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 12-27-2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims1-19 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.
As per claim 1, the phrase “previously ascertained opposite direction” makes the claim indefinite. It is unclear when the data was obtained as there is no method step for it. In addition, it is unclear what “opposite direction” means in this instance. Further clarification is required.
As per claim 1, the claim appears to be written such that the transmitter and receiver detecting the missile are on board the decoy however it also appears the decoy is only deployed after a missile is detected and its angle determined. Further clarification on the arrangement of the transmit/receive/reflector hardware is required.
As per claim 1, the phrase “the previously ascertained opposite direction” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
As per claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13 and 15-17, use of the phrase “in particular” makes the claim indefinite as it does not properly define the bounds of the claim. Both a broad and narrow limitation have been provided in the same claim.
Claims 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14 and 18-19 are rejected as per their dependency on claim 1.
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, 4-9, 12-15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannasch, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0159379, published July 12, 2007 in view of Clelland, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0299296, filed August 19, 2020.
As per claims 1 and 12, Bannasch discloses a method for protecting an object - in particular, a land vehicle or watercraft, and in particular a ship - from a radar-guided missile, by deploying and using an active offboard reflector which is arranged at a decoy (Bannasch, abstract) and comprises
at least one receiving antenna and at least one transmitting antenna, wherein a radar signal transmitted by the radar-guided missile is picked up (Bannasch, ¶72 using radar)
and returned to the missile as an amplified signal in the previously ascertained opposite direction of reception, wherein, to carry out the method, a plurality of flying drones are deployed, each having at least one active offboard reflector, and the drones are positioned relative to one another in space in such a way that the active offboard reflectors thereof act as individual scattering centers, and the signals therefrom that are returned to the missile collectively produce a radar scatter pattern that simulates the object to be protected (Bannasch, ¶46 and 132-135 using active compositions).
Bannasch fails to expressly disclose the decoys flying or providing an amplified signal.
Clelland teaches signal amplification (¶8 where the corner reflector’s minimal scattering increasing return signal) as well as a flying decoy (¶11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to increase the return signal in order to gain the benefit of masking the real object and it would further have been obvious to provide a flying decoy in order to gain the benefit of making “post launch” adjustments as taught by Clelland (¶11).
As per claim 2, Bannasch as modified by Clelland discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the direction of reception of the radar signal and thus a direction of approach of the radar-guided missile are ascertained by means of the receiving antennas and/or by means of an additional sensor (Bannasch, ¶72 and 81-82).
As per claim 4, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the drones, before their deployment, are arranged or carried along on the object to be protected or on an accompanying vehicle (Bannasch, ¶86).
As per claim 5, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the drones become airborne for their flying deployment starting from the object to be protected or starting from an accompanying vehicle carrying the drones, and in particular are brought into the air by means of a throwing device (Bannasch, ¶86).
As per claim 6, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the drones are brought into the air by means of an electronically controlled throwing device for their flight deployment in such a way that the direction, speed, and/or distance of the movement relative to the object to be protected are ascertained taking into account and as a function of a previously ascertained direction of approach, and in particular further parameters of the incoming radar-guided missile (Bannasch, ¶112-119).
As per claim 7, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the drones are brought into the air by means of the electronically controlled throwing device according to a previously calculated decoy pattern (Bannasch, ¶139).
As per claim 8, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, for a respective drone, its current actual position is ascertained relative to its starting position on the object to be protected or on the accompanying vehicle and is compared to a previously calculated reference position, and in that a respective flight drive mechanism of the drone is controlled by means of an electronic flight drive control device such that the drone assumes the previously calculated reference position (Clelland, ¶32).
As per claim 9, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein, for a respective drone, its current actual position is ascertained absolutely and/or relative to its starting position by means of GPS or preferably by means of an acceleration sensor system (Clelland, ¶24).
As per claim 13, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the protection system according to claim 12, wherein an electronically controlled throwing device which can be aligned in azimuth and elevation, by means of which the plurality of drones are brought into the air for their flight deployment, and in particular are shot into the air (Bannasch, ¶122).
As per claim 14, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the protection system according to claim 12, wherein a device is provided for ascertaining data about the movement state of the object to be protected (Bannasch, ¶84).
As per claim 15, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the protection system according to claim 12, wherein a device for selecting or calculating a decoy pattern is provided as a function of the ascertainment of missile data and/or data about the movement state of the object to be protected - in particular, as a function of the ascertained type of the missile, as a function of a direction of approach of the missile, and/or as a function of the relative orientation of the object to be protected with respect to the direction of approach of the missile (Bannasch, ¶34-44).
As per claim 17, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the protection system according to claim 12, wherein, for a respective drone, a device for determining its current actual position - in particular, relative to its initial position - and for comparison with its reference position according to the decoy pattern to be formed is provided (Clelland, ¶24 and 32).
As per claim 18, Bannasch as modified by Clelland further discloses the protection system according to claim 17, wherein the device for determining the actual position is GPS-based or designed based upon an acceleration sensor system (Clelland, ¶24).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannasch and Clelland as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Meadows, U.S. Patent Number 4,806,938, published February 21, 1989.
As per claims 3 and 16, Bannasch as modified by Clelland discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to expressly disclose the drones in a van atta array configuration to detect the angle.
Meadows teaches a van atta arrangement to detection angle of arrival (Col. 2, 58-68 and Col. 3, 1-25).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a van atta with the drones, 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 Bannasch in determining the correct angle.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bannasch and Clelland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0074520, published March 15, 2018.
As per claims 10, 11 and 19, Bannasch as modified by Clelland discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose the drones communicating and coordinating.
Liu teaches a drone swarm that communicates (¶25) and keeps relative distance and speed (¶22 and 25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow the drones to communication in order to gain the obvious benefit of keeping the swarm in the desired position relative to each other.
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