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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12, 14, 15, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method of capturing a marksmanship data during a live fire exercise wherein a plurality of participants fire projectiles at one or more targets using ranged weapons. The limitation of recording a plurality of timestamped projectile fire events detected at respective ranged weapons and each corresponding to the respective ranged weapon discharging a projectile, each timestamped projectile fire event recorded at a recording device of the operator of the respective ranged weapon and comprising a position of the ranged weapon, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “recording device,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “recording device” language, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses a user taking mental note of different participants shooting at target and memorizing their shot locations. Similarly, the limitations of: recording and identifying are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – recording device. The recording device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a recording device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-12, 14, 15, and 18-23.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2016/0209173 A1 to Dribben (hereinafter “Dribben”).
Concerning claim 1, Dribben discloses a method of capturing a marksmanship data during a live fire exercise wherein a plurality of participants fire projectiles at one or more targets using ranged weapons (paragraphs [0040], [0045] – real time analysis of the time of each shot is collected for multiple participants):
recording a plurality of timestamped projectile fire events detected at respective ranged weapons and each corresponding to the respective ranged weapon discharging a projectile, each timestamped projectile fire event recorded at a recording device of the operator of the respective ranged weapon and comprising a position of the ranged weapon (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] - multiple fire events are detected and recorded based on their time);
recording a plurality of timestamped projectile transit events detected at respective targets and each corresponding to the arrival of a projectile at the respective target, each timestamped projectile transit event recorded at a recording device of the respective target (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] – when the projectile hits the target, data is recorded on a recording device);
identifying for each of at least some of the plurality of projectile transit events the respective projectile fire event corresponding to the firing of the projectile that arrived at the respective target, based at least in part on comparing the timestamps of the projectile transit events and the projectile fire events (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] – projectile transit events corresponding to the firing are identified for multiple participants).
Concerning claim 2, Dribben discloses a method of a projectile fire analysis of a live fire exercise wherein a plurality of participants fire projectiles at one or more targets using ranged weapons, the method comprising (paragraphs [0040], [0045] – real time analysis of the time of each shot is collected for multiple participants):
receiving from respective recording devices of each of the plurality of participants, respective timestamped projectile fire events detected at respective ranged weapons and each corresponding to the operator discharging a projectile from a ranged weapon and comprising a position of the ranged weapon (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] - multiple fire events are detected and recorded based on their time);
receiving from respective recording devices connected to each of the one or more targets, timestamped projectile transit events detected at respective targets and each corresponding to the arrival of a projectile at the respective target (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] – when the projectile hits the target, data is recorded on a recording device);
identifying for each of at least some of the plurality of projectile transit events the respective projectile fire event corresponding to the firing of the projectile that arrived at the respective target, based at least in part on comparing the timestamps of the projectile transit events and the projectile fire events (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] – projectile transit events corresponding to the firing are identified for multiple participants).
Concerning claim 7, Dribben discloses wherein the respective timestamp of each projectile fire event and each projectile transit event is generated based on an external clock (paragraphs [0040], [0049], [0087] – clock determines timestamp for each of the projectiles).
Concerning claim 12, Dribben discloses wherein the projectile fire events are detected by a weapon sensor arrangement mounted to the respective ranged weapon (paragraphs [0042], [0045]-[0052], [0087] – sensor is mounted to weapon).
Concerning claim 14, Dribben discloses wherein the recording devices for the projectile fire events are smartphones (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] – recording includes smartphones).
Concerning claim 15, Dribben discloses wherein the one or more projectile arrival events are detected by a target sensor arrangement mounted to the respective target (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] – sensor is mounted to target).
Concerning claim 18, Dribben discloses wherein detecting the projectile transit events comprises detecting a calibre of the respective projectile, and the detected calibre is recorded with the projectile transit event (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] – calibre of projectile is detected).
Concerning claim 20, Dribben discloses further comprising attributing one or more projectile transit events to the participant corresponding to the matching projectile fire events (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0075], [0087] – projectile is attributed to matching events).
Concerning claim 21, Dribben discloses further comprising displaying the projectile transit events for said participant (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0075], [0087] – projectile is displayed).
Concerning claim 22, Dribben discloses further comprising generating one or more marksmanship metrics for the participant based on the projectile transit events attributed to said participant (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0075], [0087] – marksmanship metrics are generated).
Concerning claim 23, Dribben discloses an apparatus for projectile fire analysis of a live fire exercise wherein a plurality of participants fire projectiles at one or more targets using ranged weapons, the apparatus comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions which when executed by the processor (paragraphs [0040], [0045] – real time analysis of the time of each shot is collected for multiple participants) cause the processor to carry out the steps of:
receiving from respective recording devices of each of the plurality of participants, respective timestamped projectile fire events detected at respective ranged weapons and each corresponding to the operator discharging a projectile from a ranged weapon and comprising a position of the ranged weapon (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] - multiple fire events are detected and recorded based on their time);
receiving from respective recording devices connected to each of the one or more targets, timestamped projectile transit events detected at respective targets and each corresponding to the arrival of a projectile at the respective target (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] – when the projectile hits the target, data is recorded on a recording device);
identifying for each of at least some of the plurality of projectile transit events the respective projectile fire event corresponding to the firing of the projectile that arrived at the respective target, based at least in part on comparing the timestamps of the projectile transit events and the projectile fire events (paragraphs [0045]-[0052], [0087] – projectile transit events corresponding to the firing are identified for multiple participants).
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dribben in view of Applicant’s disclosed prior art, International Publication No. WO 2011/037662 A2 to McNelis et al. (hereinafter “McNelis”).
Concerning claim 3, Dribben lacks specifically disclosing, however, McNelis discloses wherein the respective timestamp of each projectile fire event and each projectile transit event is generated based on an internal clock of the respective recording device (paragraphs [0143], [0227], [0243] – timestamp is generated based on internal clock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracking disclosed by McNelis in the system of Dribben in order to provide a more accurate firearm shot tracking system.
Concerning claim 4, Dribben lacks specifically disclosing, however, McNelis discloses further comprising synchronising the plurality of timestamped fire events and the plurality of timestamped transit events to a common time line (paragraphs [0143], [0227], [0243] – fire events are synchronized to a time line). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracking disclosed by McNelis in the system of Dribben in order to provide a more accurate firearm shot tracking system.
Concerning claim 5, Dribben lacks specifically disclosing, however, McNelis discloses wherein said synchronising comprises applying a respective time offset to one or more events based on a time offset between the internal clock of the respective recording device and a common time source (paragraphs [0143], [0227], [0243] – offset time is applied between internal clock and recording). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracking disclosed by McNelis in the system of Dribben in order to provide a more accurate firearm shot tracking system.
Concerning claim 6, Dribben lacks specifically disclosing, however, McNelis discloses wherein said synchronising comprises synchronising the internal clocks of one or more recording devices to a common time source prior to the live fire exercise (paragraphs [0143], [0227], [0243] – synchronising is before live fire exercise). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracking disclosed by McNelis in the system of Dribben in order to provide a more accurate firearm shot tracking system.
Concerning claim 8, Dribben lacks specifically disclosing, however, McNelis discloses wherein said identifying comprises optimizing a bipartite graph representing the plurality of hit events and the plurality of transit events, said bipartite graph comprising one or more edges linking a respective projectile fire event to a respective transit event (paragraphs [0199], [0201]- [0207] – graph represents projectile fire event to transit event). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracking disclosed by McNelis in the system of Dribben in order to provide a more accurate firearm shot tracking system.
Concerning claim 9, Dribben lacks specifically disclosing, however, McNelis discloses wherein each edge is weighted according to a difference between the timestamp of the respective hit event and the timestamp of the respective transit event (paragraphs [0255]-[0259] – weights are applied based on the difference between the hit and transit event). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracking disclosed by McNelis in the system of Dribben in order to provide a more accurate firearm shot tracking system.
Concerning claim 10, Dribben lacks specifically disclosing, however, McNelis discloses wherein each edge is weighted according to a difference between a projected target transit time corresponding to the respective projectile fire event and the respective projectile transit event and the timestamp of the respective transit event (paragraphs [0255]-[0259] – weights are applied based on the difference between the hit and transit event). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracking disclosed by McNelis in the system of Dribben in order to provide a more accurate firearm shot tracking system.
Concerning claim 11, Dribben lacks specifically disclosing, however, McNelis discloses wherein the projected target transit time is based on the distance between the geographical coordinates of the respective ranged weapon and the geographical coordinates of the target, and the timestamp of the respective projectile fire event (paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0199], [0201]- [0207] – geographical coordinates of the weapon and fire event are determined). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracking disclosed by McNelis in the system of Dribben in order to provide a more accurate firearm shot tracking system.
Concerning claim 19, Dribben lacks specifically disclosing, however, McNelis discloses wherein detecting the one or more projectile arrival events comprises detecting whether the respective projectile hit or missed the respective target, and the detected hit or miss is recorded with the projectile arrival event (paragraph [0096] – detecting and recording hit or miss of projectile on target). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tracking disclosed by McNelis in the system of Dribben in order to provide a more accurate firearm shot tracking system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715