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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Bluetooth,” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1: “a shooting” should read “a shooting device”.
Claim 7, line 3: “the audio output transmitted wirelessly” should read “the audio output is transmitted wirelessly and”
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“shooting device” in claims 1-20
“sighting system” in claim 11
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 § 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 8, 9, and 14 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.
Claims 8 and 14 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 wireless transmission and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the examiner will not consider the language “such as when being carried” as limiting. Correction and/or clarification are required.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for many external surfaces of a shooting device, does not reasonably provide enablement for any location on the shooting device.
For example, if the shooting device is a firearm, then the specification while being enabling for many locations on a firearm (stock, receiver, etc.), does not reasonably provide enablement for any location on the firearm, e.g., inside the cartridge chamber, on the front face of the trigger, over the ejection port and/or on the bolt/action, covering the muzzle bore, etc. Further, for example, if the shooting device is a bow or crossbow, then the specification while being enabling for many component surfaces of a bow or crossbow (stock, handle, etc.), does not reasonably provide enablement for any location on the bow or crossbow, e.g., on the string or in a position that would block/abut the arrow/bolt. The same rationale can be applied to any “shooting device” covered by the claim (see paragraph 27). The term “shooting device” covers rifles, pistols, bows, and crossbows, and equivalents thereof, all of which include locations for which the specification does not reasonably provide enablement.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 12-13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paczkowski (EP 2950034 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Paczkowski discloses an anti-cant indication system for a shooting, the system comprising:
an angular motion sensor (120) configured to:
detect an angular tilt of the shooting device relative to gravity, including a lateral component and a declination component (paragraphs 26 and 39) and
generate a left-right tilt signal indicative of a left-tilt or a right-tilt, and a front-rear signal indicative of declination (paragraphs 26, 27, and 39; figure 1);
a processor (110) operatively coupled to the angular motion sensor and configured to:
determine whether the left-right tilt signal exceeds a predefined deadband threshold (paragraphs 26, 26, and 37); and
determine whether the front-rear signal indicates an orientation significantly above or below a normal shooting position (paragraph 35);
an audio converter (160) operatively coupled to the processor and configured to:
generate a first audio signal corresponding to a left-tilt condition, a second audio signal corresponding to a right-tilt condition, and a null or muted audio output when the angular tilt is within the deadband threshold (paragraphs 35 and 37).
In reference to claim 2, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention (paragraph 35: earphones).
In reference to claim 3, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention (paragraphs 26, 39, and 40: acceleration sensor).
In reference to claim 4, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention (paragraphs 37 and 40).
In reference to claim 5, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention (paragraph 37).
In reference to claim 6, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention (paragraph 35).
In reference to claim 12, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1.
In reference to claim 13, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 4.
In reference to claim 16, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 5 (also, see paragraph 37).
In reference to claim 19, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention (paragraph 35).
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.
Claims 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of D’urso et al (2012/0080523).
In reference to claims 7, 8, 14, and 17, Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention, including wherein the audio output provides a left-ear signal for a left-tilt condition and a right-ear signal for a right-tilt condition (paragraph 35), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the audio converter varies an audio volume or a pitch of the audio output based on a magnitude of tilt beyond the predefined deadband threshold, as well as Bluetooth wireless transmission of the audio output.
Regarding the varying of volume or pitch, D’urso teaches it is known to vary the pitch of an audio cue that signals angular deviation of a firearm, from a reference orientation, in order to convey the magnitude of said deviation (paragraph 54). Further, Paczkowski discloses that different pitches can be used to indicate angular deviation of firearm tilt from a deadband threshold (paragraphs 35 and 37). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paczkowski such that the audio converter is configured to vary an audio volume or a pitch of the audio output based on a magnitude of tilt beyond the predefined deadband threshold, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to convey the magnitude of said tilt to a user.
Regarding wireless transmission of the audio output, it is noted that Paczkowski discloses the use of earphones (paragraph 35). Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known for an audio output to be transmitted wirelessly to earphones via a Bluetooth transmitter, in order to allow a user to hear said output without any chance of wire snag and/or without any need for wire management. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paczkowski such that the audio output is transmitted wirelessly to the earphones via a Bluetooth transmitter, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow a user to hear said output without any chance of wire snag and/or without any need for wire management.
Claims 9, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Tries (EP 1283404 A1).
Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the processor is further configured to use the front-rear signal to trigger an automatic shut-off of the audio output when the shooting device is tilted significantly above or below a normal shooting orientation, and the method steps to achieve such. However, Paczkowski does disclose that the processor (110) is connected to the audio converter (160), and the processor reads the signals from the angular motion sensor (120) to tell the audio converter what audio signals to generate (paragraphs 26, 27, 37 and 41). Further, Tries teaches it is known to automatically shut-off electrical accessories associated with a firearm/sight when the firearm/sight falls below a normal shooting orientation, in order to conserve power (see provided translation, paragraph 11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor, as claimed, so as to perform the method steps, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to conserve power when the shooting device falls below a normal shooting orientation. It is noted that shutting off the power to the system, including the audio output, constitutes muting said output and suppressing all signals.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paczkowski in view of Brewer (2021/0207928).
Paczkowski discloses the claimed invention, except for an automatic idle shutoff timer, as claimed, and the method step associated therewith. Further, Paczkowski fails to disclose reactivation of the system, as claimed. However, Brewer teaches it is known to provide an electrically powered firearm accessory with an automatic idle shutoff timer, as claimed, the method step associated therewith, and reactivation of the accessory, as claimed, in order to conserve battery power for longer life (paragraph 88). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Paczkowski with an automatic idle shutoff timer, as claimed, the method step associated therewith, and reactivation of the accessory, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to conserve battery power for longer life.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached Notice of References Cited. The relevance of each cited reference is made clear by at least the abstract and/or drawings thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
