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 Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9, 12-14, and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“A virtual reality, VR, trigger control device” recited in claim 1, ln. 1 should likely read “A virtual reality[[,]] (VR)[[,]] trigger control device”;
“receiver of an automatic carbine, or receiver of an airgun” recited in claim 1, ln. 11-12 should likely read “a receiver of an automatic carbine, [[or]]a receiver of an airgun” for clarity purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity;
“back surface, front surface” recited in claim 7, ln. 3-4 should likely read “back surface, and front surface”;
“operatively connection to” recited in claim 9, ln. 3 should likely read “operatively connecti[[on]]ng to”;
“a VR trigger control device” recited in claim 12, ln. 2-3, claim 16, ln. 2, and claim 19, ln. 1-2 should likely read “[[a]]the VR trigger control device”;
“has trigger guard” recited in claim 13, ln. 6 should likely read “has a trigger guard”;
“the ridged frame” recited in claim 13, ln. 7 should likely read “therigid frame”;
“wherein the rigid frame have one or more tenons” recited in claim 14, ln. 3 should likely read “wherein the rigid frame has one or more tenons”;
“of a firearm” recited in claim 17, ln. 3 should likely read “of [[a]]the real firearm”;
“the holder interface” recited in claim 18, ln. 3 should likely read “the VR trigger holder interface” for consistency purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity;
“the trigger control device” recited in claim 19, ln. 4-5 should likely read “the VR trigger control device” for consistency purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity; and
“has trigger guard” recited in claim 19, ln. 5 should likely read “has a trigger guard”.
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 and 3-19 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 recites in part “a Bluetooth device […], wherein said Bluetooth device is configured to detect a trigger output signal generated by the trigger mechanism in response to the trigger being pulled and to send a wireless event signal in response to the detected trigger output signal to a VR headset”. Claim 1 thus contains the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a wireless communication device/component of the casing and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. That is, the metes and bounds of the claimed “Bluetooth device” are unclear.
Additionally, and/or alternatively, it is indefinite as to whether “Bluetooth device” means a device that actually communicates using Bluetooth, or rather, whether “Bluetooth” is being used as the name/type of device without imposing a particular communication method. Thus, while the claim recites functional characteristics of the device (and further, claim 11 recites structural and functional characteristics of the device), it is unclear whether “Bluetooth” requires use of a particular wireless communication method or merely identifies the device by a trademark/trade name.
All dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites in part “wherein said casing has a recess in an edge forming an indentation of the casing so as to cooperate with a complementary surface inside a receiver of a real handgun, dummy weapon, VR game gun”. As claimed, it is indefinite as to whether the recess is to cooperate with a complementary surface inside of a receiver of a real handgun, a receiver of a dummy weapon, or a receiver of a VR game gun, or rather, with a complementary surface inside a receiver of a real handgun, or alternatively, any part of the dummy weapon or VR game gun.
A suggested amendment is as follows: “wherein said casing has a recess in an edge forming an indentation of the casing so as to cooperate with a complementary surface inside a receiver of a real handgun, dummy weapon, or VR game gun”.
Claim 3 recites in part “the gun”. It is indefinite as to what gun “the gun” is referring to (e.g., the real handgun, the VR game gun, the magazine box of the real gun, the receiver of the airgun, soft air gun, or airsoft gun, or some other gun/component thereof).
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasoning (see claim 12, ln. 3, “the gun”).
Claims 4-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 3.
The term “the at least one electrical connector of the Bluetooth device” in claim 17, ln. 4-5 has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
The term “firmly” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “firmly” 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 14-15 are further rejected by virtue of their dependencies on claim 13.
Claim 19 recites in part “a complementary indentation of the casing of the VR trigger control device”. It is indefinite as to whether the recited complementary indentation of the casing is referring to the “recess” recited in claim 1, from which claim 19 depends, or rather, another indentation in the casing.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrup et al. (U.S. 10,274,287 B2) (hereinafter “Northrup”) in view of Schulz et al. (U.S. 10,451,376 B2) (hereinafter “Schulz”).
Regarding claim 1, Northrup discloses a virtual reality, VR, trigger control device for various guns (Figs. 22A, 22C, 23A-23C, trigger unit 2202), comprising a casing (Figs. 23A-23B; Col. 37, ln. 18-19, external case 2304) containing a Bluetooth device and a trigger mechanism with a trigger protruding from a plane side of the casing, wherein said Bluetooth device is configured to detect a trigger output signal generated by the trigger mechanism in response to the trigger being pulled (Figs. 22A, 22C, 23A-23C; Col. 36, ln. 1-14; Col. 37, ln. 18-28; Col. 48, ln. 19-40, paddle (trigger) 2210 and processor 2353 configured to send wireless (Bluetooth) signal indicative of a shot signal upon contact with the paddle) and to send a wireless event signal in response to the detected trigger output signal to a VR headset (Figs. 9A & 23A-23C; Col. 10, ln. 51-67; Col. 36, ln. 1-14; Col. 37, ln. 18-28; Col. 48, ln. 19-40, where the Bluetooth signal is sent to the host computer and/or connected virtual reality headset 902).
Northrup further discloses where the trigger unit is secured to the weapon through complementary mechanical mounting structures (Fig. 23A; Col. 37, ln. 18-28, barrel clamps 2308 and 2310, rigidly attached to the external case 2304 of the trigger unit, are adapted to connect with a standard picatinny or weaver rail mount system). Northrup does not further disclose wherein said casing has a recess in an edge forming an indentation of the casing so as to cooperate with a complementary surface inside a receiver of a real handgun, dummy weapon, VR game gun, a VR trigger control device holder for a real firearm or rifle stock, a magazine box of a real gun, receiver of an automatic carbine, or receiver of an airgun, soft air gun, or airsoft gun, or inside a VR trigger device holder interface. However, Schulz, directed to firearm simulators (Col. 1, ln. 17-22; Col. 3, ln. 8-48; Col. 4, ln. 5-15, where the firearm may have different shapes (e.g., pistol, revolver, rifle, submachine gun, machine gun, etc.)), teaches a trigger unit having a recess in an edge forming an indentation and which is situated accordingly within the firearm frame (Fig. 1; Col. 4, ln. 16-45). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an indent on the trigger unit configured to cooperate with a complementary surface of the weapon in Northrup, as taught by Schulz, as a substitute mounting configuration, and/or as a matter of routine design choice. There is no indication in the Specification that the casing having a recess in an edge forming an indentation of the casing so as to cooperate with a complementary surface as claimed provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose beyond structurally coupling the components, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the trigger unit coupling configuration of Schulz because it achieves the same result of mounting the trigger unit to the firearm.
Regarding claim 9, Northrup further discloses at least one electrical connector of the Bluetooth device for operatively connection to an electrical cartridge of a gun (Figs. 22A-22D & 23B-23C; Col. 36, ln. 1-44; Col. 48, ln. 19-40, where the weapon includes an electronic cartridge operatively connected to the processor of the trigger unit).
Regarding claim 10, Northrup further discloses wherein the Bluetooth device is adapted to detect or sense an electrical signal at the at least one electrical connector indicative of a shot signal generated in response to the electrical cartridge being activated and send a corresponding shot signal to the VR headset (Figs. 9A, 22A-22D, & 23A-23C; Col. 10, ln. 51-67; Col. 36, ln. 1-44; Col. 37, ln. 18-28; Col. 48, ln. 19-40).
Regarding claim 11, Northrup further discloses wherein the Bluetooth device comprises a processor operatively connected to a memory, a battery, and an antenna, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory causing the Bluetooth device to detect the trigger output signal generated by the trigger mechanism in response to the trigger being pulled and to send the wireless event signal in response to the detected trigger output signal to the VR headset to cause an augmented reality or virtual reality event on an augmented reality or virtual reality display (Figs. 9A & 23A-23C; Col. 20, ln. 20-27; Col. 37, ln. 29-62; Col. 48, ln. 19-40, processor board including the processor, memory, battery, and Bluetooth module including antenna, where the shot signal is transmitted to the computer/VR headset and causing display of one or more animated virtual reality shooting scenarios).
Regarding claim 12, Northrup further discloses wherein the gun is a rifle stock, real firearm, real handgun, real automatic carbine, airgun, soft air gun, airsoft gun, or VR game gun (Figs 22A & 22C; Col. 36, ln. 1-2, i.e., rifle stock or VR game gun (weapon used with the simulation system)).
Regarding claim 13, Northrup does not further disclose a VR trigger control device holder removably attaching a VR trigger control device according to claim 1 to a rifle stock, wherein the holder comprises a rigid frame adapted to surround and removably hold the VR trigger control device firmly within the rigid frame, wherein the rigid frame has trigger guard for surrounding the trigger and at least a protrusion inside the ridged frame so as to cooperate with the complementary indentation of the casing of the VR trigger control device. However, Schulz teaches these limitations (Figs. 1 & 5; Col. 4, ln. 5-57, a holder comprising a rigid frame formed by an upper portion 106 and lower portion 102 comprising a trigger a guard that surrounds the trigger, where the holder surrounds/encloses the trigger unit 104, wherein the upper portion may be easily removed such that the trigger unit can be accessed (removably attached), and where the trigger unit comprises a recess forming an indentation that fits within the complementary space/components of the holder).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a VR trigger control device holder comprising a rigid frame as claimed and removably attaching the VR trigger control device to the firearm, as taught by Schulz, as a substitute mounting configuration and/or as a matter of routine design choice in the invention of Northrup (Schulz, Col. 4, ln. 5-15, where the firearm may have a revolver shape, rifle shape, or shape of another type of firearm). There is no indication in the Specification that VR trigger control device holder as claimed provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose beyond securing and removably attaching the VR trigger control device to the firearm, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the holder of Schulz because it achieves the same result of removably coupling the trigger control device to the firearm.
Regarding claim 16, Northrup does not further disclose a VR trigger device holder interface for removably attaching a VR trigger control device of claim 1 to a real firearm, wherein the holder interface comprises an openable casing including two separate and complementary parts for enclosing the VR trigger control device with the trigger protruding through an aperture of the openable casing. However, Schulz teaches this limitation (Fig. 1; Col. 4, ln. 5-57, upper portion 106 and lower portion 102 forming an openable casing of a trigger device holder interface, wherein the upper portion may be easily removed such that the trigger unit can be accessed, and where the trigger of the trigger unit protrudes through the holder interface in a manner that allows the trigger to be manipulated by a user).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a holder interface comprising an openable casing including two separate and complementary parts for enclosing the VR trigger control device and removably attaching the VR trigger control device to the firearm, as taught by Schulz, as a substitute mounting configuration and/or as a matter of routine design choice in the invention of Northrup (Schulz, Col. 4, ln. 5-15, where the firearm may have a revolver shape, rifle shape, or shape of another type of firearm). There is no indication in the Specification that VR trigger device holder interface as claimed provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose beyond removably attaching the VR trigger control device to the firearm, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the holder interface of Schulz because it achieves the same result of removably coupling the trigger control device to the firearm.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrup in view of Schulz, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0290939 A1) (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 3, Northrup in view of Schulz fails to further teach wherein the casing has a notch in an outside surface of the casing adapted to receive a latch pin for locking the VR trigger control device in place inside the gun. However, Lee, directed to a firearm and modular trigger control unit ([0002]), teaches a trigger control unit secured within a firearm frame via at least one notch and locking pin (Fig. 1; [0035], trigger control unit 100 comprising notch(es) and corresponding pins(s) (e.g., trigger pin 190, locking block pin 192, trigger housing pin 194)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a notch within the trigger unit casing and corresponding pin, as taught by Lee, in the invention of Northrup in view of Schulz in order to ensure that the removable trigger unit is secured in place to the firearm (Lee, [0037], where the pin(s) secure the trigger control unit to the firearm).
Regarding claim 4, Northrup further discloses wherein the casing comprises a top surface, a bottom surface, a back surface, a front surface, a left side plate, and a right side plate forming a rectangular casing surrounding the Bluetooth device and the trigger mechanism (Figs. 22A, 22C, & 23A-23B; Col. 37, ln. 18-37).
Regarding claim 5, Northrup does not disclose, however, Schulz teaches wherein the recess is arranged in the edge connecting the bottom surface and the back surface of the casing (Fig. 1; Col. 4, ln. 16-45). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the trigger unit with a recess, as taught by Schulz, as a substitute mounting configuration, and/or as a matter of routine design choice in the invention of Northrup. There is no indication in the Specification that the casing having a recess arranged in the edge connecting the bottom surface and the back surface so as to cooperate with a complementary surface of the weapon provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose beyond structurally coupling the components, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the trigger unit coupling configuration of Schulz because it achieves the same result of mounting the trigger unit to the firearm.
Regarding claim 6, Northrup in view of Schulz fails to further teach wherein the notch is arranged in the back surface of the casing. However, Lee teaches this limitation (Fig. 1; [0035], trigger housing pin 194 and corresponding notch arranged in the back surface of the casing/trigger control unit). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a notch arranged in the back surface of the trigger unit casing and a corresponding trigger housing pin, as taught by Lee, in the invention of Northrup in view of Schulz in order to ensure that the removable trigger unit is secured in place to the firearm (Lee, [0037], where the trigger control unit is secured to the grip frame of the weapon by trigger housing pin 194).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrup in view of Schulz, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Hannan et al. (U.S. 9,057,577 B2) (hereinafter “Hannan”).
Regarding claim 8, Northrup does not further disclose wherein the trigger mechanism comprises an adjustment screw arranged for adjustment of a trigger release distance accessible from the exterior of the VR trigger control device. However, Hannan, directed to firearm training devices (Col. 1, ln. 6-8), teaches this limitation (Fig. 3; Col. 8, ln. 22-34; Col. 9, ln. 56-Col. 10, ln. 15, top wall 208 of the trigger box assembly 200 defines an adjustment screw opening 228 that receives an adjustment screw 230). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a trigger adjustment screw, as taught by Hannan, in the invention of Northrup in order to adjust the length of trigger pull and/or the compression of trigger return to modify trigger behavior (i.e., for improved accuracy, comfort, etc.) (Hannan, Col. 9, ln. 56-Col. 10, ln. 15).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrup in view of Schulz, as applied to claim 16, and in further view of Kozlov et al. (RU206671U1) (hereinafter “Kozlov”).
Regarding 18, Northrup in view of Schulz may not further disclose a tracker holder for a VR tracker attached on top of the holder interface. However, Kozlov, directed to a controller for training in shooting and handling firearms ([0001]), teaches this limitation (Fig. 1; [0035], virtual reality tracker 130 located on holder interface of the weapon (upper portion)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a virtual reality tracker, as taught by Kozlov, as an additional and/or alternative method to track the position of an object in space and recreate the position of the body in virtual space (Kozlov, [0045]; Northrup, Col. 4, ln. 42-65, where the invention tracks the position of the virtual reality unit and the weapon to be used in a virtual reality simulation).
Acknowledgments
No prior art is currently provided for claims 7, 14-15, 17, and 19. However, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as presented in detail above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 11,226,677 B2 – This reference discloses an inertial tracker affixed to a weapon, and the use of a wireless interface, such as Bluetooth, to send a trigger activation signal to a computer for further processing.
U.S. Pub. 2021/0270569 A1 – This reference teaches, responsive to a discharge determination following actuation of a trigger mechanism, displaying on a virtual reality headset a virtual simulation of the identified firearm discharging.
U.S. Pub. 2021/0381790 A1 – This reference teaches a modular trigger mechanism for realistic trigger simulation on practice firearms, such as a pistol, rifle, or another specific live firearm model.
U.S. Pub. 2021/0071977 A1 – This reference teaches a trigger control unit removably installed on a firearm.
U.S. Pub. 2011/0154709 A1 – This reference teaches removably attaching a trigger unit to a firearm via a trigger guard coupled to a magazine that is attached to an underside of the firearm.
CN206355569U – This reference teaches a controller comprising a Bluetooth module and trigger key and which is configured to engage/mount to a firearm, wherein the controller receives input operation instruction and transmits the operation instruction to an external intelligent device such as a game console, TV, computer, mobile phone, or the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
