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 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, 2-5, 7-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPat, U.S. Patent Number 8,710,411, filed September 29, 2010 in view of LaPat, U.S. Patent Number 8,698,058, published April 15, 2014 (herein after referred to as LaPat2).
As per claims 1, 19 and 20, LaPat discloses a system, comprising:
a receiver configured to: receive an indication to intercept a target object from a tracking station (LaPat, Col. 4, lines 50-55);
a processor configured to: determine navigation to the target object based at least in part on the indication (LaPat, Col. 4, lines 58-64);
determine the navigation to the target object based at least in part on 1) the scatter energy or 2) the scatter energy and the indication from the tracking station (LaPat, Fig. 3, 390 showing scatter energy and Col. 6, lines 30-50 determining navigation).
LaPat fails to explicitly disclose comparing scatter energy to a threshold and determining whether to navigate to an object.
LaPat2 teaches analyzing scatter energy to determine a best fit (which acts as a threshold) and determine whether to navigate to an object (based on best determination) (LaPat2, Col. 4, lines 40-55).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to compare and determine whether to navigate in order to gain the obvious benefit of selecting the correct target.
As per claim 3, LaPat as modified by LaPat2 further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein in response to the scatter energy not being greater than or equal to the scatter threshold, determine the navigation to the target object based at least in part on the indication from the tracking station ( LaPat, Col. 3, lines 1-20 where tracking remains with the tracking station until a specific criteria is met).
As per claims 4-5, LaPat as modified by LaPat2 further discloses the system of claim 1 where a range threshold is compared and scatter energy is not used (LaPat, Col. 3, lines 1-20 where tracking remains with the tracking station until a specific criteria is met).
As per claims 7-12 and 14, they are all obvious variations of using available data (such as scatter energy and range above) to determine when to hand over tracking (LaPat, Col. 3, lines 1-20).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use various data points, 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 getting the projectile to the desired target.
As per claims 15-18, LaPat as modified by LaPat2 further discloses the system of claim 8, wherein in an active measure is performed based on tracking data (LaPat, Col. 5, lines 26-30 where flight is adjusted or not depending on the current flight path and target).
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