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 .
Claims 1-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-23 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2024, 08/19/2024, and 10/02/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 7-10, 19, and 21-23 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.
The term "fine-gauge" in claims 7-10, 19, and 21-23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "fine-gauge" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation "fine-gauge wire” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “fine-gauge” because without a reference, any gauge wire can be explained as “fine-gauge”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted "fine-gauge" to be any gauge of wire above 24 AWG.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Salisbury et al. U.S. Patent Application 2021/0071999 (hereinafter “Salisbury”).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Salisbury teaches a conducted electrical weapon ("CEW") (i.e. CEW 100)(figs.1A-C) comprising: a deployment unit (i.e. deployment unit 300-1)(fig.1C) comprising one or more electrodes (i.e. electrodes 305)(fig.3B); a handle (i.e. body 102)(figs.1A-C) comprising a bay (i.e. bay 130-1)(fig.1C) for receiving the deployment unit (refer to [0038]); and a cap (i.e. movable member 112-1)(figs. 1A and 1C) removably coupled to a first end of the handle (implicit)(refer to figs.1A and 1C)(fig.1A shows member 112-1 coupled to the first end 110 and fig.1C shows member 112-1 decoupled from the first end), wherein the cap at least partially obstructs the bay and the deployment unit disposed within the bay (implicit)(refer to fig.1A).
Regarding claim 2, Salisbury teaches the CEW of claim 1, wherein the handle is configured to perform steps comprising: receiving a first signal (refer to safety 124)(figs.1A and 1C)(refer also to [0028], [0033], [0044], [0046], [0050] and [0061]); and responsive to the first signal, ejecting the cap from the first end of the handle (refer to [0044] and [0046])).
Regarding claim 3, Salisbury teaches the CEW of claim 2, wherein the handle is further configured to perform steps comprising: receiving a second signal (refer to [0032]); and responsive to the second signal, deploying the deployment unit (refer to [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Salisbury teaches a conducted electrical weapon ("CEW") (i.e. CEW 100)(figs.1A-C) comprising: a cap (i.e. movable member 112-1)(figs.1A and 1C) disposed on a first end (i.e. second end 110)(fig.1A) of a handle (i.e. body 102)(figs.1A-C); and the handle comprising a bay (i.e. bay 130-1)(fig.1C) for receiving a deployment unit (refer to [0038]), wherein the handle is configured to perform steps comprising: receiving a first signal (refer to safety 124)(figs.1A and 1C)(refer also to [0028], [0033], [0044], [0046], [0050] and [0061]); and responsive to the first signal, ejecting the cap from the first end of the handle (refer to [0044] and [0046])).
Regarding claim 15, Salisbury teaches the CEW of claim 14, wherein: the handle further comprises a safety switch (i.e. safety 124)(figs.1A and 1C) coupled to an outer surface of the handle (implicit)(refer to figs.1A and 1C); and wherein the first signal is the safety switch being activated (refer to [0028], [0033], [0044], [0046], [0050] and [0061]), the safety switch being activated comprising the safety switch being translated from a rearward position to a forward position (refer to safe position 126 and armed position 128)(figs.1A and 1C).
Regarding claim 17, Salisbury teaches the CEW of claim 15, wherein translation of the safety switch mechanically translates a handle mechanical coupling interface to cause the cap to be ejected from the first end of the handle (refer to [0043] and [0066]).
Regarding claim 18, Salisbury teaches the CEW of claim 17, wherein the handle mechanical coupling interface comprises one or more of: a latch, a protrusion, or an ejection spring (refer to [0043] and [0066]).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. Chinese Patent Document CN 205957818 U (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a conducted electrical weapon ("CEW") (refer to figs.1 and 2) comprising: a deployment unit (i.e. deployment unit in the figure below)(fig.2) comprising one or more electrodes (i.e. probes 9 and 10)(fig.2); a handle (i.e. shell 1)(fig.2) comprising a bay (i.e. bay in the figure below)(fig.2) for receiving the deployment unit (implicit)(refer to figs.1 and 2); and a cap (i.e. end cover 8)(fig.2) removably coupled to a first end of the handle (implicit)(refer to claim 7), wherein the cap at least partially obstructs the bay and the deployment unit disposed within the bay (implicit).
PNG
media_image1.png
325
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 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 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) 2, 6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brundula et al. U.S. Patent Application 2020/0109933 (hereinafter “Brundula”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the CEW of claim 1; however, Zhang does not teach wherein the handle is configured to perform steps comprising: receiving a first signal; and responsive to the first signal, ejecting the cap from the first end of the handle. However, Brundula teaches wherein the handle is configured to perform steps comprising: receiving a first signal (refer to figure 6); and responsive to the first signal, ejecting the cap from the first end of the handle (implicit)(Zhang’s cap is ejected when the electrodes are deployed). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CEW of Zhang to include the first signal of Brundula to provide the advantage of creating more reliable triggering of the electrodes.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the CEW of claim 1; however, Zhang does not teach the CEW further comprising: one or more electrical contacts; and a shorting mechanism configured to contact and distribute charge between the one or more electrical contacts. However, Brundula teaches the CEW further comprising: one or more electrical contacts (refer to conductor 540)(fig.5)(refer also to [0096]); and a shorting mechanism (i.e. conductor 540)(fig.5) configured to contact and distribute charge between the one or more electrical contacts (refer to [0096]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CEW of Zhang to include the ignition device of Brundula to provide the advantage of creating more reliable triggering of the electrodes.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches a conducted electrical weapon ("CEW") (refer to figs.1 and 2) comprising: a cap (i.e. end cover 8)(fig.2) disposed on a first end (implicit) of a handle (i.e. shell 1)(fig.2); and the handle comprising a bay (i.e. bay in the figure above)(fig.2) for receiving a deployment unit (i.e. deployment unit in the figure above)(fig.2); however, Zhang does not teach wherein the handle is configured to perform steps comprising: receiving a first signal; and responsive to the first signal, ejecting the cap from the first end of the handle. However, Brundula teaches wherein the handle is configured to perform steps comprising: receiving a first signal (refer to fig.6); and responsive to the first signal, ejecting the cap from the first end of the handle (implicit)(Zhang’s cap is ejected when the electrodes are deployed). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CEW of Zhang to include the first signal of Brundula to provide the advantage of creating more reliable triggering of the electrodes.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kennair U.S. Patent Application 2017/0268842 (hereinafter “Kennair”).
Regarding claim 4, Salisbury teaches the CEW of claim 2; however, Salisbury does not teach wherein the handle is further configured to perform steps comprising transmitting, responsive to the cap being ejected, a notification that the cap has been ejected. However, Kennair teaches wherein the handle is further configured to perform steps comprising transmitting, responsive to the cap being ejected, a notification that the cap has been ejected (refer to (abstract and [0014]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CEW of Salisbury to include the notification of Kennair to provide the advantage of notifying emergency personnel that a deployment of the CEW is imminent, thereby allowing for appropriate assistance to be provided.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Brundula as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kennair.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang and Brundula teach the CEW of claim 2; however, they do not teach wherein the handle is further configured to perform steps comprising transmitting, responsive to the cap being ejected, a notification that the cap has been ejected. However, Kennair teaches wherein the handle is further configured to perform steps comprising transmitting, responsive to the cap being ejected, a notification that the cap has been ejected (refer to (abstract and [0014]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CEW of Zhang and Brundula to include the notification of Kennair to provide the advantage of notifying emergency personnel that a deployment of the CEW is imminent, thereby allowing for appropriate assistance to be provided.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cerovic et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,096,076 (hereinafter “Cerovic”).
Regarding claim 5, Salisbury teaches the CEW of claim 1; however, Salisbury does not teach wherein the deployment unit comprises one or more blast doors that configured to obstruct the one of more electrodes of the deployment unit prior to deployment of the electrodes. However, Cerovic teaches wherein the deployment unit comprises one or more blast doors (i.e. doors 822 and 824)(fig.8) that configured to obstruct the one of more electrodes of the deployment unit prior to deployment of the electrodes (implicit)(refer to fig.8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CEW of Salisbury to include the blast doors of Cerovic to provide the advantage of preventing damage to the electrodes and further protecting a user from injury due to inadvertent contact with the electrodes.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cerovic.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the CEW of claim 1; however, Zhang does not teach wherein the deployment unit comprises one or more blast doors that configured to obstruct the one of more electrodes of the deployment unit prior to deployment of the electrodes. However, Cerovic teaches wherein the deployment unit comprises one or more blast doors (i.e. doors 822 and 824)(fig.8) that configured to obstruct the one of more electrodes of the deployment unit prior to deployment of the electrodes (implicit)(refer to fig.8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CEW of Zhang to include the blast doors of Cerovic to provide the advantage of preventing damage to the electrodes and further protecting a user from injury due to inadvertent contact with the electrodes.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisbury as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brundula.
Regarding claim 6, Salisbury teaches the CEW of claim 1; however, Salisbury does not teach the CEW further comprising: one or more electrical contacts; and a shorting mechanism configured to contact and distribute charge between the one or more electrical contacts. However, Brundula teaches the CEW further comprising: one or more electrical contacts (refer to conductor 540)(fig.5)(refer also to [0096]); and a shorting mechanism (i.e. conductor 540)(fig.5) configured to contact and distribute charge between the one or more electrical contacts (refer to [0096]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CEW of Salisbury to include the ignition device of Brundula to provide the advantage of creating more reliable triggering of the electrodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 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.
Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19 and 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 7-10 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 7, especially wherein: the one or more electrical contacts comprise two deployment unit contacts disposed on a first end of the deployment unit; the shorting mechanism comprises a fine-gauge wire integrated with the deployment unit between the two or more deployment unit contacts; and the handle is configured to perform steps comprising: receiving a first signal; and responsive to the first signal, burning through the fine-gauge wire. Claims 8-10 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter based on their dependency on claim 7. Claims 11 and 12 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 11, especially wherein: the cap comprises the shorting mechanism; and the one or more electrical contacts comprise one or more handle contacts and one or more deployment unit contacts electrically coupled by the shorting mechanism of the cap. Claim 12 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter based on its dependency on claim 11 Claims 19 and 21-23 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 19, especially a fine-gauge wire configured to contact and distribute charge between the one or more deployment unit contacts. Regarding clam 19, Cerovic teaches a deployment unit (i.e. cartridge 800)(fig.8) comprising: blast doors (i.e. doors 822 and 824)(fig.8) coupled to a first end of the deployment unit (implicit) and configured to obstruct one or more electrodes of the deployment unit prior to deployment of the electrodes (implicit)(refer to col. 14 lines 33-47); one or more deployment unit contacts (i.e. electrode 807)(fig.8) disposed on the first end of the deployment unit (implicit)(refer to fig.8); however, Cerovic does not teach a fine-gauge wire configured to contact and distribute charge between the one or more deployment unit contacts. Claims 21-23 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter based on their dependency on claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838