DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. In response to the amendment filed 01 July 2026, claims 1-14 and 16-20 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5, 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 2009/0111073 A1) in view of Wadman et al. (US Patent No. 11,305,179 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Stanley discloses a training system for using a firearm, comprising:
a training region, in which training sessions are executable, wherein the training region comprises fixed or movable targets (see Fig. 5);
a firearm (120 – Par. 42);
user detection means configured for detecting user physical status data (e.g. ocular sensor 116, recognition sensor 120 – Par’s. 40-41);
firearm detection means configured for detecting firearm status data (firearm sensor 122 – Par. 42);
target detection means configured for detecting target data (Par. 81); and
a data management and analysis unit (102), operatively connected to the user detection means, to the firearm detection means and to the target detection means, configured for receiving the user physical status data, the firearm status data and the target data (see Fig. 3 – computer 102 for performance monitoring and reporting – Par. 43),
wherein the data management and analysis unit is configured to create a virtual training model (scenario), as a function of set/stored user features (e.g. prior performance/results), as a function of set/stored environmental features (environment type), as a function of set/stored training session features (stimulus type, delay period, movement pattern, etc.), and as a function of expected results (threshold), to compare the user physical status data, the firearm status data and the target data with the virtual training model (Par’s. 44-48).
Stanley further discloses the firearm is a simulacrum firearm (Par. 80), but does not appear to disclose the training system further comprises devices wearable by a user and comprising haptic devices configured for producing haptic signals on the user, wherein said devices wearable by the user are operatively connected to the data management and analysis unit, and wherein the data management and analysis unit controls an actuation of the haptic devices (as per claim 6), However, Wadman discloses a similar shooting training system that utilizes a plurality of wearable devices (gaming outfit 180, comprising haptic devices that vibrate to provide feedback, for example to inform the player of a hit and communicates with central server – column 7, lines 36-67 Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Stanley by providing the wearable haptic devices taught by Wadman and producing tactile feedback based on signals from the central server. Such a modification would involve combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2-5, 11, 12 and 17, Stanley further discloses:
the data management and analysis unit comprises a memory and for each training session, the data management and analysis unit collects, in the memory, the user physical status data, the firearm status data and the target data, and updates the set/stored user features, the set/stored environmental features, the set/stored training session features and the virtual training model for comparing collected new user physical status data, new firearm status data and new target data with the updated virtual training model (performance data stored and used to determine next phase of scenario – Par’s. 48-49) (as per claim 2),
the data management and analysis unit updates the virtual training model between one training session and the other and/or during a training session in real time (Par’s. 48-49) (as per claim 3),
the data management and analysis unit sets a training session as a function of initial user physical status data and/or as a function of the expected results (Par’s. 48-49) (as per claim 4),
the data management and analysis unit is connected to an external electronic device, and wherein, through said external electronic device, the data in the data management and analysis unit is accessible, modifiable and integrable, for modifying the virtual training model (network of computers 102, also operator interface 130 coupled with computer 102 – Par’s. 40, 43) (as per claim 5),
the target detection means are configured for detecting whether and how a shot performed with the firearm hits a target (Par. 81) (as per claim 11),
the target detection means are positioned on a user and/or on the firearm, and/or the target detection means are remote with respect to the firearm (Par. 81) (as per claim 12), and
the external electronic device is a computer, a tablet, or a smartphone (Par’s. 40, 43) (as per claim 17).
6. Claims 7, 8, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 2009/0111073 A1) in view of Wadman et al. (US Patent No. 11,305,179 B1), and further in view of Wynne (US 2021/0275094 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Stanley does not appear to disclose, but Wynne does disclose in a similar simulation system that includes firearm simulations (Par. 83), the user detection means comprise: a cardiac status detection group configured for detecting a user's heartbeat and/or electrocardiogram; a respiratory status detection group configured for detecting a respiratory rate; a sweat detection group configured for detecting a galvanic skin response (GSR); a limb status detection group configured for performing a myography of limbs and main muscles of the limbs; a position detection group configured for detecting the user's position in the training region; and a user activity detection group configured for detecting at least one of the user's speed, acceleration, or angular speed in the training region (see Par. 206). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Stanley and Wadman by detecting this information of the trainee, to obtain predictable results of training the user to manage stress during training scenarios.
Regarding claims 8, 18 and 19, the combination of Stanley and Wadman further disclose the user detection means are positioned on the user and/or are remote with respect to the user (Stanley - ocular sensor 38 – see Fig. 1) (as per claim 8), the user detection means are worn by the user (Wadman - communication circuits in gaming outfits can transmit location of the player – column 7, lines 56-59) (as per claim 18), and the user detection means (ocular tracker 38) positioned in the training region (Stanley - Fig. 1, Par. 37) (as per claim 19).
7. Claims 9, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 2009/0111073 A1) in view of Wadman et al. (US Patent No. 11,305,179 B1), and further in view of Amis et al. (US 2015/0153130 A1) and Deng et al. (US 2020/0355457 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Stanley further discloses firearm detection means comprise: a firearm status detection group configured for detecting an operating status of the firearm, including presence of the firearm in a holster, or pointing of the firearm (aiming – Par. 42); and shooting and shooting mode detection group configured for detecting shooting of the firearm and/or shooting modes (firearm sensor 122 detects laser shot fired by firearm – Par. 81). Furthermore, Amis discloses a firearm training system with a firearm configuration detection group configured for detecting safe configuration of the firearm, or configuration of the firearm in a semi-automatic or automatic mode, or an armed configuration of the firearm (Par. 92, last 6 lines), and a firearm activity detection group configured for detecting at least one of speed, acceleration, or angular speed of the firearm in the training region (Par. 14), and Deng discloses a firearm grip detection group configured for detecting modes in which the firearm is gripped by a user, and a trigger guard engagement detection group configured for detecting presence of the user's finger in a trigger guard of the firearm (Par. 356). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Stanley and Wadman by providing these additional firearm detection means taught by Amis and Deng, as such a modification would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of attaining additional data regarding the trainee’s firearm handling.
Regarding claim 10, Stanley further discloses the firearm detection means are positioned on the firearm and/or are remote with respect to the firearm (Par. 42).
Regarding claim 20, Stanley further discloses the shooting and shooting mode detection group is configured for detecting an actuation on a trigger performed by the user (Par. 42).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 6, the limitations of which have been incorporated into independent claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wadman et al. (US Patent No. 11,305,179 B1). Since the new ground of rejection is not necessitated by amendment, this rejection is made non-final.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 13 is 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 14-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Stanley, Neeter and the other prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose the combination of features in claims 13 and 14, including a training region with environmental status sensors, user detections means, firearm detection means, target detection means, and a data management and analysis unit which detects data including region environmental conditions and creates a virtual training model as a function of user, environmental and session features, and expected results, wherein the expected results are a function of at least the detected region environmental conditions, and comparing the status data with the virtual training model, in the manner claimed.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ford (US 2018/0374380 A1) discloses a combat training system with a vibrating vest for hit simulation (Par. 56). Ferren et al. (US Patent No. 12,078,454 B2) discloses a universal laserless training architecture with wearable haptic feedback (column 8, lines 35-41).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights