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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 3/9/2026 is acknowledged and appreciated. The claim amendment has corrected claim 1 to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection which is withdrawn. Applicant argues that the “event detection module 117” of the Down reference does not teach a “proximity sensor” as claimed. Examiner asserts that the device described in Down as a detection module may include a component that detects when the drone reaches the target (activation of pressure sensor or button, par. 64) consistent with an indication of the drone location in relation to the target. With this, the drone detection module sends a signal to the electronic counter measure device to activate.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS document submitted 12/17/2025 is acknowledged and has been considered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Down et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0292184) in view of Fortney et al. (U.S. Patent 11,187,499).
In regards to claim 1, Down et al (henceforth referred to as Down) disclose a system for deployment of an electronic warfare package. Down teaches a projectile that includes electronic warfare components (note the projectile item 101 with its Electronic Counter Measure ECM in figures 1 and 2 and par. 38), comprising:
a projectile (item 101) comprising:
an electronics payload (item 105) comprising:
a processor. The complete system of Down includes a processor or controller (item 119);
Down teaches that the projectile utilizes the ECM to produce and transmit an RF signal to disrupt a target, but fails to explicitly describe an RF tuner communicatively coupled with the processor, or an output oscillator communicatively coupled to the processor and the RF tuner, or further an input antenna communicatively coupled to the RF tuner and an output antenna communicatively coupled to the output oscillator. However, Fortney et al (henceforth referred to as Fortney) teaches a system that detects a target RF signal and produces and transmits a “matched” RF signal to disrupt the communications with the target (col. 11, lines 13-67) and Fortney teaches incorporation of associated tuner, oscillator and receive and transmit antennae all electrically coupled with the processor/controller (col. 5, lines 37-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide the system of Down with the RF signal components of Fortney (tuner, oscillator, antenna etc.) to detect, produce and transmit RF signals;
and a proximity sensor communicatively coupled to the processor. Down teaches a proximity sensor (item 117);
a power source (item 115);
wherein the processor is programmed to:
receive, from the proximity sensor, a signal that an object is moving in proximity to the projectile. The controller of Down includes indication that the projectile is in the vicinity of the target;
generate a disruptive signal in a first frequency in response to the object is moving in proximity to the projectile. Down teaches generation of a signal to disrupt the target (par. 41);
Down as modified by Fortney utilizes the associated sensing system components to receive, verify and transmit RF signals and to cause the output oscillator to emit the disruptive signal via the output antenna (col. 5, lines 37-53).
In regards to claim 3, Down discloses that the processor is programmed to power on the electronics payload based on a detected condition being met. Down teaches that the system may be adapted to selectively activate based on occurrence of certain events (par. 62).
In regards to claim 4, Down teaches that the detected condition comprises at least one of: a date and time being met, an elapsed time expiring, location information matching a location, or location information and time information matching a location and a pre-determined time. Note that Down teaches activation at a certain time period after the projectile is launched (par. 65).
In regards to claim 7, Down as modified with Fortney, discloses that the processor is further programmed to: discover, via the input antenna, an existing communications signal; and generate, via the RF tuner, a mimic signal that mimics the discovered signal; and output, via the output antenna, the mimic signal. Fortney teaches a system that detects an RF signal and generates, via a tuner, a matched signal and outputs the signal to the target (col. 11, lines 13-67).
In regards to claim 8, Down discloses a system for deployment of an electronic warfare package. Down teaches a projectile that includes electronic warfare components (note the projectile item 101 with its Electronic Counter Measure ECM in figures 1 and 2 and par. 38), comprising:
a projectile (item 101) comprising:
an electronics payload comprising:
a processor. The complete system of Down includes a processor or controller (item 119);
Down teaches that the projectile utilizes the ECM to produce and transmit an RF signal to disrupt a target, but fails to explicitly describe an output oscillator communicatively coupled to the processor, or further an output antenna communicatively coupled to the output oscillator. However, Fortney teaches a system that detects a target RF signal and produces and transmits a “matched” RF signal to disrupt the communications with the target (col. 11, lines 13-67) and Fortney teaches incorporation of associated output oscillator and receive and transmit antennae all electrically coupled with the processor/controller (col. 5, lines 37-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide the system of Down with the RF signal components of Fortney (tuner, oscillator, antenna etc.) to detect, produce and transmit RF signals;
a proximity sensor communicatively coupled with the processor. Down teaches a proximity sensor (item 117);
and a power source (item 115);
wherein the processor is programmed to:
receive, from the proximity sensor, a signal indicating that an object is proximate to the projectile. The controller of Down includes indication that the projectile is in the vicinity of the target;
in response to the signal, generate a disruptive signal at a pre-determined frequency. Down teaches generation of a signal to disrupt the target (par. 41) at a specific frequency;
Down as modified by Fortney utilizes the associated sensing system components to receive, verify and transmit RF signals and to cause the output oscillator to emit the disruptive signal via the output antenna (col. 5, lines 37-53).
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Down et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0292184) in view of Fortney et al. (U.S. Patent 11,187,499) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gopalakrishnan et al. (U.S. Patent 9,524,648).
In regard to claims 2 and 9, Down discloses a memory (par. 33), but fails to explicitly teach storing at least one malware package, or that the processor is further programmed to: establish a connection with a computing device within communication range; and upload the at least one malware package to the computing device. However, Gopalakrishnan et al (henceforth referred to as Gopalakrishnan) teaches a countermeasure device that establishes a connection with a target computing device and uploads malware (col. 6, lines 39-65) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide the capacity of the Down system to connect with and transmit malware to a target computer system as taught by Gopalakrishnan to further disable or disrupt the target’s systems.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Down et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0292184) in view of Fortney et al. (U.S. Patent 11,187,499) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bass et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0100201).
In regards to claims 5 and 6, Down does not explicitly disclose a self-destruct mechanism, or wherein the processor is further programmed to: in response to receiving a trigger, initiate a self-destruct sequence; and wherein initiating the self-destruct sequence comprises activating the self-destruct mechanism. However, Bass et al (henceforth referred to as Bass) teaches launching an electronic projectile that incorporates an explosive self-destruct component that may be programmed to initiate in response to some triggering event and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a self-destruct means in/on the Down projectile as taught by Bass, to prevent the device from inadvertently damaging friendly systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 10 and the base claim, an input notch filter configured to track the disruptive signal.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-9 are rejected and claim 10 is objected to.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights