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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: locking mechanism.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goren et al. (US 9,435,597), hereinafter (“Goren”).
Re claim 2, Goren (c. 2, l. 50+) discloses a method comprising: computing, using data captured by a sensor included in a firearm, location data that indicates an approximate location of the firearm;
determining, using the location data, whether to maintain, a locking mechanism attached to the firearm in a locked state to reduce a likelihood of activation of a trigger of the firearm;
in response to determining to maintain the locking mechanism in the locked state, maintaining the locking mechanism in the locked state;
detecting, using data received from another device (c. 3, l. 60+), a second location of an authorized user of the firearm;
determining, using the data received from the other device, whether the second location of the authorized user of the firearm satisfies a proximity threshold (i.e. signal strength is inherently based on proximity) for the approximate location of the firearm; and
disengaging the locking mechanism to permit discharge of the firearm in response to determining that the approximate location of the authorized user of the firearm satisfies the proximity threshold of the second location of the firearm.
Re claim 3, Goren discloses the method of claim 2, comprising: engaging the locking mechanism in response to determining that a third location of the authorized user does not satisfy the proximity threshold for a current location of the firearm (c. 6, l. 55-65).
Re claim 5, Goren discloses the method of claim 2, comprising: receiving an authorization command that was generated using input receive from an external device (c. 4, l. 5-15); wherein: disengaging the locking mechanism is responsive to a) determining that the second location of the authorized user of the firearm satisfies the proximity threshold of the approximate location of the firearm and b) receiving the authorization command.
Re claim 6, Goren discloses the method of claim 2, comprising: receiving a first status signal indicating the locking mechanism has been disengaged; and in response to receiving the first status signal, activating an alarm system at a property based on the locking mechanism having been disengaged.
Re claim 7, Goren discloses the method of claim 6, comprising, in response to receiving the first status signal, alerting emergency personnel based on the locking mechanism having been disengaged.
Re claim 8, Goren discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the authorized user comprises a registered owner of the firearm (inherent).
Re claim 9, Goren (Fig 4) discloses a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: (c. 2, l. 50+); computing, using movement data captured by a sensor included in a firearm, location data that indicates an approximate location of the firearm;
determining, using the location data, whether to maintain a locking mechanism attached to the firearm in a locked state to reduce a likelihood of activation of a trigger of the firearm;
in response to determining to maintain the locking mechanism in the locked state, maintaining the locking mechanism in the locked state;
detecting, using data received from another device (c. 3, l. 60+), a second location of an authorized user of the firearm;
determining, using the data received from the other device, whether the second location of the authorized user of the firearm satisfies a proximity threshold for the approximate location of the firearm (i.e. signal strength is inherently based on proximity); and
disengaging the locking mechanism to permit discharge of the firearm in response to determining that the second location of the authorized user of the firearm satisfies the proximity threshold of the approximate location of the firearm (c. 3, l. 60+).
Re claim 10, Goren discloses the system of claim 9, the operations comprising: engaging the locking mechanism in response to determining that a third location of the authorized user does not satisfy the proximity threshold for a current location of the firearm (c. 6, l. 55-65).
Re claim 12, Goren discloses the system of claim 9, the operations comprising: receiving an authorization command that was generated using input received from an external device (c. 4, l. 5-15); wherein: disengaging the locking mechanism is responsive to a) determining that the second location of the authorized user of the firearm satisfies the proximity threshold of the approximate location of the firearm and b) receiving the authorization command.
Re claim 13, Goren discloses the system of claim 9, the operations comprising: receiving a first status signal indicating the locking mechanism has been disengaged; and in response to receiving the first status signal, activating an alarm system at a property based on the locking mechanism having been disengaged.
Re claim 14, Goren discloses the system of claim 13, the operations comprising, in response to receiving the first status signal, alerting emergency personnel based on the locking mechanism having been disengaged.
Re claim 15, Goren discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the authorized user comprises a registered owner of the firearm (inherent).
Re claim 16, Goren (c. 2, l. 50+) discloses one or more computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
computing, using movement data captured by a sensor included in a firearm, location data that indicates an approximate location of the firearm;
determining, using the location data, whether to maintain a locking mechanism attached to the firearm in a locked state to reduce a likelihood of activation of a trigger of the firearm;
in response to determining to maintain the locking mechanism in the locked state, maintaining the locking mechanism in the locked state;
detecting, using data received from another device (c. 3, l. 60+), a second location of an authorized user of the firearm;
determining, using the data receive from the other device, whether the second location of the authorized user of the firearm satisfies a proximity threshold for the approximate location of the firearm (i.e. signal strength is inherently based on proximity);
and disengaging the locking mechanism to permit discharge of the firearm in response to determining that the second location of the authorized user of the firearm satisfies the proximity threshold of the location of the firearm.
Re claim 17, Goren discloses the one or more computer storage media of claim 16, the operations comprising: engaging the locking mechanism in response to determining that a third location of the authorized user does not satisfy the proximity threshold for a current location of the firearm (c. 6, l. 55-65).
Re claim 19, Goren discloses the one or more computer storage media of claim 16, the operations comprising: receiving an authorization command that was generated using input received from an external device (c. 4, l. 5-15); wherein: disengaging the locking mechanism is responsive to a) determining that the second location of the authorized user of the firearm satisfies the proximity threshold of the approximate location of the firearm and b) receiving the authorization command.
Re claim 20, Goren discloses the one or more computer storage media of claim 16, the operations comprising: receiving a first status signal indicating the locking mechanism has been disengaged; and in response to receiving the first status signal, activating an alarm system at a property based on the locking mechanism having been disengaged.
Re claim 21, Goren discloses the one or more computer storage media of claim 20, the operations comprising, in response to receiving the first status signal, alerting emergency personnel based on the locking mechanism having been disengaged.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goren in view of McRae (US 8,464,451). Goren discloses the method of claim 2 with the exception of: computing, using the data captured by the sensor included in the firearm, usage data about the firearm that indicates a detected number of times the firearm was likely discharged, wherein: the location data indicates an approximate location of at least one of the discharges; and maintaining the locking mechanism attached to the firearm in the locked state uses the location data and the usage data.
McRae teaches a method including computing, using the data captured by the sensor included in the firearm, usage data about the firearm that indicates a detected number of times the firearm was likely discharged, wherein: the location data indicates an approximate location of at least one of the discharges; and maintaining the locking mechanism attached to the firearm in the locked state uses the location data and the usage data. The purpose of capturing the data in McRae is because that data would be excellent information for police reports and courtroom evidence (c. 1, l. 54). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Goren to have the data capturing capability of McRae. The motivation (as taught by McRae) would be because that captured data would be excellent information for police reports and courtroom evidence (c. 1, l. 54). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-17-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially argues that the Office has provided insufficient evidence that 112(f) applies to locking mechanism; the examiner disagrees. As stated above, the term “mechanism” is: (1) a generic placeholder, (2) the placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e. locking), and (3) the placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Applicant further argues that the examiner’s reference to Goren does not disclose applicant’s invention; the examiner disagrees (see above rejections).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7010. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
/REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights