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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 5/18/26 wherein the examiner acknowledges that claims 1, 12 & 20 have been amended, no additional claims have been added and no claims have been canceled. Consequently, claims 1-28 are currently pending.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s traversal of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claim 20-28 as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. However, applicant’s amendments to the preamble does not moot the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection. As noted above, under IPXL Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 77 USPQ2d 1140 (CA FC 2005), claims remain indefinite where it recites both an apparatus and the use of said apparatus (method) in the same claim, because it is unclear whether infringement occurs in manufacture of the apparatus or the recited use. Here, the amended claims continue to contain method/use language in the body of the claims, so the indefiniteness concern have not been resolved by preamble recitation alone. Thus, 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claim 20-28 as indefinite is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s argument’s that “Harrison does not provide any disclosure that would lead the skilled person away from the sliding mechanism disclosed in Harrison, much less any unconstrained fall under gravity”; Examiner respectfully disagrees. Harrison, as cited in the rejection above, discloses a target system in which a target moves from an elevated or supported position to a lower position under gravitational force once a support or retaining structure is released, thereby allowing the target to fall or drop, under gravity without additional mechanical constraint beyond the frame. This features clearly meets the requirement of the recited claim limitations: “target body falls unconstrained under the force of gravity” (given broadest reasonable claim interpretation) because, once released, the target is governed by gravity rather than by an active drive mechanism. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained as Harrison does disclose all the features recited in the claims.
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 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
Prosecution Insights