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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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.
Claim 16 is 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. The claim recites “contacting the drone with the target firearm” which is ambiguously written as the wording appears to state that the firearm is controlled to contact the drone while the rest of the claim appears to perform control only of the drone, not the gun. Further, “contacts” is indefinite as this is not clear whether physical contact is required to infringe on the claim, or some other “contact” such as “making contact” or similar.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 112(b) U.S.C. as indefinite for depending from an indefinite independent claim.
Claim 18 is 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. The claim recites “selected from a group consisting essentially of”, the term “essentially” rendering the claim indefinite as this is not clear what the term means for the claim- whether this changes the meaning of the limitations or not compared to “consisting of” which is a grouping of exclusively the listed options.
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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magdaleno (US 20200051438), herein after referred to as Magdaleno, in view of Hurst (US 20220050479), herein after referred to as Hurst.
Regarding Claim 1, Magdaleno discloses:
detecting a target firearm; (see at least [0094] “an infrared sensor may identify a hot barrel of a gun.”)
launching a drone from a drone platform; (see at least [Figs. 28, 29] [0138] “Referring now to FIGS. 28 and 29, drone launcher 31 is shown. ... When activated, the compressed gas forces the plunger 37 and drones out of the tube.”)
directing the drone in the direction of the target firearm; (see at least [0152] “sensors can be used in an overall system to detect a location of the gunshots or events, and direct the UAV to the location.”)
contacting the drone with the target (see at least [0092] “Preferably the active shooter 24 is neutralized with a chemical such as pepper spray. To this end, the drone 16 may be retrofitted with one or more pepper spray canisters 38. The drone 16 hovering over the active shooter 24 may release one of more pepper spray liquid, if needed.”)
moving away from the immediate proximity of the target firearm; (see at least [Fig. 23]) (*See path of drone to leave the immediate vicinity after deploying weapon)
detecting the threat of the target firearm; (see at least [0092] “ If all of the drones 16 releases all their pepper spray canisters 38 but the active shooter 24 is still not neutralized, it is also contemplated that the drone itself 16 may ram into the active shooter.”) (*Examiner interprets the system knowing whether or not the target is “neutralized” as disclosing detecting the threat as this required a detection of threat)
Magdaleno does not explicitly disclose:
contacting the drone with the target firearm;
and returning the drone to the drone platform after determining that the target firearm is malfunctioned or inaccessible.
However, Magdaleno discloses:
[ending process] after determining that the target firearm is malfunctioned or inaccessible. (see at least [0092] “ If all of the drones 16 releases all their pepper spray canisters 38 but the active shooter 24 is still not neutralized, it is also contemplated that the drone itself 16 may ram into the active shooter.”)
Examiner interprets that as the reference discloses a system in which the drone will continue the firearm interference after determining the target is still a threat, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention would understand the reverse to be true- that the interference process will cease upon determining the threat is neutralized.
In the same field of endeavor, Hurst discloses:
contacting the drone with the target firearm; (see at least [0113] “dispense a glue on the firearm thereby disabling the firearm.”)
and returning the drone to the drone platform (see at least [0077] “ At block 504, the UAV may stand down, such as land or fly back to their respective docking stations.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the drone defense field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Magdaleno to contact the firearm directly rather than the person as taught by Hurst to disable the firearm [0113], and return the drone to the target platform as taught by Hurst to return to dock after service [0077].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Magdaleno discloses the limitations of Claim 16, and Magdaleno further discloses:
determining that the target firearm remains operable; directing the drone in the direction of the target firearm; contacting the drone with the target firearm; (see at least [0092] “If all of the drones 16 releases all their pepper spray canisters 38 but the active shooter 24 is still not neutralized, it is also contemplated that the drone itself 16 may ram into the active shooter.”)
and moving away from the immediate proximity of the target firearm. (see at least [Fig. 23]) (*See path of drone to leave the immediate vicinity after deploying weapon)
Regarding Claim 18, modified Magdaleno discloses the limitations of Claim 16, but Magdaleno does not explicitly disclose:
applying a firearm malfunction device attachment to the firearm,
wherein the firearm malfunction device attached is selected from a group consisting essentially of a bistable band, an inflatable device, a harpoon, a net, a claw, a malfunction plate, and an airbag actuator system.
In the same field of endeavor, Hurst discloses:
applying a firearm malfunction device attachment to the firearm, (see at least [0112] “the UAV controller can use a fluid dispenser 1204 which can spray or squirt a fluid such as a paint or marking dye, a glue,” [0113] “dispense a glue on the firearm thereby disabling the firearm.”)
wherein the firearm malfunction device attached is selected from a group consisting essentially of a bistable band, an inflatable device, a harpoon, a net, a claw, a malfunction plate, and an airbag actuator system. (see at least [0011] “In some embodiments, a UAV may attach itself to a firearm, such as with a strong magnet, a mechanical claw, and/or grasping device.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the drone defense field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Magdaleno to apply a firearm malfunction device attachment to the firearm, wherein the firearm malfunction device attached is selected from a group consisting essentially of a bistable band, an inflatable device, a harpoon, a net, a claw, a malfunction plate, and an airbag actuator system, as taught by Hurst to disable the firearm [0113].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sliwa (US 20090178597) which discloses a system for using inflatable airbags to prevent a person from using a firearm, however the airbags are permanently mounted rather than delivered by drone and targeted at people rather than a weapon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662