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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2-10-2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2-10-2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-10-2026 have been fully considered. As they 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) 1-6, 8, 14, 15 and 17, 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 and Duan, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0308156, filed February 9, 2022.
As per claims 1, 19 and 20, LaPat discloses a system, comprising: a receiver, wherein the receiver is configured to: receive an indication regarding a radio frequency (RF) transmitted beam; receive a scattered reflection of the RF transmitted beam from a first target object; and process the scattered reflection of the RF transmitted beam using the indication (LaPat, Fig. 1, 114 and Col. 4, lines 35-55).
LaPat teaches a ground transmitter but fails to expressly disclose the transmitter tracking the target or modulating the RF beam.
Golan teaches ground radars which track, beam steer and provide communication (¶37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention o have the ground radar track in order to gain the benefit of providing continuous observation of the target and ensure reflections get to the projectile.
Duan teaches an RF beam modulated with information (¶62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modulate the RF beam in order to gain the benefit of allowing the receiver to decode additional information as taught by Duan.
As per claim 2, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the receiver is comprised in an interceptor (LaPat, Col. 2, lines 31-41).
As per claim 3, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the interceptor is airborne (LaPat, Col. 2, lines 31-41).
As per claim 4, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the interceptor is configured to navigate based at least in part on the scattered reflection of the RF transmitted beam (LaPat, Col. 5, lines 15-25).
As per claim 5, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan further discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the interceptor navigates based on following or tracking the scattered reflection of the RF transmitted beam (LaPat, Col. 5, lines 15-25).
As per claim 6, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan further discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the interceptor navigates to intercept or move within a predefined range of the first target object (LaPat, Col. 3, lines 60-61).
As per claim 8, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the RF transmitted beam comprises an energy beam (LaPat, Col. 4, lines 12-22).
As per claim 14, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the indication includes one or more of: RF transmitted beam modulation information, a target bearing, and a target distance (LaPat, Col. 4, lines 45-46).
As per claim 15, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein processing the scattered reflection of the RF transmitted beam comprises determining one or more of a relative target bearing and a relative target distance (LaPat, Col. 4, lines 47-55).
As per claim 17, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan discloses the system of claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the receiver FOV.
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 FOV 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
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat, Golan and Duan as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Schorr, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0256643, published August 13, 2020.
As per claim 7, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan discloses the method of claim 1 including an on-board radar (Col. 2, lines 61-67) but fails to disclose switching modes at a predefined range.
Schorr teaches projectile guidance switching modes at a predefined distance (¶34).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to switch at a particular range in order to gain the benefit of allowing the missile to take over when close to the target.
Claim(s) 9-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat, Golan and Duan as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Harman, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0021194, published January 24, 2013.
As per claim 9, LaPat as modified by Golan and Duan discloses the system of claim 8 but fails to disclose an operating frequency.
Harman teaches a ground radar for projectile detection within 2-50GHz (¶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 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 claim 10, LaPat as modified by Golan, Duan and Harman discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the RF transmitted beam is modulated (Harman, ¶9-10).
As per claim 11, LaPat as modified by Golan, Duan and Harman further discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the RF transmitted beam is modulated using one or more of the following: a frequency modulation, a phase modulation, an amplitude modulation, a shift modulation, a chirp modulation (Duan, ¶62).
As per claim 12, LaPat as modified by Golan, Duan and Harman further discloses the system of claim 10, wherein a first modulation of the RF transmitted beam is directed to the first target object, and a second modulation of the RF transmitted beam is directed to a second target object (Duan, ¶62).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to direct modulations to separate targets, 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 and Golan in identify targets for the projectile to track and approach.
As per claim 13, LaPat as modified by Golan, Duan and Harman further discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the RF transmitted beam is modulated to comprise information regarding the RF transmitted beam or the first target object (LaPat, Col. 4, 12-22 and Duan, ¶62).
As per claim 16, LaPat as modified by Golan and Harman further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein processing the scattered reflection of the RF transmitted beam comprises filtering based at least in part on Doppler analysis to isolate a signal from the first target object (Harman, ¶25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use doppler in order to gain the benefit of using existing, well-known methods of object tracking.
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.
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