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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on January 23, 2025 and May 5, 2025 have been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Drawings
Regarding FIGS. 1-6, 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1), stated in part, normally requires black and white drawings. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. In the present case, FIGS. 1-6 have very faint lines. Therefore, the failure to use solid black lines renders FIGS. 1-6 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanley (US 2021/0148675).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Stanley discloses a shooting training apparatus (see para. [0002] The present invention relates to human performance testing, training and evaluation (TT&E) of “Emotional Control” in real time at the time of firearm shooting events. Particularly, to systems and methods for stress resiliency TT&E involving visual and cognitive reactions, for example, rapid object sighting, tracking, recognition, and reaction skills required for firearms employment) comprising:
a screen (see FIG. 5; see para. [0121] An illustrative embodiment of the system 100 for TORA conditioning is the TORA system 300 shown in FIG. 5. In system 300, the displays 112 and 114 typical of system 100 include one or more projectors (not shown) and projection screens 302-308. For example, PT-5600 UL projectors with ET DLE 50 short throw lenses available from Panasonic, Secaucus, N.J. can be used to project environmental images 320 and targets 322 against a surface, for example, prepared, flat, interlocking screens or walls measuring approximately 10 feet by 10 feet. Typically, a projector would be associated with each of the screens 302-308. However, non-flat surfaces, varied dimensions, rear projection, and other techniques and/or additional and/or alternative display features known in the art may be utilized. In one illustrative embodiment, AR or VR headset are used for target and/or environmental scenes in additional to or in place of displays 112 and 114 and projection screens 302-308.)
configured to display a virtual range (see FIG. 5; see para. [0122] An interior area 326 within which the trainee 22 may move and employ the firearm 124 is generally defined by the perimeter of the screens 302-308. For example, the trainee 22 is circumscribed by screens 302-308 by at least about 220 degrees; however, the system 300 may provide screens that are aligned to form a flat place, a lower angular view, or may circumscribe the trainee by a full 360 degrees. Additionally, display of environmental scenes 320 and targets 322 may extend above normal ceiling heights and below the normal floor plan, for example, extended by an additional 10 foot in the vertical above or below one or more of the screens 302-308 by associating additional screens (not shown) with the system 300. Such vertical extensions can also be angular, circumscribing the trainee 24, or arranged in a flat plane. The area 326 may also include environmental objects, for example obstacles 328 and one or more treadmills 134 (FIG. 3); and
a footing surface configured to dynamically reorient during a shooting session, wherein the footing surface dynamically reorients independent of what is displayed in the virtual range
(see para. [0069]…The system 100 may also optionally include a treadmill 134 to simulate foot travel for trainee 22
See [0103] Optionally, the trainee 22 can walk on a treadmill 134 (FIG. 3) in front of the displays 112 and 114 in order to condition sighting and tracking during “smooth pursuit”. Additionally or alternatively, the speeds of subsequent targets during a K-SET session can be set to increasing and decreasing speeds. For example, ten target velocities (ranging from 10 to 100 deg/s in 10 deg/s increments) presented in random order with each target velocity being repeated 20 times.
See para. [0120] The illustrative scenarios were developed to locate and otherwise present the targets in a way that conditions heighten vision, physical reaction, economy of motion, and mental acceptance of elevated target rigor against single and multiple target engagements. In the TORA phase trainees engage hundreds of targets, often from unfamiliar, uncomfortable and challenging angles. Trainings escalate in difficulty with no ceilings. As trainees excel in one sequence, target rigor increases, for example, speeds will increase and target size will decrease, arm weights, hand weights, wobble boards, treadmills, and stimuli are added to create an even faster more focused trainee 22).
Regarding claim 2, Stanley discloses further comprising a projector configured to project the virtual range onto the screen (see FIG. 5; see para. [0121] An illustrative embodiment of the system 100 for TORA conditioning is the TORA system 300 shown in FIG. 5. In system 300, the displays 112 and 114 typical of system 100 include one or more projectors (not shown) and projection screens 302-308. For example, PT-5600 UL projectors with ET DLE 50 short throw lenses available from Panasonic, Secaucus, N.J. can be used to project environmental images 320 and targets 322 against a surface, for example, prepared, flat, interlocking screens or walls measuring approximately 10 feet by 10 feet. Typically, a projector would be associated with each of the screens 302-308. However, non-flat surfaces, varied dimensions, rear projection, and other techniques and/or additional and/or alternative display features known in the art may be utilized. In one illustrative embodiment, AR or VR headset are used for target and/or environmental scenes in additional to or in place of displays 112 and 114 and projection screens 302-308.).
Regarding claim 3, and substantially similar limitations in claim 4, Stanley discloses further comprising a detector configured to detect laser strikes from a weapon used by a shooter using the training apparatus (see para. [0068] The system 100 may also optionally include a firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull (firing) and aim of a firearm 120 used by the trainee 22. Firearm 120 can be a simulated firearm, or an actual firearm modified for non-lethal training use, for example, by replacing the bolt and magazine with a transmitter 126, for example a laser emitter, and a gas discharge device 128 for providing action of the firearm mechanism and simulated acoustics and recoil of firing. The aspect of firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull may optionally be an acoustic detector for detecting activation of the gas discharge device 128. The aspect of the firearm sensor 122 for detecting the aim of the firearm 120 optionally may be a laser detector locating the illumination of the laser emitter on the displays 112, 114, or may be solid state accelerometers or other orientation firearm barrel spatial orientation sensing systems associated with the firearm, either of which are enabled to detect firearm air and optionally other firearm handling characteristics relative to targets presenting on displays 112, 114.
See para. [0123] Firearm 124 can be a standard firearm, for example semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or other combat arms, weapons, or tools, reversibly modified to remove live firing and add a transmitter 126, for example a laser emitter, and optionally a gas system 128 for simulating mechanical action, recoil, and acoustics associated with live fire. For example, transmitters 126 and gas systems 128 available for reversibly modify firearms 124 from Dvorak Instruments of Tulsa, Okla.
See para. [0124] The firearm sensor 122 for detecting and locating the laser shot fired by firearms 124 on screens 302-308 may be one or more area scan cameras directed at the screens 302-308, for example, model number A602 available from Basler Vision Technologies of Exton, Pa., used with a visible light filter lens to remove environmental or background images and isolate the laser light projected by firearm transmitter 126. Processing and analysis of the targets 322 and measurement and performance relating to shots against them using the firearm 124 may be facilitated by the software 108 identifying and utilizing subdivisions within each screen 302-306. For example, software 108 can divide each screen 302-308 into four equal quadrants (not shown) to facility mapping, measuring, and analyzing target sequences and performance. For example, the relative displacement of sequential or simultaneous targets from one to another adjacent or non-adjacent quadrant may be used to determine a measure of difficulty associated with successfully engaging both targets.
See para. [0126] Targets displayed with the environmental scene images may be digitally added and projected by the above described projectors (not shown) of displays 112 and 114, or may be separately displayed on screens 302-308, for example, using one or more separate motorized projectors (not shown). Advantageously, comparison of location and expanse of targets 322 on screens 302-308 and the projection location on screens 302-308 of the laser fired by firearm 124 (as captured by sensor 122) is used to determine the time to react and engage and the accuracy of shot, including a hit or miss).
Regarding claim 5, and substantially similar limitations in claim 9, Stanley discloses further comprising a computing processor configured to model at least one of range or weapon characteristics (see para. [0065] FIG. 3 shows another embodiment of a system 100 for testing, training, and evaluating trainees 22. The system 100 generally includes a computer or network of computers 102 having one or more processors 104, data 106, and software 108, one to N displays 112 and 114, physiological sensors 115 including sensor data indicative of emotional stress and emotional stress resilience, and a data device 116, such as a wearable computer with a data processor, coupled with and collecting data, including trainee stress level data, from the physiological sensor, and a wireless transceiver 118 for wirelessly communicating the data to a wireless transceiver 113 coupled with the computer 102. Physiological sensors 113 may including, for example, cardiac sensors, EEG, ECG, functional MRI, biochemical sensors such as hormone sensors, skin temperature, skin conductance response, respiratory rate and variability monitors, ocular sensors for determine eye gaze, tracking, and other eye movement and eye characteristics of the trainee 22, facial expression characteristic recognition sensors, and other sensors and data analysis known in the art that are useful for measuring a current stress level of trainee 22. For example, facial expressions of the trainee 22 may be captured by imaging sensors and processed by an artificial neural network (ANN) configured and trained as is known in the art to determine a level and/or type of emotion, including determinations indicative of stress level of the trainee. Advantageously, sensor 115 data may be logged and timestamped by the data device 116 so that it may be correlated by data device 116 or processor 104 with drill events, including for example, presentation of stimuli and trainee firearm employment, including shots taken.
See para. [0127] In the illustrative embodiment 300 of system 100, computer 102 may include multiple networked computers (not shown) to manage the components and processing of the system. Additionally, or alternatively, a WAN (not shown) such as the internet may be used to provide remote processing power or service of the data 106 and software 108. The data 106 includes an environment database 150 for projecting images 320, for example stills, video, or graphically rendered images of background scenes. The data 106 also includes a stimuli or target database 152 for projecting targets 320, for example stills, video, or graphically rendered images of threat and non-threat people, vehicles, and the like. The software 108 executed by the processor 104 includes control software 160 for displaying scenes 320 and targets 322 and for providing the training scenario, such as method 400 implementing the below described scenario drills. The software 108 also includes measurement software 162 to facility capture and processing of data, for example, from sensors 116, 120, and 122. The software 108 also includes analysis software 164, for example, for analyzing captured scenario and performance data and producing reporting 132, for example, the illustrative TORA Performance Report shown in FIGS. 9 and 28. Additional reporting may include, for example, a listing of trainee ID, scenario ID, firearm ID, timestamps, targets presented, targets hit, “rounds” expended, targets not engaged, elapsed time, and other scenario and performance data and analysis, including for example aggregate, average, and improvement in performance data, including translating data collected by system 100 in order to provide the types of data, units, and reference for reporting forms generally utilized in traditional/prior art firearms training, for example, as shown in FIGS. 29 and 30, and including standard shooter cards such as that shown in FIG. 31, including calculation of ratings for a trainee. The software 108 may include adapted commercially available software, for example MATLAB for various functions of measure software 162 and Microsoft Excel for various functions of analysis software 164).
Regarding claim 7, Stanley discloses wherein the computing processor is configured to determine what targets bullets from a live-fire weapon would have struck (see para. [0126] Targets displayed with the environmental scene images may be digitally added and projected by the above described projectors (not shown) of displays 112 and 114, or may be separately displayed on screens 302-308, for example, using one or more separate motorized projectors (not shown). Advantageously, comparison of location and expanse of targets 322 on screens 302-308 and the projection location on screens 302-308 of the laser fired by firearm 124 (as captured by sensor 122) is used to determine the time to react and engage and the accuracy of shot, including a hit or miss.
See para. [0142] For the open interval target mode, targets 322 appear in predetermined locations on screens 302-308 and remain displayed until successfully fired upon. After being successfully hit, the subsequent target 322 appears and remains visible until successfully fired upon.).
Regarding claim 13, Stanley discloses further comprising a weapon, the weapon being configured to emit a plurality of laser pulses per primer strike (See para. [0123] Firearm 124 can be a standard firearm, for example semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or other combat arms, weapons, or tools, reversibly modified to remove live firing and add a transmitter 126, for example a laser emitter, and optionally a gas system 128 for simulating mechanical action, recoil, and acoustics associated with live fire. For example, transmitters 126 and gas systems 128 available for reversibly modify firearms 124 from Dvorak Instruments of Tulsa, Okla).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley (US 2021/0148675).
Regarding claim 6, Stanley discloses a computing processor (see para. [0065] FIG. 3 shows another embodiment of a system 100 for testing, training, and evaluating trainees 22. The system 100 generally includes a computer or network of computers 102 having one or more processors 104, data 106, and software 108, one to N displays 112 and 114, physiological sensors 115 including sensor data indicative of emotional stress and emotional stress resilience, and a data device 116, such as a wearable computer with a data processor, coupled with and collecting data, including trainee stress level data, from the physiological sensor, and a wireless transceiver 118 for wirelessly communicating the data to a wireless transceiver 113 coupled with the computer 102).
Stanley fails to explicitly disclose is configured to model long-distance rifle shots by introducing delay and bullet drop. However, the Applicant’s configuration to model long-distance rifle shots by introducing delay and bullet drop is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that a configuration to model long-distance rifle shots by introducing delay and bullet drop solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any configuration using the device of Stanley or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Stanley to obtain the device as specified in claim 6, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Stanley.
Regarding claim 10, Stanley discloses a detector configured to detect laser strikes from a weapon used by a shooter using the training apparatus (see para. [0068] The system 100 may also optionally include a firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull (firing) and aim of a firearm 120 used by the trainee 22. Firearm 120 can be a simulated firearm, or an actual firearm modified for non-lethal training use, for example, by replacing the bolt and magazine with a transmitter 126, for example a laser emitter, and a gas discharge device 128 for providing action of the firearm mechanism and simulated acoustics and recoil of firing. The aspect of firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull may optionally be an acoustic detector for detecting activation of the gas discharge device 128. The aspect of the firearm sensor 122 for detecting the aim of the firearm 120 optionally may be a laser detector locating the illumination of the laser emitter on the displays 112, 114, or may be solid state accelerometers or other orientation firearm barrel spatial orientation sensing systems associated with the firearm, either of which are enabled to detect firearm air and optionally other firearm handling characteristics relative to targets presenting on displays 112, 114).
Stanley fails to explicitly disclose the detector having a resolution of at least 1/16th of an inch or smaller when a shooter shoots 10 feet from the virtual range. However, the Applicant’s detector having a resolution of at least 1/16th of an inch or smaller when a shooter shoots 10 feet from the virtual range is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that having a resolution of at least 1/16th of an inch or smaller when a shooter shoots 10 feet from the virtual range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any resolution using the device of Stanley or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Stanley to obtain the device as specified in claim 10, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Stanley.
Regarding claim 11, Stanley discloses a detector configured to detect laser strikes from a weapon used by a shooter using the training apparatus (see para. [0068] The system 100 may also optionally include a firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull (firing) and aim of a firearm 120 used by the trainee 22. Firearm 120 can be a simulated firearm, or an actual firearm modified for non-lethal training use, for example, by replacing the bolt and magazine with a transmitter 126, for example a laser emitter, and a gas discharge device 128 for providing action of the firearm mechanism and simulated acoustics and recoil of firing. The aspect of firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull may optionally be an acoustic detector for detecting activation of the gas discharge device 128. The aspect of the firearm sensor 122 for detecting the aim of the firearm 120 optionally may be a laser detector locating the illumination of the laser emitter on the displays 112, 114, or may be solid state accelerometers or other orientation firearm barrel spatial orientation sensing systems associated with the firearm, either of which are enabled to detect firearm air and optionally other firearm handling characteristics relative to targets presenting on displays 112, 114).
Stanley fails to explicitly disclose the detector having a resolution of at least 1/32"d of an inch or smaller when a shooter shoots 10 feet from the virtual range. However, the Applicant’s detector having a resolution of at least 1/32"d of an inch or smaller when a shooter shoots 10 feet from the virtual range is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that having a resolution of at least 1/32"d of an inch or smaller when a shooter shoots 10 feet from the virtual range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any resolution using the device of Stanley or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Stanley to obtain the device as specified in claim 11, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Stanley.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley in view of Bayerlein, et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Bayerlein” US 2020/0332990).
Regarding claim 12, Stanley does not explicitly disclose further comprising a prompt array coupled to the footing surface, the prompt array configured to direct a shooter's movements on the footing surface. However, Bayerlein teaches further comprising a prompt array coupled to the footing surface, the prompt array configured to direct a shooter's movements on the footing surface (see para. [0046] For example, in some embodiments, the metered light sources 214 are used to provide the user with information relating to a positioning of the user on the running belt 104 of the treadmill 100. For example, if the user is continuously running on the left side of the belt, the metered light sources may illuminate on the right side to indicate that the user should move slightly right on the treadmill 100. As another example, a light source on a right side of the metered light sources 214 may illuminate when the user is running to a right of a center line of the running belt 104.)
Bayerlein is analogous to Stanley, as both are drawn to the art of training. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system as taught by Stanley, to include further comprising a prompt array coupled to the footing surface, the prompt array configured to direct a shooter's movements on the footing surface as taught by Bayerlein, since the modification would provide a user a greater variety of ways to train and understand their usage (see para. [0055]: These cues/indicators help the user understand their running, walking, or generally usage characteristics of the treadmill 100.)
Claims 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley in view of Carmein (US Patent 6,152,854).
