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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the references do not disclose all claim elements. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument. The combination of references discloses all the claimed features (see the below rejections).
Applicant also argued that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case,
Using a gas discharge tube into a stunning device is well known in the art. In addition, a gas discharge tube can handle very large current so making it ideal for discharge a capacitor, a gas discharge tube also performs fast switching, allowing the capacitor to be discharge quickly to shock and disable an attacker, thus protecting a person from a dangerous situation. Therefore, this teaching provides a motivation to modify a shocking device with a gas discharge tube so that enhancing stunning performance.
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.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (USPN 2011/0013337) in view of Saliga (USPN 2008/0278882).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a stun apparatus (a stun apparatus, figure 2) comprising:
a shock box (such as a shock box 22 shown in figure 2, see par. 0077), wherein the shock box comprises:
a housing (a housing 13);
a positive terminal (such as a positive terminal 24 shown in figure 28); a negative terminal (a negative terminal 24, see figure 28); and wherein the shock box (22) is configured to cause current to flow to the negative terminal or a negative contact through a person's body (an attacker, see par. 0081); and an article (a clothing shirt), wherein the shock box (22) is attached to the article (see par. 0062), wherein the article is clothing apparel (the shielding box 22 is fit under a clothing such as a sleeve of a shirt, see par. 0062),
Brown does not explicitly disclose a gas discharge tube as claimed.
Saliga discloses a stunning device comprises a gas discharge tube (such as a gas discharge tube, see par 0006) comprising an input contact (electrodes of the gas discharge tube) electrically coupled to an energy supply device (such as a storage capacitor) and an output contact (an output of the gas discharge tube) electrically coupled to the positive terminal (a terminal of the transformer), wherein when a voltage at the input contact (the electrodes of the discharge tube 130) becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold voltage, an
electrical current arcs (when a breakdown voltage of the gas discharge tube exceeds, a spark voltage occurs within the gas discharge tube from the input contact to the output contact) and causes an energy pulse to be delivered to the positive terminal or to a positive contact via the positive terminal (0006).
It 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 to have modified the shocking box of Brown to incorporate a gas discharge tube as disclosed by Saliga in order to so deliver a higher voltage and current to a target. Thus, improving a stunning performance.
Regarding claim 2, Brown discloses wherein the energy supply device (e.g. a high voltage module 14) is housed within the shock box (22).
Regarding claim 4, Brown discloses wherein the stun shield further comprises a handle (such as a handle 4), and wherein the shock box (22) is electrically coupled to an activation switch (such as a disarm pin 6) that is located on the handle (4) via a conductor (conductors of the activation port 8 shown in figure 28, also see par. 0074).
Regarding claim 7, Brown discloses a receiver box (GPS box 80, see figure 21, par. 0012, 0122), wherein the receiver box is electrically coupled to the shock box (22) via a conductor (a wiring, see par. 0122).
Regarding claim 9, Brown discloses wherein the receiver box (such as GPS 80 inherently includes antenna and a transceiver, see par. 0120) houses an antenna and a transceiver whereby the receiver box communicates wirelessly with a remote-control transmitter (a central station, see par. 0115).
3. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (USPN 2022/0207635) in view of Saliga (USPN 2008/0278882).
Regarding claim 1, Hughes discloses a stun apparatus (a stun apparatus, figure ) comprising:
a shock box (such as a shock box 110 shown in figures 1a, b, 6B), wherein the shock box comprises:
a housing (a housing 152);
a positive terminal (such as a positive terminal 130 of a detainee interface 155 shown in figure 6b);
a negative terminal (a negative terminal 130, see figure 6b); and
a spark gap device (a spark gap 621 of a shocking device 125 shown in figure 6b) comprising an input contact (an input electrode of the spark gap 621) electrically coupled to an energy supply device (such as an energy supply device includes a battery 200, in figures 1a, 6b, and 705 in figure 7a), an output contact (an output electrode of the spark gap 621) coupled to the positive electrode (130) (see figure 6b),
wherein when a voltage at the input contact becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold voltage, an electrical current arcs within the gas (such as a gas of the spark gap 621) from the input contact to the output contact and causes an energy pulse to be delivered to the positive terminal or to a positive contact via the positive terminal (e.g. when the potential difference between the electrodes of the spark gap 621 exceeds the breakdown voltage of the gas within the spark gap 621, a spark voltage is formed, and electrical shock pulse delivered to a detainee, e.g. see par. 0077-0078),
wherein the shock box (110) is configured to cause current to flow to the negative terminal or a negative contact through a person's body (a detainee); and an article (a stunning device 100), wherein the shock box is attached to the article (a clothing) (also see par. 0077) (the shocking box 110 attached to clothing in a belt, see par. 0056), wherein the article is clothing apparel.
Hughes does not explicitly disclose a gas discharge tube as claimed.
Saliga discloses a stunning device comprises a gas discharge tube (such as see par 0006) comprising an input contact and an output contact (electrodes of the gas discharge tube), wherein when a voltage of the electrodes of the discharge tube exceeds its breakdown, and causes an energy pulse to be outputted (see par. 0006).
It 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 to have modified the shocking box of Hughes to incorporate a gas discharge tube as disclosed by Saliga in order to so deliver a higher voltage and current to a target. Thus, improving a stunning performance.
Regarding claim 2, Hughes discloses wherein the energy supply device (e.g. a high voltage module 200) is housed within the shock box (152).
Regarding claim 4, Brown discloses wherein the stun shield further comprises a handle (such as a tool 135, see figures 1b, 4b), and wherein the shock box (110) is electrically coupled to an activation switch (such as a 605) that is located on the handle (135) via a conductor (conductors of the activation switch 605, shown in figure 6b, also see par. 0067).
Regarding claim 7, Hughes discloses a receiver box (170, see figures 4b, 7a), wherein the receiver box (170) is electrically coupled to the shock box (110) via a conductor (a wiring, see par. 0092, 0069).
Regarding claim 8, Hughes discloses wherein the energy supply device (705) is housed within the receiver box (170) (see par. 0073).
Regarding claim 9, Hughes wherein the receiver box (170) houses an antenna (720) and a transceiver (see par. 0095) whereby the receiver box (170) communicates wirelessly with a remote-control transmitter (a control system 160, see par. 0082).
Regarding claim 10, Hughes discloses wherein the remote-control transmitter (160) comprises: a transceiver that receives from (the activation signal from the controller 170) and transmits to the receiver box (a data transmitted to the controller 170) via the antenna (720) and transceiver of the receiver box to transfer operational codes, pairing codes, or activation commands (an activation signal) therebetween; and an activation button (by activating a switch 605 to an active mode, see par. 0084), wherein upon depression of the activation button, a signal (such as an active mode signal) is sent to the receiver box (170).
Regarding claim 11, Hughes discloses wherein the remote-control transmitter (160) is paired with the receiver box (170) such that the wireless communication occurs between the remote-control transmitter and the receiver box (e.g. the controller 160 is paired with the controller 170 so that when the detainee device 110 exceeds a preset distance, an activation signal sent from the controller 170 to the controller 160 to deliver a shock pulse to the detainee, e.g see par. 0050).
Regarding claim 15, Hughes discloses wherein the article is clothing apparel selected from a belt, a vest, or a jumpsuit (see par. 0009, 0056).
4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes (USPN 2022/0207635) in view of Saliga (USPN 2008/0278882), and further in view of Poplawski (USPN 2020/0232768).
Regarding claim 14, Hughes and Saliga disclose a remote-control transmitter requires some frequency to transmit signal, but does not a frequency as claimed.
However, using a frequency of 900 MHz for wirelessly communication is known in the art. Poplawski discloses a non lethal device comprises a wireless communication configured to use a frequency of 900 MHz for data transmission (see par. 0117).
It 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 to have modified a frequency of the remote control transmitter to incorporate a frequency of 900 MHz as disclosed by Poplawski in order to reduce an interference and ensure stable communication.
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (USPN 2011/0013337) in view of Saliga (USPN 2008/0278882) and further in view of Shemwell et al (USPN 2009/0284957).
Regarding claim 3, Brown and Saliga disclose wherein the article (the stunning shield) is a stun shield, but do not disclose the stun shield as claimed.
Shemwell discloses a stunning shield device (see figure 4a), wherein the stunning shield is made of a transparent material (see par. 0032).
It 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 to have modified the material of stun shield of Brown and Saliga incorporate a transparent material as disclosed by Shemwell in order to
allow a clear communication and offer a balance of safety, comfort, and functionality.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 12-13, 16-20 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.
7. Claims 6, 21 are allowed over prior art of record.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach:
A stun shield comprising: the shock box is attached to the stun shield, and wherein the stun shield comprises conductive strips, wherein a first set of strips form a positive current path, and wherein a second set of strips form a negative current path as recited in claim 21.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2054. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-271-1838. 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.
/DANNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights