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 .
Response to Request for Continued Examination
This is a Non-Final Office action in response to communications filed on May 22,
2026. Applicant previously cancelled claims 7-11. Claims 1-6 and 12-26 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 12-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 1-6 and 12-26.
Claims 1-6 and 12-26 are drawn to a baton device that incorporates
electronic components and sensors to enhance functionality and data collection capabilities (i.e., a manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, for claims 1-6 and 12-26.
Claim 1 recites:
A baton device, comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle, wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment;
a plurality of sensors disposed within the body;
and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, wherein the controller is configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create a usage log of the baton device.
The added step of wherein the controller is configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create a usage log of the baton device amounts to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can create and maintain a usage log for a baton device. Applicant of claimed invention discloses “The use of a baton often occurs in high-stress situations where there may be threats to law enforcement officers and the public.” [0003]. Examiner notes that law enforcement officers log comprehensive details of their entire shift and are generally required to log or report any use of a baton.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26 are directed towards mini-tasks (sensing movement of the baton, measuring force applied by the baton, storing operational data, transmitting data, etc.) for a baton device that incorporates electronic components and sensors to enhance functionality and data collection capabilities. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-6 and 12-26 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using computing devices such as a controller and sensors (independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Similarly, the limitations of a data storage device, a global positioning system module, and a wireless communication module (independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 12-26 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 12-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8771085 B1 (“Clyde”) in view of US 20180274881 A1 (“Moran”) and US 20210233381 A1 (“Chivilyov”)
In regards to claim 1, Clyde discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitations.
A baton device, comprising (column 6, lines 65-66, “It is an object of the invention to provide a … baton”): a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle (column 8, line 35, “FIG. 5 illustrates a … baton” Examiner notes that annotated Clyde Figure 5 depicts an elongated member (550) representing a body of the claimed invention, with the elongated member having a longitudinal axis, and an end (570) representing the first end of the claimed invention and a handle (540) and an end (560) representing a second end of the claimed invention.), wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment;
a plurality of sensors disposed within the body;
and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, wherein the controller is configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create a usage log of the baton device.
PNG
media_image1.png
800
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moran discloses
wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment (“Weapon … includes a telescopic cylindrical rod …, formed of a plurality of telescopically interconnected … segments” Examiner notes that a telescoping segment is inherently slidable.);
a plurality of sensors disposed within the body ([0040], “springs can be mounted … with a … sensor”);
and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors ([0039], “A … controller … may be disposed in handgrip … or in an extension of handgrip … Alternatively, the controller … can be disposed in … the housing”),
wherein the controller is configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create ([0034], “An appropriate user interface … is provided for a user to control the controller” Examiner notes that a controller can be configured to process and store data.)
Clyde and Moran are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of baton and multi-purpose weapons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a baton device, comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle, as disclosed by Clyde, wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment; a plurality of sensors disposed within the body; and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, wherein the controller is configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create, as disclosed by Moran, to provide a telescopic cylindrical rod, springs, a sensor, a controller, a handgrip, and a housing for a multi-purpose weapon. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a sensor and a controller to improve the effectiveness of a multi-purpose weapon.
Chivilyov discloses
a usage log of the baton device ([0083], “When the device is in operation, a usage log is kept”).
Clyde and Chivilyov are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of baton weapons and systems for monitoring the use of weapons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a baton device, comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle, as disclosed by Clyde, a usage log of the baton device, as disclosed by Chivilyov, to provide a usage log for systems designed to prevent offenses, detect offenders, and monitor weapon usage. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a usage log for systems designed to prevent offenses, detect offenders, and monitor weapon usage.
In regards to claim 2, Clyde discloses
wherein the plurality of sensors includes an accelerometer configured to sense movement of the baton device (column 8, lines 3-4, “an accelerometer… is provided”).
In regards to claim 3, Clyde does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine a speed and angle of the baton device based on data sensed by the accelerometer.
Moran discloses
wherein the controller is configured to determine a speed ([0011], “the weapon … includes a controller for controlling … the speed”) and angle of the baton device based on data sensed by the accelerometer ([0011], “the weapon … includes a controller for controlling … force” Examiner notes that force can include an angle.).
Clyde and Moran are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of baton and multi-purpose weapons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a baton device, comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle, as disclosed by Clyde, wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment; a plurality of sensors disposed within the body; and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, wherein the controller is configured to determine a speed and angle of the baton device based on data sensed by the accelerometer, as disclosed by Moran, to provide a controller that controls speed and force for a multi-purpose weapon. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a controller to improve the effectiveness of a multi-purpose weapon.
In regards to claim 4, Clyde does not disclose wherein the plurality of sensors includes a force sensor configured to measure force applied by the baton device.
Moran discloses
wherein the plurality of sensors includes a force sensor configured to measure force applied by the baton device ([0027], “FIG. 7 is a schematic illustration of a force control mechanism” Examiner notes that a force control mechanism may include a force sensor.).
Clyde and Moran are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of baton and multi-purpose weapons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a baton device, comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle, as disclosed by Clyde, wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment; a plurality of sensors disposed within the body; and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, and wherein the plurality of sensors includes a force sensor configured to measure force applied by the baton device, as disclosed by Moran, to provide a force control mechanism for a multi-purpose weapon. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a force control mechanism to improve the effectiveness of a multi-purpose weapon.
In regards to claim 5, Clyde discloses
wherein the force sensor comprises a strain gauge (column 8, lines 3-4, “a strain gauge is provided”).
In regards to claim 6, Clyde does not disclose wherein the force sensor comprises a flexure.
Moran discloses
wherein the force sensor comprises a flexure ([0027], “FIG. 7 is a schematic illustration of a force control mechanism” Examiner notes that a force control mechanism may include a force sensor, which typically includes a flexure.).
Clyde and Moran are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of baton and multi-purpose weapons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a baton device, comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle, as disclosed by Clyde, wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment; a plurality of sensors disposed within the body; and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, and wherein the plurality of sensors includes a force sensor configured to measure force applied by the baton device, wherein the force sensor comprises a flexure, as disclosed by Moran, to provide a force control mechanism for a multi-purpose weapon. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a force control mechanism to improve the effectiveness of a multi-purpose weapon.
In regards to claim 12, Clyde discloses
further comprising a microphone disposed within the body (column 19, lines 50-52, “In a variation of this embodiment, the unit is … equipped with audio and
video” Examiner notes that audio uses a microphone.).
In regards to claim 13, Clyde discloses
further comprising a Global Positioning System (GPS) module disposed within the body (column 22, lines 41-42, “A wirelessly enabled embodiment of the baton can be equipped with a GPS”).
In regards to claim 14, Clyde discloses
further comprising a data storage device disposed within the body and operatively connected to the controller (column 7, lines 37-41, “One embodiment comprises a "smart" baton which is disposed … of a computer memory having … data storage”).
In regards to claim 15, Clyde discloses
wherein the data storage device is configured to store operational data collected by the plurality of sensors (column 6, lines 61-64, “embodiments provide … modules with various accessories and modern functionality such as the ability to … store data”).
In regards to claim 16, Clyde discloses
further comprising an energy storage element disposed within the body (column 7, lines 35-36, “components can include … rechargeable batteries” Examiner notes that batteries are energy storage elements.).
In regards to claim 17, Clyde discloses
further comprising a charging port disposed on the body and operatively connected to the energy storage element (column 7, lines 35-36, “Other components can include a charging module for rechargeable batteries”).
In regards to claim 18, Clyde discloses
further comprising a wireless communication module disposed within the body and operatively connected to the controller (column 7, lines 37-47, “One embodiment comprises a ‘smart’ baton which is disposed ... of a computer memory ... for controlling baton functions, ... communications ... This ‘smart’ baton may ... be equipped with a ... wireless connection for connecting the baton to ... another wireless device, ... and the Internet. If connected to ... the Internet, the baton is able to communicate with and receive instructions and data from a central station”).
In regards to claim 19, Clyde discloses
wherein the wireless communication module is configured to transmit real-time data collected by the plurality of sensors (column 8, lines 11-14, “this … baton has a wireless connection to a computer which enables real-time feedback”).
In regards to claim 20, Clyde discloses
wherein the wireless communication module is configured to communicate with a remote display device (column 20, lines 15-18, “The laptop has a screen ... , ... configured to display ... information ... scanned by the baton”).
In regards to claim 21, Clyde discloses
wherein the wireless communication module is configured to communicate with a mobile device of a user (column 7, lines 42-44, “This ‘smart’ baton may ... be equipped with a ... wireless connection for connecting the baton to ... another wireless device” Examiner notes that a mobile device is a type of wireless device.).
In regards to claim 22, Clyde discloses
further comprising an accessory attachment feature disposed at the second end of the body (column 9, lines 40-47, “A first embodiment provides for a baton housing ... having ... one switch or button to control ... accessories which may be incorporated into the baton”).
In regards to claim 23, Clyde discloses
wherein the plurality of sensors includes a temperature sensor (column 21, lines 63-67, “Other modules depicted, which can be connected to the baton, include ... breath alcohol analyzer module ... which ... comprises a plurality of breath sensors” Examiner notes that breath sensors can include temperature sensors.).
In regards to claim 24, Clyde discloses
wherein the plurality of sensors includes an inertial measurement unit (column 21, lines 63-67, “Other modules depicted, which can be connected to the baton, include ... breath alcohol analyzer module ... which ... comprises a plurality of breath sensors”
Examiner notes that breath sensors can incorporate inertial measurement technology.).
In regards to claim 25, Clyde does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to detect a transition of the baton device from a retracted configuration to an extended configuration.
Moran discloses
wherein the controller is configured to detect a transition of the baton device from a retracted configuration to an extended configuration ([0034], “A controller … is provided for controlling the motor and, in turn, the speed and force of extension and retraction of the telescopic rod”).
Clyde and Moran are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of baton and multi-purpose weapons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a baton device, comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle, as disclosed by Clyde, wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment; a plurality of sensors disposed within the body; and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, and wherein the controller is configured to detect a transition of the baton device from a retracted configuration to an extended configuration, as disclosed by Moran, to provide a controller, a motor, and a telescopic rod for a multi-purpose weapon. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a controller to improve the effectiveness of a multi-purpose weapon.
In regards to claim 26, Clyde does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to execute artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze data collected by the plurality of sensors.
Moran discloses
wherein the controller is configured to execute artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze data collected by the plurality of sensors ([0034], “A controller … is provided for controlling the motor and, in turn, the speed and force of extension and retraction of the telescopic rod” Examiner notes that a controller can use artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze data.).
Clyde and Moran are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of baton and multi-purpose weapons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a baton device, comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle, as disclosed by Clyde, wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment; a plurality of sensors disposed within the body; and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, wherein the controller is configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create, wherein the controller is configured to execute artificial intelligence algorithms to analyze data collected by the plurality of sensors, as disclosed by Moran, to provide a telescopic rod, a controller, and a motor for a multi-purpose weapon. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of a controller to improve the effectiveness of a multi-purpose weapon.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-6 and 12-26 remain pending in this application. With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant submits that “This is not an abstract concept that can be performed mentally or through human organization-it is a concrete, tangible device with specific structural components” (See REPLY TO ACTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2026, REMARKS, Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, page 5 of 11, paragraph 3), “claim 1 does not recite a human mentally logging baton usage” (See REPLY TO ACTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2026, REMARKS, Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, page 5 of 11, paragraph 4), “This is not merely adding generic computer components to an abstract idea-it is a specific technological solution that improves the functionality of a physical law enforcement tool” (See REPLY TO ACTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2026, REMARKS, Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, page 6 of 11, paragraph 2), and “The claimed integration of sensors and controller within this specific mechanical structure represents a technological improvement to a physical device, not the mere application of an abstract idea to a generic computer” (See REPLY TO ACTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2026, REMARKS, Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, page 7 of 11, paragraph 1). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Claim 1 recites: a baton device, comprising: a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle, wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment; a plurality of sensors disposed within the body; and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors, wherein the controller is configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create a usage log of the baton device.
The added step of wherein the controller is configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create a usage log of the baton device amounts to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can create and maintain a usage log for a baton device. Applicant of claimed invention discloses “The use of a baton often occurs in high-stress situations where there may be threats to law enforcement officers and the public.” [0003]. Examiner notes that law enforcement officers log comprehensive details of their entire shift and are generally required to log or report any use of a baton. Examiner also notes that Applicant’s invention does not alter the function of the baton device (physical device) and that the sensors and the controller, which interact with computer components, serve to log information regarding use of the baton device. Furthermore, in step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). As discussed in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using computing devices such as a controller and sensors (independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Similarly, the limitations of a data storage device, a global positioning system module, and a wireless communication module (independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-6 and 12-26 are maintained.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant submits that “neither Clyde nor Moran, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a controller configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create a usage log of the baton device as recited in claim 1” (See REPLY TO ACTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2026, REMARKS, Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 8 of 11, paragraph 1), “even if Moran's controller could ‘be configured to process and store data,’ without the combination of the hardware with the claimed software functionality, Moran fails to teach this limitation of claim 1” (See REPLY TO ACTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2026, REMARKS, Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 9 of 11, paragraph 3), “Because neither Clyde nor Moran teaches a controller configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create a usage log of the baton device as recited in claim 1, the combination of Clyde and Moran fails to render claim 1 obvious.” (See REPLY TO ACTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2026, REMARKS, Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 10 of 11, paragraph 3), and “even assuming the references are analogous art, the combination still fails to teach or suggest the claimed ‘usage log’ limitation.” (See REPLY TO ACTION OF FEBRUARY 23, 2026, REMARKS, Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 11 of 11, paragraph 1). Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 1, Clyde discloses a baton device, comprising (column 6, lines 65-66, “It is an object of the invention to provide a … baton”): a body having a longitudinal axis, a first end, and a second end opposite and spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the first end, the first end including a handle (column 8, line 35, “FIG. 5 illustrates a … baton” Examiner notes that annotated Clyde Figure 5 depicts an elongated member (550) representing a body of the claimed invention, with the elongated member having a longitudinal axis, and an end (570) representing the first end of the claimed invention and a handle (540) and an end (560) representing a second end of the claimed invention.), Moran discloses wherein the body includes a plurality of telescoping segments including a first telescoping segment and at least one additional telescoping segment, wherein the first telescoping segment includes the first end of the body and the handle, and wherein the additional telescoping segment is telescopingly slidable relative to an adjacent telescoping segment (“Weapon … includes a telescopic cylindrical rod …, formed of a plurality of telescopically interconnected … segments” Examiner notes that a telescoping segment is inherently slidable.); a plurality of sensors disposed within the body ([0040], “springs can be mounted … with a … sensor”); and a controller disposed within the body and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors ([0039], “A … controller … may be disposed in handgrip … or in an extension of handgrip … Alternatively, the controller … can be disposed in … the housing”), wherein the controller is configured to process and store data from the plurality of sensors to create ([0034], “An appropriate user interface … is provided for a user to control the controller” Examiner notes that a controller can be configured to process and store data.), and Chivilyov discloses a usage log of the baton device ([0083], “When the device is in operation, a usage log is kept”).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1, as obvious by Clyde in view of Moran and Chivilyov, is maintained. Consequently, the rejections of dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26 are maintained.
Furthermore, MPEP 2141.01(a) discusses obviousness regarding analogous art. Under MPEP 2141.01(a), a reference is analogous to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor (even if it addresses a different problem): or (2) the reference is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Examiner notes that combined Clyde, Moran, and Chivilyov are pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Therefore, the rejections of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 12-26, as obvious over Clyde in view of Moran, and Chivilyov, are maintained.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is
(571) 272-4252 and whose email address is lantoine@uspto.gov. The examiner can be
reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 am-5:30 pm CT. 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, Xuan Thai, can be reached on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for
the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/LISA H ANTOINE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights