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 .
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it combines both an apparatus and a method of using said apparatus. It is unclear what acts constitute infringement when a single claim mixed statutory classes.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and incorporate it in its entirety and are therefore rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it combines both an apparatus and a method of using said apparatus. It is unclear what acts constitute infringement when a single claim mixed statutory classes.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and incorporate it in its entirety and are therefore rejected for the reasons provided above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozgur (WO 2019/032073) in view of Goldstein (2022/0057519).
With respect to claim 1, Ozgur teaches at least three microphones configured to detect a sound (pg 5, lines 8-9); a signaler configured to indicate the firing position from a firearm (pg 6, lines 29-30); a board in data connection with said microphones, and said signaler (pg 5, lines 33-36). While it does not specifically note a clock, it does mention time as being one of the data types sent to the processor (pg 6, lines 23), which indicates the use of a type of clock device. It further teaches the board comprises a speed of the projectile (pg 5, line 36); and a sensor database associating each of said microphones with a measurement location (pg 7, lines 10-12). Additionally it teaches a detection step wherein said microphones are active and, upon the firing of said firearm, each of said microphones performs a first detection of a sonic boom (pg 5, line 20; pg 7, lines 26-29), and a second detection of a muzzle blast (pg 5, line 20; pg 7, lines 26-29), and wherein a clock defines for each first detection a first time and for each second detection a second time (pg 8, lines 1-5); and a processing step wherein said board determines the firing position of said firearm based on the measurement position of said three microphones, said projectile speed, of each of said first times and each of said second times (Pg 5, lines 34-36; pg 6, lines 6-21). However, it does not teach a laser, at least one detector defining a sensitive surface configured to detect said laser; an observation step wherein said sensitive surface detects said laser; and a system combining the outputs of the laser detector and acoustic sensors.
Goldstein teaches a laser ([0067], lines 3-5, 18-26), at least one detector defining a sensitive surface configured to detect said laser ([0067], lines 5-6; [0070], lines 2-8)); an observation step wherein said sensitive surface detects said laser ([0067], lines 3-6); and a system combining the outputs of the laser detector and acoustic sensors ([0087]). It also definitively recites a clock ([0072], lines 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Ozgur to include the laser system of Goldstein since such a modification would have potentially improved processing speeds, performance, and/or accuracy.
With respect to claim 2, Ozgur teaches said board comprises a speed of sound; and wherein in said processing step said board also determines said firing position of said firearm also based on said speed of sound (pg 5, lines 25-26).
With respect to claim 3, Ozgur teaches environmental sensors configured to acquire ambient temperature; and wherein in said processing step said board also determines said firing position of said firearm also based on said ambient temperature (pg 5, lines 25-26).
With respect to claim 4 Ozgur as modified teaches the claims as discussed above. However, it does not teach environmental sensors configured to acquire atmospheric pressure; and wherein in said processing step said board also determines said firing position of said firearm based on said atmospheric pressure.
Goldstein teaches environmental sensors configured to acquire atmospheric pressure; and wherein in said processing step said board also determines said firing position of objects based on said atmospheric pressure ([0284], lines 10-11; [0550], lines 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Ozgur with the pressure sensor of Goldstein since such a modification would have improved accuracy of the system.
With respect to claim 5, Ozgur teaches said board defines the absolute firing position based on a three-dimensional correlation matrix of said measurement position of said three microphones, said projectile speed, said first times, and said second times acquired by said three microphones (pg 6, lines 6-23).
With respect to claim 6, Ozgur teaches a sending step in which said board sends to said signaler a position signal corresponding to said firing position; and a signaling step in which said signaler indicates the firing position of said firearm based on said position signal (pg 6, lines 28-30).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozgur in view of Goldstein, and further in view of Moore (EP 4186384).
Ozgur as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach inertial platform configured to be bound to a user and to detect the orientation of said user; and wherein, in said processing step, said board determines said firing position with respect to said orientation of said user.
Moore teaches an inertial platform configured to be bound to a user and to detect the orientation of said user; and wherein, in said processing step, said board determines said firing position with respect to said orientation of said user ([0152]; [0155]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of the Ozgur with the worn inertial platform of Moore since such a modification would have allowed for quick and independent identification of a gunshot for safety or to intercept a shooter if necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights