DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims have been amended to address the objections, Examiner agrees and the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the objection to the specification for failing to provide antecedent basis for the language of claims 5, 7, and 9 is overcome by the addition of new paragraphs [0323.1]-[0323.3], Examiner agrees that the objections related to claims 7 and 9 are overcome. However the lack of antecedent basis in the specification for “a slope of a Doppler shift slope” in claim 5 has not been overcome because the amended specification still does not contain or explain the phrase “a slope of a Doppler shift slope”. Examiner notes that it is the second instance of “slope” in this phrase that is the issue. Language that would be supported by the application as originally filed includes “a Slope of Doppler Estimates” or “a Slope of Doppler Estimates chart” (para. [0044] and [0209]-[0210] and Fig. 25). New paragraph [0323.1] uses “slope of the Doppler shift” (para. [0323.1]) and, as discussed below, is not considered new matter. Use of any of these would overcome the objection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the rejections have been withdrawn in part. Please see below for remaining and new issues.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amendments to Fig. 14 do not introduce new matter, Examiner agrees, and the amendments are accepted.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that new paragraphs [0323.1]-[0323.3] do not constitute new matter by are fully supported by the original disclosure, merely making explicit what was previously implied or inherent in the described methods, Examiner agrees that para. [0323.1] further explains what was implied or inherent without introducing new matter, but disagrees that paras. [0323.2] and [0323.3] do not introduce new matter. Further explanation is provided below. To the extent that the new paragraphs are intended to overcome disclosure objections for failure to provide antecedent basis for claim language, Examiner recommends the specification amendments adhere closely to the claim language as originally filed.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claim amendments do not introduce new matter, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 3, 13, 16, and 17 appear to recite new matter as discussed in the new matter rejections below. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that paras. [0060], [0126], [0012], [0013], [0009], and [0071] provide support for the amendments. Examiner agrees that paras. [0060] and [0126] describe a telemetry signal, but disagrees that this necessarily implies “normal operation” as claimed. Examiner agrees that para. [0012] describes a noncooperative vehicle, but disagrees that this implies “passively receives and analyzes this signal without transmitting any additional signals”, as it would appear to be possible to transmit additional signals without those signals providing for “cooperation”. Examiner agrees that para. [0013] describes a target vehicle that receives signals from an interceptor vehicle but disagrees that this necessarily implies passivity. Examiner agrees that paras. [0009] and [0071] describe estimating nearest miss distance and measuring the efficacy of the target missile, but disagrees that a test environment context is necessarily implied. Examiner notes that none of the cited paragraphs have been alleged as providing support for “wherein the target missile and the interceptor missile are moving at speeds greater than 1 km/s relative to each other” in amended claim 17. Examiner recommends the claim amendments adhere closely to the language in the specification as originally filed.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claim amendments distinguish over the prior art, Examiner agrees, and the prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification does not provide antecedent basis for “a slope of the Doppler shift slope” in claim 5.
The disclosure is objected to because it introduces new matter:
The amendment filed 7/9/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is new paragraphs [0323.2]-[0323.3]:
PNG
media_image1.png
756
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant has argued, with respect to para. [0323.2]:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Specification paragraphs [0017], [0018], and [0099] are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
568
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
270
664
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
136
652
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees that these paragraphs support new para. [0323.2]. There is at least no clear support for at least “accurate... estimation of the miss distance”, “cross-validate”, “enhances the precision”, and “less reliable do to environmental factors or signal interference”.
Applicant has argued, with respect to para. [0323.3]:
PNG
media_image6.png
204
654
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees that para. [0018] provides support for the content of new para. [0323.3] and support could not be found elsewhere in the specification. Further, the identification of new matter is determined with respect to the specification as originally filed, not the state of the prior art.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite new matter:
In claims 1 and 3, “as part of its normal operation, and the target missile passively receives and analyzes this signal without transmitting any additional signals” and “wherein the method is performed in a test environment for evaluating the performance of the interceptor missile in approaching the target missile” appear to be new matter.
In claim 13 “as part of its normal operation, and the signal receiver on the target missile captures and processes this signal without requiring any modifications one of more transmissions of to the interceptor missile” and “wherein the method is performed in a test environment for evaluating the performance of the interceptor missile in approaching the target missile” appear to be new matter.
Regarding claim 16, “the interceptor missile does not transmit any signals for the purpose of determining the miss distance, relying solely on the telemetry signal broadcast by the interceptor missile” appears to be new matter.
Regarding claim 17, “wherein the target missile and the interceptor missile are moving at speeds greater than 1 km/s relative to each other” appears to be new matter.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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 5, 10, 11, 13, 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.
Regarding claim 5 lines 3-4, it is unclear what is meant by “a slope of the Doppler shift slope” because the specification does not appear to use the language “a slope of the Doppler shift slope” (emphasis added) and it is unclear what is meant. The specification as originally filed refers to “a Slope of Doppler Estimates” or “a Slope of Doppler Estimates chart” (para. [0044] and [0209]-[0210] and Fig. 25). New paragraph [0323.1] uses “slope of the Doppler shift” (para. [0323.1]) and is not considered new matter. Use of any of these would overcome the rejection.
Claim 10 is ungrammatical and replete with antecedent basis issues. In line 5, “said changes in the general characteristics of said received signal” lack antecedent basis. In lines 6-7 “the changing distance between said transmitter and said signal receiver” lacks antecedent basis, and the meaning of “the path loss” cannot be clearly determined. In lines 8-9, “the beam pattern shapes of transmit and receive antennas” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11 lines 3 and 4, it is unclear what is “approaching” and “departing”. For example is the transmitter approaching the receiver? The claim cannot be clearly understood without specifying what “approaching” and “departing” refer to. Examiner notes that the “approaching” and “departing” is clear in the context of amended claim 10, however claim 11 does not depend on claim 10.
Regarding claim 13 line 9, it is unclear if “a received signal” is meant to refer to the recorded portion of the broadcast signal recited in lines 6-7, or to a different received signal.
Claim 13 lines 22-26 recite the same limitations as claim 10 lines 5-9 as discussed above and are rejected as indefinite for the same reasons.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached on (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648