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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 7/5/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/24/24, 10/29/24 & 5/25/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claim 15 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 20-28, it has been held that claims that recites both an apparatus and a method for using said apparatus is indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2. As such, a claim is not sufficiently precise to provide competitors with an accurate determination of the 'metes and bounds' of protection involved-IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1140 (CA FC 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (B.P.A.I. 1990).
A single claim which purports to be in multiple statutory classes is ambiguous and is properly rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention-Ex Parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (B.P.A.I. 1990).
For examination purposes, the Examiner notes that claims 20-28 recite an apparatus, and therefore falls into the apparatus statutory class. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6 & 10-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrison et al. (UK Patent Application GB2610615; referred to hereinafter as Harrison).
Claims 1 & 16: Harrison disclose a reactive target for firearms training (abstract), the reactive target comprising: a body (figures 1-2), an impact sensor configured to detect an impact on a target region of the body (0006), and an electromagnetic coupling arranged to support the body of the reactive target (0068, electromagnetic ‘clamp’ that hold the body), and a controller configured to deactivate the electromagnetic coupling in response to the impact sensor detecting the impact for releasing the body of the reactive target to fall vertically under gravity (0068-0073 & 0093-0094).
Claims 2-3, 19 & 21-22: Harrison disclose wherein the electromagnetic coupling is arranged to selectively attach the body to a support structure (0067-0068).
Claims 4-5 & 27: Harrison disclose wherein the body of the reactive target is a mannequin comprising a torso of the mannequin (figures 1-2).
Claims 6 & 17: Harrison disclose wherein the electromagnetic coupling comprises an electromagnet and a magnetic section, the electromagnet attached to a head or the torso of the mannequin, or the magnetic section attached to the head or the torso of the mannequin (0068, the electromagnet attached to the torso of the mannequin).
Claims 10-11: Harrison disclose wherein the controller is further configured to reactivate the electromagnetic coupling after a predetermined delay period (0091).
Claims 12-14 Harrison disclose wherein the controller is configured to deactivate the electromagnetic coupling in response to an impact on a target region with an impact force greater than a predetermined adjustable threshold (0072-0078).
Claim 18: Harrison disclose wherein the support structure is a stand, frame or wall (figure 1, element 102).
Claim 20: Harrison disclose supporting the body of the reactive target using the electromagnetic coupling (0068), impacting the target region of the body of the reactive target and sensing the impact with the impact sensor (0006), and deactivating the electromagnetic coupling with the controller in response to the sensed impact to release the body of the reactive target to fall vertically under gravity (0068-0073 & 0093-0094).
Claims 23-24: Harrison disclose reactivating, after a predetermine delay, the electromagnetic coupling with the controller and re-supporting the body of the reactive target using the electromagnetic coupling (0091).
Claim 25: Harrison disclose comparing with the controller an impact force of the impact and deactivating the electromagnetic coupling if the impact force is greater than a predetermined threshold (0068-0078).
Claim 26: Harrison disclose selecting the predetermined threshold based on a type of projectile or percussion device used for the method of firearms training, preferably for simunition or live ammunition (figures 6-7).
Claim 28: Harrison disclose wherein the target region of the body of the reactive target is impacted with a projectile or percussion device (0006).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison as applied to claims above, and further in view of Graham et al. (US Patent 10,048,045; referred to hereinafter as Graham).
Claim 7: Harrison disclose a reactive target for firearms training (abstract), the reactive target comprising: a body (figures 1-2), an impact sensor configured to detect an impact on a target region of the body (0006). Harrison, however fails to disclose the mannequin further comprises one or more limbs flexibly attached to the torso. In an analogous art, Graham teach a target body having a human form with at least two sensors that detect shooting impact and send a signal that includes information on the location of the impact on the target body, and also on the number of impacts to a processor or controller (col. 2: 1-16). Graham, further teach the target comprises one or more limbs flexibly attached to the torso (col. 4: 4-16). It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention to modify the target disclosed by Harrison, to include arms as taught by Graham to provide a real, accurate, interactive target to practice on (cols. 1-2: 65-26).
Claim 8: The combination of Harrison and Graham teach wherein the impact sensor is for selectively detecting an impact on the one or more limbs in addition to the target region (col. 10: 21-33).
Claim 9: The combination of Harrison and Graham teach wherein the impact sensor is a vibration sensor or a tilt sensor (figure 5, Graham).
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coon (11,796,289) refers to target for detecting the impact of a projectile includes a body 103 and plurality of sensors mounted on the body 103 for detecting an impact of a projectile on the body 103. Each sensor provides an output representing a detected impact. A processor receives the sensor outputs and determines, from the sensor outputs, a location at which the projectile impacts the body 103. At least some of the sensors may be acoustic wave sensors, such as piezoelectric sensors or microphones.
Bliehall (9,222,760) refers to a portable target apparatus is disclosed that includes a main body and a first target plate adjacent the main body. The first target plate is operable to move independent of the main body when struck by at least one projectile. A support member is coupled to the first target plate and is operable to retain the main body in an upright position when the main body is struck by at least one projectile and move the main body from the upright position to a non-upright position when the first target plate is struck by at least one projectile.
Amitai (20090194943) refers to hit scoring target comprising a target panel connected to a hit scoring management unit. The hit scoring management unit comprises an electromagnetic signature sensor operatively associated with the target panel. The electromagnetic signature sensor may be a capacitance sensor, inductance sensor or magnetic field sensor. The hit scoring management unit further comprises a control unit operatively associated with the electromagnetic sensor. The control unit is arranged to count the number of detected changes in the electromagnetic signature of target panel, and invoke a predetermined action upon reaching a predefined number, wherein each change in the electromagnetic signature of the panel target is associated with a projectile passing through target panel. The action invoked may be tilting down the target panel or transmitting information relating to the hit scoring on the target panel.
The referenced citations made in the rejection(s) above are intended to exemplify areas in the prior art document(s) in which the examiner believed are the most relevant to the claimed subject matter. However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to analyze the prior art document(s) in its/their entirety since other areas of the document(s) may be relied upon at a later time to substantiate examiner's rationale of record. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). However, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ...." In re Fulton, 391F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715