DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12-4-2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-4-2025 have been fully considered. As the arguments are directed towards the claims as amended, please see below.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, 18, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat, U.S. Patent Number 8,698,058, published April 15, 2014 in view of Golan, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0238403, published October 26, 2006.
As per claims 1, 19 and 20, LaPat discloses a system, comprising:
a first transmission system, wherein the first transmission system is configured to: determine a location of a first target; provide a first radio frequency (RF) transmitted beam toward a first target object; and provide an indication to a receiver separate from the transmission system regarding one or more of the first RF transmitted beam and the first target object (LaPat, Col. 4, lines 29-45).
LaPat fails to expressly disclose directing a beam to the target.
Golan teaches directing a beam to a target, tracking the target and communicating with a receiver (¶46).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to direct and track the target in order to gain the benefit of reacting to any significant changes over time to ensure intercept.
As per claims 2 and 3, LaPat as modified by Golan discloses the system of claim 1 where the transmission system is ground based and uses an energy beam (LaPat, Fig. 3).
As per claims 9 and 10, LaPat as modified by Golan further discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the indication is provided to an airborne interceptor (LaPat, Fig. 3 and Col. 4, lines 29-45).
As per claim 11, LaPat as modified by Golan further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first transmission system tracks the first target object and dynamically updates a directing of the first RF transmitted beam toward the first target object based on a tracking of the first target object (LaPat, Col. 4, lines 43-47 where continuous updates are provided and Golan, ¶46).
As per claim 12, LaPat as modified by Golan further discloses the system of claim 1, comprising: a second transmission system, wherein: the second transmission system is configured to provide a second RF transmitted beam toward a second target object; and the second RF transmitted beam has a different signature than the first RF transmitted beam (LaPat, Fig. 3 and Col. 5, lines where the second beam is different as it comes from a different transmission system and is distinguishable due to the clock synchronization).
As per claim 18, LaPat as modified by Golan further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first transmission system provides the indication regarding one or more of the first RF transmitted beam and the first target object via a communication channel established between the first transmission system and an interceptor (LaPat, Col. 3, lines 35-62).
Claim(s) 4-8 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat and Golan as applied to claims 1-3, 9-12, 18, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of Harman, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0021194, published January 24, 2013.
As per claims 4 and 5, LaPat as modified by Golan discloses the system of claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose a frequency range.
Harman teaches operation in the GHz range (¶22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the frequency range limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claims 6-8, LaPat as modified by Golan and Harman disclose modulation of the transmission (¶9-10).
It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine if modulation of a signal is desired or necessary.
As per claim 13, LaPat as modified by Golan and Harman further discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the second transmission system is airborne (LaPat, Fig. 3).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to be airborne, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by LaPat in intercepting targets.
As per claim 14, LaPat as modified by Golan and Harman further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the first transmission system identifies a plurality of target objects; and the first RF transmitted beam is transmitted by: modulating the first RF transmitted beam; directing a first modulation towards the first target object; and directing a second modulation towards a second target object (LaPat, Fig. 3 and Harman, ¶9-10).
As per claim 15, LaPat as modified by Golan and Harman further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein: the first transmission system is further configured to receive from a detection system an indication that the first target object is detected; and the first RF transmitted beam is directed to the first target object in response to the first transmission system receiving the indication of the first target object being detected (LaPat, Col. 4, lines 14-23 where commands are issued by the RCCS).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat and Golan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halbert, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0285158, published October 5, 2017.
As per claim 16, LaPat as modified by Golan discloses the system of claim 1 including detection of targets and provide indication to the interceptor (Col. 4, lines 29-45) but fails to explicitly disclose interrogation of the object.
Halbert teaches radar target interrogation (¶73).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to interrogate in order to gain the obvious benefit of determining if the object is friendly.
As per claim 17, LaPat as modified by Golan and Halbert discloses the system of claim 16, wherein: the detection system is further configured to: in response to detecting a plurality of objects, determine priorities for the plurality of objects; and the first transmission system is caused to target the plurality of objects in an order based at least in part on the priorities for the plurality of objects (LaPat, Col. 4, lines 50-55 where the best is indicated).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646