Regarding claim 14, Stanley does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the footing surface comprises a reorientable treadmill that can reorient along at least two center line axis of the portion of the footing surface. However, Carmein teaches wherein at least a portion of the footing surface comprises a reorientable treadmill that can reorient along at least two center line axis of the portion of the footing surface (see col. 1, line 60 through col. 2, line 10: The invention is an omni-directional treadmill apparatus that allows a user, such as a person, to move, walk, run or crawl in any arbitrary direction. The apparatus has a frame for supporting the apparatus on a fixed surface. A track assembly mounted on the frame provides a user support that moves in a direction determined by directional orientation of the user on the track assembly. The track assembly has a user support movable in first direction by a first drive motor. The user support includes user support members rotatable about axes generally normal to the direction of movement of the support. A second drive, such as a power driven endless belt, engages the user support members to rotate the user support members whereby the combined movement of the user support members and user supports results in omni-directional user movement. Controls responsive to the directional orientation of the user on the user support drives which in turn controls the directional user movement to conform with the orientation of the user on the user support.
see col. 3, lines 19-25: Integral to the ODT is a closed-loop motor control mechanism 4 and a user position-sensing device 5, 6 which pinpoints the position of the user with respect to the fixed axes of the treadmill's active surface. These two work in concert with X axis control motor 7 and Y axis control motor 8 to ensure proper positioning of the user on the active surface, which is fixedly attached at selected points to a rigid base 9.).
Carmein is analogous to Stanley, as both are drawn to the art of training. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the system as taught by Stanley, to include wherein at least a portion of the footing surface comprises a reorientable treadmill that can reorient along at least two center line axis of the portion of the footing surface as taught by Carmein, since the modification would provide a user a greater variety of ways to train (see col. 1, lines 7-12: The invention is in the field of human rehabilitation, simulation, training, exercise equipment, and generally methods that permit the user of the equipment to walk, run or crawl in any arbitrary direction and employing haptic sensing to increase a user's level of immersion in the simulated environment.).
Regarding claim 16, Stanley discloses further comprising displaying a virtual range downrange from the footing surface (see FIG. 5; see para. [0121] An illustrative embodiment of the system 100 for TORA conditioning is the TORA system 300 shown in FIG. 5. In system 300, the displays 112 and 114 typical of system 100 include one or more projectors (not shown) and projection screens 302-308. For example, PT-5600 UL projectors with ET DLE 50 short throw lenses available from Panasonic, Secaucus, N.J. can be used to project environmental images 320 and targets 322 against a surface, for example, prepared, flat, interlocking screens or walls measuring approximately 10 feet by 10 feet. Typically, a projector would be associated with each of the screens 302-308. However, non-flat surfaces, varied dimensions, rear projection, and other techniques and/or additional and/or alternative display features known in the art may be utilized. In one illustrative embodiment, AR or VR headset are used for target and/or environmental scenes in additional to or in place of displays 112 and 114 and projection screens 302-308.).
Regarding claim 17, and substantially similar limitations in claim 20, Stanley discloses further comprising detecting laser strikes from a weapon fired by a shooter (see para. [0068] The system 100 may also optionally include a firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull (firing) and aim of a firearm 120 used by the trainee 22. Firearm 120 can be a simulated firearm, or an actual firearm modified for non-lethal training use, for example, by replacing the bolt and magazine with a transmitter 126, for example a laser emitter, and a gas discharge device 128 for providing action of the firearm mechanism and simulated acoustics and recoil of firing. The aspect of firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull may optionally be an acoustic detector for detecting activation of the gas discharge device 128. The aspect of the firearm sensor 122 for detecting the aim of the firearm 120 optionally may be a laser detector locating the illumination of the laser emitter on the displays 112, 114, or may be solid state accelerometers or other orientation firearm barrel spatial orientation sensing systems associated with the firearm, either of which are enabled to detect firearm air and optionally other firearm handling characteristics relative to targets presenting on displays 112, 114.
See para. [0123] Firearm 124 can be a standard firearm, for example semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or other combat arms, weapons, or tools, reversibly modified to remove live firing and add a transmitter 126, for example a laser emitter, and optionally a gas system 128 for simulating mechanical action, recoil, and acoustics associated with live fire. For example, transmitters 126 and gas systems 128 available for reversibly modify firearms 124 from Dvorak Instruments of Tulsa, Okla.
See para. [0124] The firearm sensor 122 for detecting and locating the laser shot fired by firearms 124 on screens 302-308 may be one or more area scan cameras directed at the screens 302-308, for example, model number A602 available from Basler Vision Technologies of Exton, Pa., used with a visible light filter lens to remove environmental or background images and isolate the laser light projected by firearm transmitter 126. Processing and analysis of the targets 322 and measurement and performance relating to shots against them using the firearm 124 may be facilitated by the software 108 identifying and utilizing subdivisions within each screen 302-306. For example, software 108 can divide each screen 302-308 into four equal quadrants (not shown) to facility mapping, measuring, and analyzing target sequences and performance. For example, the relative displacement of sequential or simultaneous targets from one to another adjacent or non-adjacent quadrant may be used to determine a measure of difficulty associated with successfully engaging both targets.
See para. [0126] Targets displayed with the environmental scene images may be digitally added and projected by the above described projectors (not shown) of displays 112 and 114, or may be separately displayed on screens 302-308, for example, using one or more separate motorized projectors (not shown). Advantageously, comparison of location and expanse of targets 322 on screens 302-308 and the projection location on screens 302-308 of the laser fired by firearm 124 (as captured by sensor 122) is used to determine the time to react and engage and the accuracy of shot, including a hit or miss).
Regarding claim 18, Stanley discloses detecting laser strikes (see para. [0068] The system 100 may also optionally include a firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull (firing) and aim of a firearm 120 used by the trainee 22. Firearm 120 can be a simulated firearm, or an actual firearm modified for non-lethal training use, for example, by replacing the bolt and magazine with a transmitter 126, for example a laser emitter, and a gas discharge device 128 for providing action of the firearm mechanism and simulated acoustics and recoil of firing. The aspect of firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull may optionally be an acoustic detector for detecting activation of the gas discharge device 128. The aspect of the firearm sensor 122 for detecting the aim of the firearm 120 optionally may be a laser detector locating the illumination of the laser emitter on the displays 112, 114, or may be solid state accelerometers or other orientation firearm barrel spatial orientation sensing systems associated with the firearm, either of which are enabled to detect firearm air and optionally other firearm handling characteristics relative to targets presenting on displays 112, 114).
Stanley fails to explicitly disclose detecting laser strikes at a resolution of 1/16th of an inch or less on a virtual range when a shooter is shooting 10 feet from the virtual range. However, the Applicant’s detecting laser strikes at a resolution of 1/16th of an inch or less on a virtual range when a shooter is shooting 10 feet from the virtual range is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that having a resolution of at least 1/16th of an inch or smaller when a shooter shoots 10 feet from the virtual range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any resolution using the device of Stanley or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Stanley to obtain the device as specified in claim 18, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Stanley.
Regarding claim 19, Stanley discloses detecting laser strikes (see para. [0068] The system 100 may also optionally include a firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull (firing) and aim of a firearm 120 used by the trainee 22. Firearm 120 can be a simulated firearm, or an actual firearm modified for non-lethal training use, for example, by replacing the bolt and magazine with a transmitter 126, for example a laser emitter, and a gas discharge device 128 for providing action of the firearm mechanism and simulated acoustics and recoil of firing. The aspect of firearm sensor 122 for detecting the trigger pull may optionally be an acoustic detector for detecting activation of the gas discharge device 128. The aspect of the firearm sensor 122 for detecting the aim of the firearm 120 optionally may be a laser detector locating the illumination of the laser emitter on the displays 112, 114, or may be solid state accelerometers or other orientation firearm barrel spatial orientation sensing systems associated with the firearm, either of which are enabled to detect firearm air and optionally other firearm handling characteristics relative to targets presenting on displays 112, 114).
Stanley fails to explicitly disclose detecting laser strikes at a resolution of 1/32"d of an inch or less on a virtual range when a shooter is shooting 10 feet from the virtual range. However, the Applicant’s detecting laser strikes at a resolution of 1/32"d of an inch or less on a virtual range when a shooter is shooting 10 feet from the virtual range is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that having a resolution of at least 1/32"d of an inch or smaller when a shooter shoots 10 feet from the virtual range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any resolution using the device of Stanley or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Stanley to obtain the device as specified in claim 19, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Stanley.
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.
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 18-19 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.
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 recite the limitation “the training apparatus.” The limitation “a shooting training apparatus,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the shooting training apparatus”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 3-4 and 10-11 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.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation “a shooter.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 10 and 11, respectively. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the shooter”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10 and 11. Therefore, claims 10-11 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.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation “laser strikes.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 18 and 19, respectively. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the laser strikes”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 18 and 19. Therefore, claims 18 and 19 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 18 and 19 recite the limitation “a virtual range.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 16. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the virtual range”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 18 and 19. Therefore, claims 18 and 19 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
