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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 06/27/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 15 are independent claims.
Missing NPL search
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimino et al. (US20170337513A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US20120099024A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dimino teaches: A method comprising:
receiving, by a conducted electrical weapon (“CEW”), an installation package, wherein the installation package comprises instructions for installing a software; ([0033] “a battery module may receive a software update to provide to the handle. When the battery module is inserted into the handle the battery module informs the handle that it has a software update. The handle may receive the software update from the battery module and install the software update. The handle may report in its log, to the electronic device, or directly that it has receive the software update. The handle may further report whether the software update was successful.” [0034] “Data that may be down loaded into a log of a CEW or other equipment includes settings, firmware, configuration information, agencies policies regarding use of the device, communication parameters, and other information that controls and/or governs the operation of the CEW or other equipment.”) Dimino teaches a CEW receiving a software/firmware update compromising instructions for installation on the CEW.
executing, by the CEW, the instructions to begin installing the software in the installation package ([0045] “A CEW may receive a firmware update (e.g., software, instructions, firmware) via a wired or wirelessly communication link from other equipment 192 via electronic device 120, calibration and test system 140, electronic device 120, and/or dock 130. A firmware update may be further received by a CEW from a battery pack installed into the CEW.” [0054] “A processing circuit may include circuitry that performs (e.g., executes) a stored program.” ) Dimino teaches the CEW executing the received software update to install the software on the CEW.
Dimino does not teach: (1) providing, by the CEW and via an LED interface, a first LED indication configured to provide a first visual notice that the software is installing (2) disabling, by the CEW, a light module, wherein the disabling the light module is configured to provide a second visual notice that the software is installing
However, Ryu teaches: (1) providing, by the CEW and via an LED interface, a first LED indication configured to provide a first visual notice that the software is installing ([0358] “As shown in FIGS. 27 to 29, the display apparatus 100 may include a power status display unit 900 that has at least one light source, such as a Light Emitting Diode (LED).” [0359] “The power status display unit 900 may indicate a power status of the display apparatus 100 by using colors or by turning on/off the light source. For example, the power status display unit 900 may display different colors according to operation modes (e.g. a turn-on mode, an update mode and a turn-off mode as shown in FIG. 8) of the display apparatus 100.” [0362] “For example, when the display apparatus 100 starts the software update in response to a user's turn-off request, a color that is emitted from the light source included in the power status display unit 900 is changed from the first color (e.g. green) to the second color (e.g. yellow).” [0363] “As shown in FIG. 29, when the software update is completed, the power status display unit 900 may display a third color (e.g. red) for indicating that the display apparatus 100 is in the turn-off mode.” [0368] “When the power status display unit 900 indicates that the display apparatus 100 is in the update mode, a user may wait for a completion of the software update until the power status display unit 900 indicates the turn-off mode.”) Ryu teaches providing an LED indication during software installation, including changing the LED state and periodically turning the LED on and off to visually indicate that the device is in software update mode.
Additionally, Ryu teaches: (2) disabling, by the CEW, a light module, wherein the disabling the light module is configured to provide a second visual notice that the software is installing ([0218] “In response to the turn-off request, the controller 170 may change the operation mode of the display apparatus 100 to the update mode, and perform a software update with the software information stored in the memory 140.” [0219] “In the update mode, the controller 170 may control the display 180 for an image-displaying screen to be turned off (or powered OFF). For this, the controller 170 may shut off (or turn OFF) a power source that is supplied from the power supply 190 to the display 180.” [0227] “For example, the software update may be completed in the update mode, and thereafter the controller 170 may change the operation mode of the display apparatus 100 to the turn-off mode and thus perform control for a power source not to be supplied from the power supply 190 to other modules of the display apparatus 100.”) Ryu teaches disabling a visual output component during software installation by shutting off power to the display while continuing the software update process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software update functionality of the CEW taught by Dimino to include the visual update indications taught by Ryu, including providing an LED indication and disabling a visual component during the software update mode. Doing so would provide a user with readily observable indications of the device’s software update state and allow the user to recognize that an update is occurring and wait for its completion.
