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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 16, “combination of two sensor” should be “combination of two acoustic sensors”
In Claim 2, lines 2-3, “the hit and miss” should be “the hits and misses”
In Claim 5, “at least six sensors” should be “at least six acoustic sensors”
In Claim 6, “eight sensors” should be “eight acoustic sensors” and “two sensors” should be “two acoustic sensors”
In Claim 7, “two sensors” should be “two acoustic sensors” and “the sensors” should be “the acoustic sensors”
In Claim 8, “two sensors” should be “two acoustic sensors” and “the sensors” should be “the acoustic sensors”
In Claim 9, “the sensors” should be “the acoustic sensors”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 “large” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” 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.
Claims 2-9 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the supersonic bullet" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, in Claim 1, the limitation “for locating shots from supersonic bullets” is intended use and not positively recited. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as “a supersonic bullet”. Examiner suggest amending the claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis issues.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the position of the shooter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as “a position of a shooter”. Examiner suggest amending the claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis issues.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the impact angle in the x-direction" in line 3, and “the impact angle in the y-direction” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as "an impact angle in an x-direction" and “an impact angle in a y-direction”, respectively. Examiner suggest amending the claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis issues. Alternatively, amending the claim to depend from Claim 2, instead of claim 1 would also cure the antecedent basis issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record fails to fairly teach or suggest when considered alone, or in combination, a three-dimensional location of miss and hit, LOMAH, system comprising a target platform in which a processor and a memory are provided and a sensor array is provided on the upper surface of the target platform, the sensor array comprising at least four acoustic sensors arranged in two rows, wherein the memory comprises instructions which when executed by the processor causes the three-dimensional LOMAH system to:
- detect, with the acoustic sensors, shot information about a shot generated by a shooter and passing proximate the target platform,
- register the time of detection for each acoustic sensor,
- create a set of time vectors for every combination of two acoustic sensors based on the registered time of detection,
- input the set of time vectors into a target calculation module trained using a Machine Learning, ML, model that has been subjected to training data by using randomized input data, which target calculation model is configured to create the set of time vectors for every combination of two acoustic sensors and correlate to actual hits and misses of the shots in the training data based on the randomized input data, which target calculation module is configurable, with use of a set of training data comprising a starting point, a velocity, an impact angle and hit coordinates of the supersonic bullets, to
- calculate a bullet impact and trajectory based on the input set of time vectors, and
- output the bullet impact and trajectory on a display connected to the LOMAH system.
Notably, it appears CN 211717284 to Fang et al. appears to be the closest prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 1, Fang teaches:
A three-dimensional location of miss and hit, LOMAH, system comprising a target platform(4; Fig 1) in which a processor(5) and a memory(inherent feature of 5 and/or FPGA unit; P[0022], P[0023]) are provided and a sensor array(1 – eight sensors; Fig 1; P[0025]) is provided on the upper surface of the target platform(Fig 1), the sensor array comprising at least four acoustic sensors arranged in two rows(Fig 1-2; eight sensors arranged in at least two rows; P[0021])), wherein the memory comprises instructions which when executed by the processor causes the three-dimensional LOMAH system to:
- detect, with the acoustic sensors, shot information about a shot generated by a shooter and passing proximate the target platform(P[0028]),
- register the time of detection for each acoustic sensor(P[0028]),
- create a set of time vectors for every combination of two acoustic sensors based on the registered time of detection(P[0028]), and
- calculate a bullet impact and trajectory based on the input set of time vectors(P[0028]); however,
Fang fails to teach:
- input the set of time vectors into a target calculation module trained using a Machine Learning, ML, model that has been subjected to training data by using randomized input data, which target calculation model is configured to create the set of time vectors for every combination of two acoustic sensors and correlate to actual hits and misses of the shots in the training data based on the randomized input data, which target calculation module is configurable, with use of a set of training data comprising a starting point, a velocity, an impact angle and hit coordinates of the supersonic bullets, to
- calculate a bullet impact and trajectory based on the input set of time vectors, and
- output the bullet impact and trajectory on a display connected to the LOMAH system.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have arrived at the claimed invention without the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 5920522 A
Levanon; Nadav
US 9429397 B1
Hill; Kevin W.
US 4350881 A
Knight; Lindsay C. et al.
US 20230019154 A1
Guinn; Colin
SE 518156 C2
BARG RANDOLF et al.
WO 2024015238 A1
GUINN COLIN et al.
CN 211717284 U
LI, RUI et al.
WO 2019032073 A2
OZUGUR OZGUR et al.
CH 643940 A5
FISCHER ERICH
EP 2051095 A1
MULLEN RICHARD et al.
CN 120659964 A
MARTIN, FRANCISCO
The above references are cited for teaching similar LOMAH systems for locating projectiles in a target platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights