viewing window where it could acquire a very wide field of view after gutting, re-engineering and rearranging some of the internal components thereof, then mounted and tested same on the bottom of a pistol, then on rifles with different types of displays which worked extremely well …). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used the transmitting and charging port features of Campbell to modify Baskett as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying known techniques to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baskett, as applied to claims 1 and 11 in view of Williams (US 20240230261 A1).
Re claims 6 and 17:
[Claims 6 and 17] Baskett appears to be silent on but Williams teaches or at least suggests a status indicator configured to indicate a status of the device (at least ¶ 11: an embedded electronic device for tracking and operation. The electronic system is configured within said firearm frame having at least a communication module, a geolocation module, at least one camera with microphone, a control module of an internal circuitry with a processor, a battery , a means for disabling said firearm, and a memory with a program stored thereon that, when executed by said processor of said control module performs the steps of: … querying the status of the firearm, querying if the firearm is in its base station, querying the status of a primary battery of the firearm, querying the status of a secondary battery of the firearm, querying the status of a WiFi connection, querying the status of Bluetooth connection, querying the status of a cellular connection, querying the status of a GPS module and current GPS location, querying whether the firearm is within a pre-defined geofence location …; ¶ 85: FIG. 13 illustrates a flow chart of a tracking and monitoring program stored on a memory in the electronic system of the single-use firearm …). Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used the status provision feature of Williams to modify Baskett as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baskett, as applied to claims 1 and 11 in view of Danner et al. (US 20020174588 A1) (Danner).
Re claims 9 and 20:
[Claims 9 and 20] Baskett appears to be silent on but Danner teaches or at least suggests wherein the activation element is an orientation sensor; and the activation condition is met when an orientation of the orientation sensor is within a range of preset orientations (at least ¶ 9: a firearm is kept from firing if it … is in an improper orientation; ¶ 22: As shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, the firearm sensor system 10 can be used in any type of firearm, such as various types of rifles 11, as shown in FIG. 1A, shotguns, or other types of long guns; and/or handguns 12, as shown in FIG. 1B, such as semiautomatic pistols, revolvers, and other types of handguns; ¶ 35: The orientation sensors 35 can be set with a predetermined threshold range or limit, such as in the context of using tilt or tip-over switches 29 as shown in FIG. 4, or can provide a sensor signal indicating the measured angle of degree of displacement of the firearm with respect to the predefined axis. This reading or measurement is used by the control system 25 to determine if the firearm is in an acceptable firing orientation. If not, the control system will issue an interrupt signal cause the interruption or blocking of the firing sequence of the firearm). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used the orientation-based interruption or blocking feature of Danner to modify Baskett as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baskett, as applied to claims 1 and 11 in view of Farrell et al. (US 20020174588 A1) (Farrell).
Re claims 10 and 21:
[Claims 10 and 21] Baskett appears to be silent on but Farrell teaches or at least suggests wherein the activation element is a light sensor; and the activation condition is met when light incident on the light sensor is within a range of preset brightnesses (at least col 1, lines 34-63: firearm training system is disclosed that utilizes optical sensing for the detection of trigger region incursion … The firearm training system further includes an electronic module including one or more optical sensors. In one example, the optical sensors observe the trigger region through an opening formed in an opposing interior facing surface of the device body or trigger guard that opposes the one or more interior facing surfaces of the trigger guard. The electronic module may be tuned to detect incursion of an object within the trigger region based on a defined wavelength or wavelength range of light captured via the optical sensors). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have used the optical sensing for the detection of trigger region incursion of Farrell to modify Baskett as claimed because this would amount to no more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715