DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 APR 26 have been fully considered but they are not completely persuasive.
With respect to amending claims 1 and 10 to recite “a single external motorized attachment,” the claim relies on the transitional phrase/term “comprising,” which is inclusive or open-ended, i.e., does not exclude additional materials, elements, features, etc. That means that the claim or claims dependent thereon can have or recite additional elements not recited in claims 1 and 10 and further means that when the prior art discloses additional elements not recited in claims 1 and 10, it is still anticipatory thereof. That there is more is irrelevant.
With respect to US 2022/0205762 to Ehrlich et al. (“Ehrlich”) failing to disclose: a rear-mounted CNC Cartesian XYZ gantry; a gripper attached to the buttstock; a front spherical support with rear-only actuation; and, a foldable XYZ gantry transforming into a stock, the following. Initially, none of these features is recited in claim 1 and, thus, none are required thereof. Second, Applicant has amended claim 2 to remove the only instance of the term “gripper” and, thus, this feature is not required at all. Third, the sole recitation of the term “spherical” is found in claim 6 and recites thusly, “and spherical or universal joints…”, thus spherical joints are not required because of the alternative universal joints. Furthermore, there are no relevant recitations in any of the claims regarding “front,” “support,” “spherical,” “rear,” “only,” “rear-only,” and “actuation,” in any relevant combination, if recited at all. Lastly, as noted in the previous office action, claim 4 was indicated allowable, while claim 13 was rejected because the language allowed for broader yet still reasonable interpretation. It is asserted that Ehrlich still meets currently amended 13 because, whether Ehrlich intends to use the external motorized attachment as previously set forth as a rifle’s stock, such, being connected thereto and capable of being folded, “form[s] part of the rifle’s stock.” Whether the purpose is “for transport when not in use” is irrelevant as such is merely an intended of the attachment. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). MPEP § 2114(II). Here, Ehrlich fairly anticipates the structural limitations.
Any objections/rejections not maintained herein have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because “Wherein” in line 3 should not be capitalized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the rifle’s line of sight" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 5, 8-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehrlich.
Re: claim 1, Ehrlich discloses the claimed invention including a personal rifle robotic station 10, e.g., Figs. 1-2, for upgrading a standard personal rifle W comprising: a single external motorized attachment 140 (that there is another is irrelevant; see above) configured to be mounted onto a rear portion of the rifle at a buttstock (shown); a stationary front support 130, e.g., Fig. 3A, configured to stabilize a front portion of the rifle while permitting angular movement of the rifle about the front support; the external motorized attachment being configured to mechanically engage the buttstock and adjust a line of sight of the rifle by controlled movement of the rear portion of the rifle while the front portion remains supported by the stationary front support (leg 130 remains stationary while actuators 140 move the weapon; see, e.g., ¶¶ [0071], [0076]); and a control system 200 operatively coupled to the external motorized attachment and configured to enable remote operation of the rifle for precise aiming and targeting, ¶ [0057]. Note that Ehrlich discloses that “the linear actuators [140] are screw actuators operated by small electric motors,” ¶ [0072].
Re: claim 5, Ehrlich further discloses wherein the control system includes: a camera-based rifle scope 300, e.g., Fig. 1, configured to capture an image corresponding to the rifle's line of sight (via imaging sensor 324); and a computer interface 330, 370, 152 configured to process image data from the camera-based rifle scope and generate control commands for the external motorized attachment (via 140).
Re: claim 8, Ehrlich further discloses wherein the control system is configured to allow a single operator to remotely manage multiple rifle systems simultaneously. This is asserted in view of the disclosure of Ehrlich of a remote controller 200 including a processing system 230, e.g., Fig. 1, ¶ [0057], coupled with Applicant’s scant disclosure regarding such, “the control system is configured to allow a single operator to remotely manage multiple rifle systems simultaneously,” Applicant’s numbered page 5, ll. 2-3. Nowhere does Applicant disclose any more than Ehrlich regarding the controller. See also Slave and Master Modes, ¶¶ [0035]-[0047]. Thus, Ehrlich fairly anticipates.
Re: claim 9, Ehrlich further discloses wherein the control system is configured to peform target acquisition and tracking based on image data from the camera-based rifle scope, e.g., ¶ [0036].
Re: claim 10, in view of the structure disclosed by Ehrlich the method of enhancing a standard personal rifle with robotic capabilities would be inherent, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device is used.
Re: claim 13, Ehrlich further discloses wherein the external motorized attachment is folded, e.g., Figs. 6A-C, to form part of the rifle’s stock for transport when not in use. See above.
Re: claim 14, in view of the structure disclosed by Ehrlich, the method of enhancing would have been inherent, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device is used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlich in view of UA 154145 to Poritsky (presumably, see Title of machine translation).
Re: claim 3, Ehrlich discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for a hexapod mechanism configured to adjust the rifle's line of sight, wherein the hexapod provides six degrees of freedom for precise positioning and orientation.
Poritsky teaches a hexapod mechanism, Title, Abstract, e.g., Fig. 1, configured to adjust a rifle’s line of sight (see detailed description after the drawing description), wherein the hexapod provides six degrees of freedom for precise positioning and orientation. Regarding this last clause, Poritsky fairly discloses six supports 3 and a mobile platform 2 connected thereto and “movement along and around three mutually perpendicular axes,” 6th paragraph below Description heading. Thus, whether Poritsky expressly articulates six degrees of freedom, such is inherent in the structure disclosed, i.e., otherwise identical to Applicant’s hexapod construction(s).
Poritsky teaches such in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of “creating a turret [wherein] movement along and around three mutually perpendicular axes is ensured and the risk of vulnerability is minimized,” id.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ehrlich as taught by Poritsky in order to ensure such movement and minimize vulnerability with a reasonable expectation of success because Poritsky further discloses “reduc[ing] the size and weight of the turret,” id.
Further rationale: All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Re: claim 6, Poritsky further discloses wherein the hexapod mechanism comprises: a base platform 7 anchored to a stable surface (shown, see also, e.g., Figs. 2-3); a movable platform 2 supporting the rifle (shown), wherein the movable platform is connected to the base platform by six linear actuators 3 (Abstract, 7th and 8th paragraphs below Description heading); and spherical or universal joints 9 connecting the linear actuators to the base and movable platforms, allowing the rifle to be aimed in various directions.
Re: claim 12, in view of the structure disclosed by Ehrlich in view of Poritsky, the method of enhancing a rifle would have been obvious, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device is used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
See previous action for reasons therefore.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern.
The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874.
/Bret Hayes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
16-Sep-26