Regarding claim 2, Dimino teaches: wherein the software comprises firmware, and wherein the firmware is unrelated to the light module ([0033] “The handle may receive the software update from the battery module and install the software update.” “For example, a battery module may receive a software update to provide to the handle.“ [0045] ” A CEW may receive a firmware update (e.g., software, instructions, firmware)” ) Dimino teaches the software compromises firmware by teaching that the CEW receives and installs a firmware update compromising software, instruction, and/or firmware that controls operations of the CEW. The firmware update is directed to operation of the CEW generally and is not disclosed as controlling or operating a light module, therefore corresponds to the firmware being unrelated to the light module. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “unrelated to the light module” encompassed firmware that is not directed to controlling or operating the light module. Dimino’s firmware is directed to operation of the CEW generally rather than operation of a light module.
Regarding claim 3, Ryu teaches: wherein the first LED indication comprises a static indication ([0359] “The power status display unit 900 may indicate a power status of the display apparatus 100 by using colors or by turning on/off the light source. For example, the power status display unit 900 may display different colors according to operation modes “ [0361] “As shown in FIG. 28, when the display apparatus 100 is performing a software update, the power status display unit 900 may display a second color (e.g. yellow) for indicating that the display apparatus 100 is in the update mode.”) Ryu teaches a static LED indication by displaying a color while the software update is being performed.
Regarding claim 4, Ryu teaches: wherein the first LED indication comprises a dynamic indication based on a status of the software being installed ([0358] “As shown in FIGS. 27 to 29, the display apparatus 100 may include a power status display unit 900 that has at least one light source, such as a Light Emitting Diode (LED).” [0365 - 0367] “According to an example embodiment, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on or turned off according to an operation mode of the display apparatus 100. For example, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on in the turn-on mode, and may be turned off in the turn-off mode. In the update mode, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on and off periodically.”) Ryu teaches a dynamic LED indication by periodically turning the LED on and off while the software update is being performed. The periodic on/off corresponds to the dynamic teaching.
Regarding claim 6, Dimino teaches: based on local instructions stored in memory of the CEW ([0050] “CEW 200 of FIG. 3 includes processing circuit 210” [0056] “The handle may include a processing circuit.” [0057] “A memory may store instructions and data for a processing circuit.” [0078] “A processing circuit may execute a stored program to perform the functions of a method.”) Dimino teaches instructions stored locally in CEW memory and executed by the CEW processing circuit.
Dimino does not teach: wherein the providing the first LED indication
However, Ryu teaches: wherein the providing the first LED indication ([0365 - 0367] “According to an example embodiment, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on or turned off according to an operation mode of the display apparatus 100. For example, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on in the turn-on mode, and may be turned off in the turn-off mode. In the update mode, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on and off periodically.”) Ryu teaches controlling the LED during the software update mode to provide the first LED indication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dimino in view of Ryu to use locally stored instruction to control the LED indication during software installation, therefore providing a user with a visual indication that the software is being installed.
Regarding claim 7, Dimino teaches: further comprising determining, by the CEW, whether the software was successfully installed ([0033] “The handle may receive the software update from the battery module and install the software update. The handle may report in its log, to the electronic device, or directly that it has receive the software update. The handle may further report whether the software update was successful.”) Dimino teaches determining whether the installation of the software was successful by determining and reporting whether the installed software update was successful.
Regarding claim 15, it is a product claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 1 besides the following limitations that Dimino and Ryu teach:
Dimino teaches: a processing circuit;
and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processing circuit, wherein the tangible, non-transitory memory comprises instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processing circuit, cause the processing circuit to perform operations comprising ([0050] “CEW 200 of FIG. 3 includes processing circuit 210” [0056] “The handle may include a processing circuit.” [0057] “A memory may store instructions and data for a processing circuit.” [0078] “A processing circuit may execute a stored program to perform the functions of a method.”) Dimino further teaches a CEW handle compromising a processing circuit and memory, wherein the memory stores instructions and data for execution by the processing unit.
Dimino does not teach: an LED interface configured to provide a plurality of LED indications;
a light module configured to provide a light output;
However, Ryu teaches: an LED interface configured to provide a plurality of LED indications;
a light module configured to provide a light output; ([0358] “As shown in FIGS. 27 to 29, the display apparatus 100 may include a power status display unit 900 that has at least one light source, such as a Light Emitting Diode (LED).” [0359] “The power status display unit 900 may indicate a power status of the display apparatus 100 by using colors or by turning on/off the light source. For example, the power status display unit 900 may display different colors according to operation modes (e.g. a turn-on mode, an update mode and a turn-off mode as shown in FIG. 8) of the display apparatus 100.”) Ryu teaches an LED/light source configured to provide a plurality of visual indications and a light output, therefore corresponding to the claimed LED interface and light module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software update functionality of the CEW taught by Dimino to include the visual update indications taught by Ryu, including providing an LED indication and disabling a visual component during the software update mode. Doing so would provide a user with readily observable indications of the device’s software update state and allow the user to recognize that an update is occurring and wait for its completion.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimino et al. (US20170337513A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US20120099024A1) and in further view of Schack (US20210182398A1).
Regarding claim 5, Dimino does not teach: wherein the providing the first LED indication is based on the instructions from the installation package
However, Ryu teaches: wherein the providing the first LED indication ([0365 - 0367] “According to an example embodiment, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on or turned off according to an operation mode of the display apparatus 100. For example, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on in the turn-on mode, and may be turned off in the turn-off mode. In the update mode, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on and off periodically.”) Ryu teaches
Additionally, Schack teaches: instructions from the installation package ([0032] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the provider server 110 identifies an updated installation package 155, which provides an update to the firmware 140. For instance, in one example, an integrated installation package is executable to install an updated version of the firmware 140.”) Schack teaches executing an installation package to perform the firmware installation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the executable installation package instructions taught by Schack with the teaching of Ryu to control the LED indication during installation, therefore visually indicating that the installation is in progress.
Claims 8-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimino et al. (US20170337513A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US20120099024A1) and in further view of Farhi et al. (US20150280471A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dimino does not teach: (1) providing, by the CEW and via the LED interface, a second LED indication configured to provide a third visual notice that the software was successfully installed and (2) enabling, by the CEW, the light module, wherein the enabling the light module is configured to provide a fourth visual notice that the software was successfully installed
However, Ryu teaches: (1) providing, by the CEW and via the LED interface, a second LED indication configured to provide a third visual notice that the software was successfully installed ([0363] “As shown in FIG. 29, when the software update is completed, the power status display unit 900 may display a third color (e.g. red) for indicating that the display apparatus 100 is in the turn-off mode.”) Ryu teaches providing an LED indication to visually indicate the completion of the software update.
Additionally, Farhi teaches: (2) enabling, by the CEW, the light module, wherein the enabling the light module is configured to provide a fourth visual notice that the software was successfully installed ([0024] “When all pages of application section 106 have been updated, the bootloader verifies the checksum of the new firmware, exits from the bootloader mode, and provides an indication to a user that the upload was successful. The indication may be provided, for example, via a status light-emitting diode (LED) on charging device 100.”) Farhi teaches enabling a light module compromising a status LED to provide a visual notice that the software was successfully installed. Applicant spec states [0074] “Light module 150 may comprise any suitable components capable of producing light. For example, light module 150 may comprise a flashlight, a light-emitting diode (LED), a strobe light, and/or any other similar light-emitting component.” Therefore, the light module corresponds to the LED taught by Farhi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dimino and Ryu in view of Farhi to enable a light-producing component upon successful software installation to provide the user with an additional visual indication confirming that the software update was successfully completed.
Regarding claim 9, Farhi teaches: wherein the second LED indication is different from the first LED indication ([0026] “Various states of the firmware update process, for example, when the firmware update in progress or completed, may be shown using unique LED blinking patterns on a status LED.”) Farhi teaches that the second LED indication is different from the first LED indication by providing unique LED blinking patters for different firmware update states, including an update in progress and an update completed state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dimino and Ryu in view of Farhi to provide different LED indication for different software update states. Therefore, allowing a user to distinguish between the installation states of the software.
Regarding claim 10, Dimino does not teach: (1) wherein in response to the software being unsuccessfully installed, further comprising: providing, by the CEW and via the LED interface, a third LED indication configured to provide a fifth visual notice that the software was unsuccessfully installed (2) enabling, by the CEW, the light module, wherein the enabling the light module is configured to provide a sixth visual notice that the software was unsuccessfully installed.
However, Farhi teaches: (1) wherein in response to the software being unsuccessfully installed, further comprising: providing, by the CEW and via the LED interface, a third LED indication configured to provide a fifth visual notice that the software was unsuccessfully installed (2) enabling, by the CEW, the light module, wherein the enabling the light module is configured to provide a sixth visual notice that the software was unsuccessfully installed ([0024] “Similarly, if the checksum cannot be verified, for example, because the new firmware is corrupted or invalid, a notification may be provided to the user via the status LED. Each of a successful and unsuccessful status may be associated with a predefined blinking pattern.”) Farhi teaches providing a status LED indication to visually notify the user of an unsuccessful firmware installation, which corresponds to both the claimed third LED indication and the claimed enabling of the light module, because applicant spec states [0074] “Light module 150 may comprise any suitable components capable of producing light. For example, light module 150 may comprise a flashlight, a light-emitting diode (LED), a strobe light, and/or any other similar light-emitting component.” Therefore, the light module corresponds to the LED taught by Farhi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dimino and Ryu in view of Farhi to provide a visual indication of an unsuccessful software installation, therefore, allowing a user to readily determined when the software installation has failed.
Regarding claim 11, Farhi teaches: wherein the third LED indication is different from the first LED indication ([0024] “The indication may be provided, for example, via a status light-emitting diode (LED) on charging device 100. Similarly, if the checksum cannot be verified, for example, because the new firmware is corrupted or invalid, a notification may be provided to the user via the status LED. Each of a successful and unsuccessful status may be associated with a predefined blinking pattern.”) Farhi teaches providing different predefined LED blinking patterns corresponding to different firmware update statuses which corresponds to the third LED indication being different from the first LED indication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dimino and Ryu with the teachings of Farhi to provide different LED indications for different update states, therefore allowing a user to readily distinguish between the different states.
Regarding claim 12, Farhi teaches: determining, by the CEW, whether the software being unsuccessfully installed corrupted the CEW; and
providing, by the CEW and via the LED interface, a fourth LED indication configured to provide a seventh visual notice that the software was unsuccessfully installed and the CEW was corrupted ([0024] “the bootloader verifies the checksum of the new firmware, exits from the bootloader mode, and provides an indication to a user that the upload was successful. The indication may be provided, for example, via a status light-emitting diode (LED) on charging device 100. Similarly, if the checksum cannot be verified, for example, because the new firmware is corrupted or invalid, a notification may be provided to the user via the status LED. Each of a successful and unsuccessful status may be associated with a predefined blinking pattern.”) Farhi teaches determining whether an unsuccessful software installation resulted in corrupted software by verifying a checksum of the newly installed firmware and determining that the firmware is corrupted or invalid when the checksum cannot be verified.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dimino and Ryu with the teachings of Farhi to verify whether an unsuccessful software installation resulted in corrupted software, therefore, allowing the device to identify the cause of an unsuccessful installation and ensure the integrity of the installed software.
Regarding claim 13, Farhi teaches: wherein the fourth LED indication is different from the first LED indication ([0024] “The indication may be provided, for example, via a status light-emitting diode (LED) on charging device 100. Similarly, if the checksum cannot be verified, for example, because the new firmware is corrupted or invalid, a notification may be provided to the user via the status LED. Each of a successful and unsuccessful status may be associated with a predefined blinking pattern.”) Farhi teaches providing different predefined LED blinking patterns corresponding to different firmware update statuses which corresponds to the fourth LED indication being different from the first LED indication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dimino and Ryu with the teachings of Farhi to provide different LED indications for different update states, therefore allowing a user to readily distinguish a corrupted state from another installation state.
Regarding claim 17, Farhi teaches: wherein the plurality of LED indications further comprises a second LED indication configured to provide a third visual notice that the software has successfully installed, a third LED indication configured to provide a fourth visual notice that the software has unsuccessfully installed, and a fourth LED indication configured to provide a fifth visual notice that the software has unsuccessfully installed and corrupted the conducted electrical weapon ([0024] “The indication may be provided, for example, via a status light-emitting diode (LED) on charging device 100. Similarly, if the checksum cannot be verified, for example, because the new firmware is corrupted or invalid, a notification may be provided to the user via the status LED. Each of a successful and unsuccessful status may be associated with a predefined blinking pattern.”) Farhi teaches providing status LED indications corresponding to successful installation, unsuccessful firmware installation, and corrupted or invalid firmware, which corresponds to the claimed second, third, and fourth LED indications providing visual notice of the respective installation states.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dimino and Ryu with the teachings of Farhi to provide LED indications corresponding to different states, allowing a user to readily identify whether the software was successfully installed, unsuccessfully installed, or corrupted.
Regarding claim 18, Farhi teaches: wherein each of the first LED indication, the second LED indication, the third LED indication, and the fourth LED indication are different ([0024] “The indication may be provided, for example, via a status light-emitting diode (LED) on charging device 100. Similarly, if the checksum cannot be verified, for example, because the new firmware is corrupted or invalid, a notification may be provided to the user via the status LED. Each of a successful and unsuccessful status may be associated with a predefined blinking pattern.” [0026] “Various states of the firmware update process, for example, when the firmware update in progress or completed, may be shown using unique LED blinking patterns on a status LED.”) Farhi teaches providing unique LED blinking patterns corresponding to different update states which corresponds to providing different first, second, third, and fourth LED indications for the respective installation states.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dimino and Ryu in view of Farhi to provide different LED indications for different states, therefore allowing a user to readily distinguish between the respective states of the software installation.
Regarding claim 19, Dimino does not teach: wherein the first LED indication comprises a dynamic indication, and wherein the second LED indication, the third LED indication, and the fourth LED indication each comprise a static indication
However, Ryu teaches: wherein the first LED indication comprises a dynamic indication ([0365 - 0367] “According to an example embodiment, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on or turned off according to an operation mode of the display apparatus 100. For example, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on in the turn-on mode, and may be turned off in the turn-off mode. In the update mode, the light source of the power status display unit 900 may be turned on and off periodically.”) Ryu teaches periodically turning the light source on and off during the software update, which corresponds to the first LED indication compromising a dynamic indication.
Ryu further teaches: and wherein the second LED indication, the third LED indication, and the fourth LED indication each comprise a static indication ([0361- 0364] “As shown in FIG. 28, when the display apparatus 100 is performing a software update, the power status display unit 900 may display a second color (e.g. yellow) for indicating that the display apparatus 100 is in the update mode. For example, when the display apparatus 100 starts the software update in response to a user's turn-off request, a color that is emitted from the light source included in the power status display unit 900 is changed from the first color (e.g. green) to the second color (e.g. yellow). As shown in FIG. 29, when the software update is completed, the power status display unit 900 may display a third color (e.g. red) for indicating that the display apparatus 100 is in the turn-off mode. The first, second and third colors that are emitted from the light source of the power status display unit 900 can be changed. For example, the first, second and third colors may be white, red and black, respectively.”) Ryu further teaches displaying predetermined colors from the light source corresponding to different software update states which correspond to providing static LED indications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dimino and Farhi in view of Ryu to provide a dynamic LED indication during software installation and statis LED indications for the resulting software installation states, therefore allowing user to readily distinguish an ongoing installation from the resulting installation states.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimino et al. (US20170337513A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US20120099024A1) in view of Farhi et al. (US20150280471A1) and in further view of Balasingh et al. (US20200097658A1).
Regarding claim 14, Dimino does not teach: further comprising disabling, by the CEW and in response to the CEW being corrupted, an additional CEW component
However, Balasingh teaches: further comprising disabling, by the CEW and in response to the CEW being corrupted, an additional CEW component ([0023] “Any component that has compromised firmware is identified before the operation system is booted. Depending on the policy, the BIOS may automatically disable components having compromised or corrupted firmware or the BIOS may automatically download and install trusted firmware to recover components that have been identified as having compromised or corrupted firmware.”) Balasingh teaches disabling a component in response to determining that the firmware associated with the device is corrupted or compromised, which corresponds to disabling an additional component in response to the CEW being corrupted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the CEW taught by Dimino, in view of Ryu and Farhi, with the component-disabling teaching of Balasingh. Where upon determining that corrupted software has corrupted the CEW, an additional CEW component is disable, therefore preventing the corrupted software from causing improper operation of the CEW component.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimino et al. (US20170337513A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US20120099024A1) and in further view of Mata (US20200109926A1).
Regarding claim 16, Dimino does not teach: wherein the light module comprises a flashlight and a laser, and wherein disabling the light module further comprises disabling the flashlight and disabling the laser
However, Mata teaches: wherein the light module comprises a flashlight and a laser, and wherein disabling the light module further comprises disabling the flashlight and disabling the laser ([0015] “As a further example, and in accordance with various embodiments, the power supply may also provide power to a laser for aiming, a flashlight, a launch controller, a communication circuit, and/or a display.” [0037] “Accessories 260 may include one or more of a flashlight 262 and/or lasers 264.” [0071] “For example, in response to motion detector 270 not detecting movement of CEW 200 for a period of time, processing circuit 220 and/or power controller 250 removes power from flashlight 262, lasers 264, launch controller 242, signal generator 240, cartridge 280, cartridge 284, communication circuit 230, and/or display 218.”) Mata teaches a CEW compromising a flashlight and lasers and disabling the flashlight and lasers by removing power from them, which corresponds to the claimed light module compromising a flashlight and a laser and disabling both the flashlight and the laser.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the CEW of Dimino and Ryu in view of Mata to provide the light module with a flashlight and laser and to disable both components when disabling the light module, therefore ceasing their light output when the light module is disabled.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimino et al. (US20170337513A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US20120099024A1) and in further view of Smith et al. (US20210223004A1).
Regarding claim 20, Dimino does not teach: further comprising a body having a handle end opposite a deployment end, wherein the light module is positioned at the deployment end, and wherein the LED interface is positioned at the handle end
However, Smith teaches: further comprising a body having a handle end opposite a deployment end, wherein the light module is positioned at the deployment end, and wherein the LED interface is positioned at the handle end ([0026] “Housing 10 may be configured to house various components of CEW 1 that are configured to enable deployment of the deployment units 20, provide an electrical current to the deployment units 20, and otherwise aid in the operation of CEW 1, as discussed further herein. Although depicted as a firearm in FIG. 1, housing 10 may comprise any suitable shape and/or size. Housing 10 may comprise a handle end 12 opposite a deployment end 14.” [0062] “For example, visual output system 250 may be configured to emit the light from a deployment end of the CEW (e.g., deployment end 14, with brief reference to FIG. 1)” [0065] “As a further example, light emitting components of visual output system 250 may be configured to emit light in a sequence from top to bottom (or bottom to top) of a deployment end of the CEW, front to back (e.g., deployment end to handle end) (or back to front) of a CEW, or the like.”) Smith teaches a CEW body having a handle end opposite a deployment end and an LED system positioned to provide light from the deployment end which corresponds to the claimed body having oppositive handles and deployment ends and the light module being position at the ends as well.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dimino and Ryu in view of Smith to position the light emitting components from the deployment end to the handle end to provide visual output at different locations of the CEW.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20250077675A1 – Authentication of hardware component firmware
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tubba Noor whose telephone number is 571-270-0803. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/TUBBA NOOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
