Detailed Action
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. If this application names joint inventors, Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupher et al (US 2013/0288205 A1) in view of Sirot et al (US 2019/0390939 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lupher discloses a smart aiming device for a firearm (Fig. 1) comprising a processor (202) and a memory (226), a plurality of sensors (Fig. 2: 214) including a trigger sensor for monitoring a depression of a trigger of the firearm (404), and an image sensor configured to capture images of a target region (240), wherein, during operation of the firearm, the plurality of sensors collect data and provide said data to the processor and memory for analysis and storage (406 - 408), and a sight including an optical window for viewing a target therethrough via at least one of an arrangement of optical lenses (Fig. 3) and a micro-display configured to present a video comprising an entire view captured by the image sensor (204), or an overlay onto the view of the target visible through the optical lenses, through injection of the video into the optical window (¶ [0027]: visual representation can be a combination of captured optical information from optical elements and optical sensors and overlay information, such as laser range finding data, a reticle, a visual marker or tag visibly attached to a selected target and the like). Sirot suggests—where Lupher does not disclose—wherein the memory comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing therein instructions (Fig. 18), that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to receive a user selection regarding a mode of feedback, the user selection being one of feedback in an operational mode in response to a user request following firing of the firearm (Fig. 10: 525), wherein, in the absence of a user request, no feedback is provided and the firearm is ready for additional firing (525: yes), or feedback in a dedicated training mode following a series of actuations of the firearm (525: no), and to provide the feedback to the user in the selected mode regarding one or more techniques of firearm operation, based on analysis of the data collected by the plurality of sensors during operation of the firearm (530 and Fig. 11: shot trajectory reconstruction). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Lupher and Sirot in order to provide feedback as post-training review, therefore allowing more in-depth performance data to be presented and analyzed.
Regarding claim 2, Sirot suggests—where Lupher does not disclose—wherein the feedback comprises at least one of feedback on how far an actual point of aim of the firearm was from the desired point of aim during actuation of the trigger, feedback on technique of trigger actuation or on technique of trigger actuation, and instruction on how to compensate aiming of the firearm based on at least one of type of ballistics, movement of the target, range to the target and wind (Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Lupher and Sirot in order to provide feedback as post-training review, therefore allowing more in-depth performance data to be presented and analyzed.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Lupher discloses wherein the processor is configured to provide the feedback in a non-intrusive manner within the operational mode, by presenting at least one of an icon or text on a perimeter of a field of display and one or more small graphical markings near the target region (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Sirot suggests—where Lupher does not disclose—wherein, the feedback in the dedicated training mode includes feedback regarding consistency of at least one of the user's accuracy or timing during the series of actuations (Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Lupher and Sirot in order to provide feedback as post-training review, therefore allowing more in-depth performance data to be presented and analyzed.
Regarding claim 10, Lupher discloses wherein each of plurality of sensors is used in operation of the firearm, such that no additional hardware components are required for providing the feedback (¶¶ [0024] – [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Lupher discloses system including the device of claim 1 and at least one of the following: reactive target, wherein the device is configured to detect the hit of said reactive target by detecting its fall or any other visual signal that said reactive target provides when the reactive target is hit, or communicative target, wherein the device is configured to provide feedback based on information communicated to the processor by the at least one communicative target communicative target, wherein the device is configured to provide feedback based on information communicated to the processor by the at least one communicative target (¶ [0043]).
Regarding claim 12, Lupher discloses a method of providing training for a firearm with a smart aiming device (Fig. 1), the method comprising during operation of the firearm, collecting data from a plurality of sensors (Fig. 2: 214) including a trigger sensor for monitoring a depression of a trigger of the firearm (404), and an image sensor configured to capture images of a target region (240), and providing said data to a processor and memory for analysis and storage (406 - 408), and providing feedback to a user regarding one or more techniques of firearm operation, based on analysis of the data collected by the plurality of, wherein the providing step is performed by projecting the feedback from a micro-display into an optical window of a sight of the firearm sensors (¶ [0027]: visual representation can be a combination of captured optical information from optical elements and optical sensors and overlay information, such as laser range finding data, a reticle, a visual marker or tag visibly attached to a selected target and the like). Sirot suggests—where Lupher does not disclose— wherein the step of providing feedback comprises, following a user selection of a mode of feedback (525: no, providing the feedback within one of: an operational mode in response to a user request following firing of the firearm, wherein, in the absence of a user request, no feedback is provided and the firearm is ready for additional firing, or in a dedicated training mode following a series of actuations of the firearm (530 and Fig. 11: shot trajectory reconstruction). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Lupher and Sirot in order to provide feedback as post-training review, therefore allowing more in-depth performance data to be presented and analyzed.
Regarding claim 14, Sirot suggests—where Lupher does not disclose—wherein the feedback includes at least one of feedback regarding consistency of at least one of the user's accuracy or timing during the series of actuations, providing feedback on preconfigured training sets that include shooting at least one of from predetermined positions, on predetermined targets and in a limited amount of time, feedback on how far an actual point of aim of the firearm was from the desired point of aim during actuation of the trigger, feedback on technique of trigger actuation, feedback on barrel roll, instruction on how to compensate aiming of the firearm based on at least one of type of ballistics, movement of the target, range to the target and wind (Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Lupher and Sirot in order to provide feedback as post-training review, therefore allowing more in-depth performance data to be presented and analyzed.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lupher in view of Sirot and Ehrlich et al (US 2022/0205762 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ehrlich suggests—where Lupher does not disclose—wherein the firearm is adjustable between an unlocked mode in which the firearm fires whenever the trigger is actuated and a locked fire mode, in which the processor is configured to time a firing of the firearm following actuation of the trigger based on data collected by the plurality of sensors so that the firearm fires when the processor determines that a locked-on target will be hit in a desired hit area (512 – 517), wherein the feedback comprises feedback on how to operate the firearm in the locked fire mode, on a process of locking onto a target, or on trigger technique in the locked fire mode (¶ [0043]: output may be either a smart-sight display indicating to the user how the weapon should be aligned with the aim region). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Lupher, Sirot and Ehrlich in order to provide helpful feedback on using the auto-aim feature.
Regarding claim 15, Ehrlich suggests—where Lupher does not disclose—wherein the firearm is adjustable between an unlocked mode, in which the firearm fires whenever the trigger is actuated and a locked fire mode, in which the processor is configured to time a firing of the firearm following actuation of the trigger based on data collected by the plurality of sensors, so that the firearm fires when the processor determines that a locked-on target will be hit in a desired hit area (512 – 517), and the feedback comprises feedback on at least one of: how to operate the firearm in the locked fire mode, a process of locking onto a target, and trigger technique in the locked fire mode (¶ [0043]: output may be either a smart-sight display indicating to the user how the weapon should be aligned with the aim region). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Lupher, Sirot and Ehrlich in order to provide helpful feedback on using the auto-aim feature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and not relied upon is made of record on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE ROWLAND whose telephone number is (469) 295-9129. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 10-8. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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.
Applicant may choose, at his or her discretion, to correspond with Examiner via Internet e-mail. A paper copy of any and all email correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application file. Email communication must be authorized in advance. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via e-mail to any correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122.
Authorization may be perfected by submitting, on a separate paper, the following (or similar) disclaimer:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See MPEP 502.03 for more information.
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.
/STEVE ROWLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715