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 statement (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this Office action.
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 1-20 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the order of the words “directing one or more users to the target location from the location of the first device or from the location of the second device, or from the location of the first device and from the location of the second device” is not clear and appears to be contradictory to claim 2. The disclosure at paragraph [0108] appears to be related to the claimed subject matter, however the claimed subject matter does not clearly establish the meets and bounds of the claims.
Dependent claims are rejected for inheriting the subject matter at issue.
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 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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, 3-7, and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyren (Lyren; US 2021/0108889) in view of Sanders et al. (Sanders; US 2015/0254968).
As per claim 1, Lyren teaches a system comprising
a first device and a second device connected by a computer connection (a plurality of devices are in a wireless or computer connection; see e.g. FIG. 13);
wherein the first device is associated with a firearm (one of the devices are connected to a firearm; see e.g. para. [0218]);
a processor in computer connection to the first device, the second device (a device, including a processor, in wireless communication with the first device and second device, see e.g. FIG. 13, communicates; see e.g. para. [0102-103]), wherein the processor is configured to provide a notification of the target location (indication to a target location which can be communicated to the weapon targeting system or scope; see e.g. para. [0045-46]);
determine when the shot was fired (determining and timestamping when shot is fired; see e.g. para. [0095]);
determine the target location (determine and generating indication of the target location as discussed earlier; see e.g. para. [0102-103]);
determine a location of the first device when the shot is fired (determine GPS location when shot is fired; see e.g. para. [0095]);
determine a location of the second device when the shot is fired (location information of the sighting device or any of the secondary devices is determined, see e.g. para. [0162-165], wherein it would have been obvious to a skilled person that the location can be determined before, during and after the shot is fired for a complete analysis);
determine instructions for directing one or more users to the target location from the location of the first device or from the location of the second device, or from the location of the first device and from the location of the second device (generating indication for directing a user to adjust point of aim at the target location from the location of the first device [1312A, 1312B] based one or more determined data; see e.g. FIG. 5 and para. [0179] of Lyren).
Lyren does not teach that the first device is associated with an accelerometer for detecting a shot fired by the firearm toward a target location of the shot and the processor is in computer connection with the accelerometer.
Sanders, however, teaches first device is associated with an accelerometer for detecting a shot fired by the firearm (see e.g. para. [0022]) toward a target location of the shot (wherein the shot is fired toward a target location/direction of the shot known in the art as well as taught by Lyren) and the processor is in computer connection with the accelerometer (communicating data from a local device, including the accelerometer, to a remote location, see e.g. para. [0014] and [0021], wherein the remote location at least has a communication processor to receive incoming message).
Lyren and Sanders are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved event detection and/or location determination and reporting which in turn may reduce casualties caused by accidents.
As per claim 3, the system of claim 1 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the firearm comprises the accelerometer (it would have been obvious the disclosed accelerometer, see e.g. para. [0014] of Sanders, can be integrated into the firearm as integration of parts has been held obvious by courts; see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
As per claim 4, the system of claim 1 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the first device comprises an aiming device coupled to the firearm (the electronic device can be an aiming device; see e.g. para. [0184] of Lyren).
As per claim 5, the system of claim 4 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the aiming device is a scope or a red-dot sight (see e.g. para. [0070] of Lyren).
As per claim 6, the system of claim 4 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the first device comprises at least one of a compass (see e.g. para. [0162] of Lyren), a GPS device (see e.g. para. [0162]]) and a ranging sensor (see e.g. para. [0049]) and the processor provides the notification of the target location, the notification comprising a heading from the aiming device to the target location, a distance from the aiming device to the target location or a combination of the heading and the distance from the aiming device to the target location (changing visual indication of target location, heading from a current location to a target location, by providing distance and angle of movement; see e.g. para. [0206] of Lyren).
As per claim 7, the system of claim 4 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the aiming device comprises the accelerometer (one or more electronic devices can determine direction and point of aim and can include an accelerometer; see e.g. para. [0167] of Lyren).
As per claim 9, the system of claim 1 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the processor is in computer communication with a database comprising data selected from the group consisting of maps, topographic information and ballistics data, one or more of a GPS sensor, compass, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, wind sensor, rotational position sensor, image sensor, or proximity sensor (one or more devices can communication with a remote database comprising data related to wind direction, GPS location etc.; see e.g. para. [0162]).
As per claim 10, the system of claim 9 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein an aiming notification comprises an indication that a heading and range of the shot toward the target coincides with the target location (a visual indication that coincides with where the weapon is aimed at a location on a target that is along the line of sight of the weapon, see e.g. para. [0045] and displays fire if the target and point of aim is centered at the target; see e.g. para. [0200] of Lyren).
As per claim 11, the system of claim 10 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the aiming notification comprises an indication that one or both of the heading and the range need to be adjusted to direct the shot to coincide with the target location (see e.g. para. 0197-198] of Lyren).
As per claim 12, the system of claim 11 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the range is adjusted based on one or more of tilt of the aiming device and ballistics data (adjustment is made based on ballistic data; see e.g. para. [0129]).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 1 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the accelerometer is disposed on the first device wherein the first device is worn by a user associated with the first device (one or more devices are worn electronic devices, see e.g. para. [0239] of Lyren, wherein the disclosed accelerometer of Lyren and Sanders can be included in any of the disclosed devices including by not limited to the worn device).
As per claim 14, the system of claim 1 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the second device comprises a mobile phone, watch, tablet, or laptop computer (the one or more second devices is a wearable electronic device; see e.g. FIG. 13 of Lyren).
As per claim 15, the system of claim 1 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the second device comprises a ranging device (see e.g. para. [0186] of Lyren) selected from a laser rangefinder (see e.g. para. [0049]), spotting scope or ranging binoculars.
As per claim 16, the system of claim 15 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the second device determines the target location and communicates the target location to the first device (one or more devices communicate to scope or weapon; see e.g. para. [0103-104] and [0118] of Lyren, wherein detected conditions include position information, see e.g. para. [0049] of Lyren, which can be communicated or transmitted).
As per claim 17, the system of claim 15 wherein a navigation notification comprises instructions to direct a user associated with the first device to the target location from the location of the first device (as discussed earlier, generating indication for directing a user to adjust or navigate point of aim at the target location from the location of the first device [1312A, 1312B] based one or more determined data; see e.g. FIG. 5 and para. [0179] of Lyren).
As per claim 18, the system of claim 1 wherein the first device comprises a network adapter and the second device comprises a network adapter and the first device and the second device are connected, with a computer connection (the one or more devices at least comprise a network interface to communicate with each other over wireless communication network; see e.g. para. [0218-219] and FIG. 13 of Lyren).
As per claim 19, the system of claim 1 as taught by Lyren and Sanders wherein the first device and the second device are connected by a wireless connection (see e.g. FIG. 13 of Lyren).
As per claim 20, The system of claim 1 as taught by Lyren and Sanders comprising one or more notification devices associated with the first device and the second device wherein the one or more notification devices comprise an optical display, speaker device or haptic device (an audible sound alarms, see e.g. para. [0207], which are output using one or more notification devices on the first, second device, or both).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyren in view of Sanders and further in view of Maryfield et al. (Maryfield; Patent No. 9,494,686).
As per claim 8, The system of claim 7 as taught by Lyren and Sanders except the claimed wherein the accelerometer is configured to determine one or more of cant and tilt of the aiming device.
Maryfield, however, teaches a laser-based target locator takes measurements to help determine absolute coordinates of a target such as a tilt (e.g., upward or downward angle) at which the laser-based target locator 110 may be oriented by using an accelerometer (see e.g. col. 5, lines 22-30), similarly it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person to use the accelerometer for tilt detection at any of the disclosed devices of Lyren and/or Sanders for improved location estimation.
Lyren, Sanders and Maryfield are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved location estimation as suggested by Maryfield.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights