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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 15-20, in the reply filed on 20 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The remainder of the instant Office Action is directed to claims 1-10 and 15-20.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “polling source” in claims 2-10 and 15-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plemons et al. (2022/0397360).
In reference to claim 1, Plemons discloses a countermeasure dispensing system (embodiment of figure 24) comprising:
a sequencer (718);
a breechplate (712) having a set of fire pins (paragraph 147, “firing pins”; figure 24, each bank 712subB1-712subB4 includes firing pins); and
an embedded fire select multiplexing (EFSM) assembly operatively connected with the breechplate and the sequencer, wherein the EFSM assembly comprises:
a set of firing lines (728-31, 728A-731A, 728B-731B) operatively connected with the sequencer and the set of fire pins of the breechplate, wherein at least one firing line is configurable for a desired state (figure 24; paragraphs 147, 148, and 151); and
a set of polling lines (727, 734, 735, and 736) operatively connected with the sequencer and a control logic circuit (paragraph 144, 151, and 152: “circuitry” and/or latch circuit 712A) of the EFSM to configure the desired state for the at least one firing line (figure 24; paragraphs 147, 148, and 151).
In reference to claim 2, Plemons discloses the claimed invention (figure 24, polling source 718E; multiplexer 718F).
In reference to claim 15, Plemons discloses a method, comprising: providing a countermeasure dispensing system with a platform;
the system comprises:
a sequencer (718);
a breechplate (712) having a set of fire pins (paragraph 147, “firing pins”; figure 24, each bank 712subB1-712subB4 includes firing pins); and
an embedded fire select multiplexing (EFSM) assembly operatively connected with the breechplate and the sequencer, wherein the EFSM assembly comprises:
a set of firing lines operatively connected with the sequencer and a set of fire pins of the breechplate (set forth above); and
a set of polling lines operatively connected with the sequencer and a control logic circuit (CLC) of the EFSM to configure desired states for the set of firing lines (set forth above);
effecting at least one polling pulse to be output from a polling source of the sequencer to a fire select multiplexer (paragraphs 145 and 147);
effecting the at least one polling pulse to be sent to the CLC by a first group of polling lines of the set of polling lines (paragraph 147, first set of polling lines 727);
effecting the CLC to be configured to a desired state such that a selected group of firing lines of the set of firing lines is provided in an active state (paragraph 147); and
effecting at least one firing pulse to be output from the sequencer to the selected group of firing lines of the set of firing lines (figure 24, fire sources 718A-718D); paragraphs 147, 149, and 152, selecting and enabling firing pins at the ends of firing lines implies effecting a firing pulse).
In reference to claim 16, Plemons discloses the claimed invention (polling source is the original signal input for the dispensing system 700, as a whole; paragraphs 148 and 151 disclose the latch circuit receiving signals; paragraph 147 discloses a pair of select signal in the form of “low” side and “high” side selection/enablement signals).
In reference to claim 17, Plemons discloses the claimed invention (paragraphs 144 and 152 disclose the dispensing system 700 as including the circuitry of system 200 of figure 10; system 200 includes switches S1 and S2 that are opened or closed based on select signals; paragraphs 148 and 151: latch circuit 712A maintains the desired state of the circuitry of system 700).
In reference to claim 18, Plemons discloses the claimed invention (e.g., another polling pulse is sent via polling lines 734 to poll Bank Two to effect a desired state of the associated firing lines, in the same manner that polling lines 727 send a polling pulse as set forth above in the reference to claim 15).
In reference to claim 19, Plemons disclose the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 16 (see figure 24, a second pair of select signals go to the “low” and “high” sides of Bank Two; paragraphs 148 and 151, latch signal communicated via 712C).
In reference to claim 20, Plemons discloses the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 17 (paragraphs 144 and 152 disclose the dispensing system 700 as including the circuitry of system 200 of figure 10; system 200 includes a plurality of pairs of switches e.g., S1 and S2, each pair associated with a pair of firing pins, wherein the switches are opened or closed based on select signals; paragraphs 148 and 151: latch circuit 712A maintains the desired state of the circuitry of system 700).
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plemons et al. (2022/0397360) in view of Basak (5942713).
In reference to claim 1, Plemons discloses a countermeasure dispensing system (embodiment of figure 10) comprising:
a sequencer (218);
a breechplate (212) having a set of fire pins (256); and
an embedded fire select multiplexing (EFSM) assembly operatively connected with the breechplate and the sequencer (paragraph 83, circuit card 266), wherein the EFSM assembly comprises:
a set of firing lines (255) operatively connected with the sequencer and the set of fire pins of the breechplate, wherein at least one firing line is configurable for a desired state (paragraph 85); and
a polling line (data link 219) operatively connected with the sequencer and a control logic circuit (part of FPGA 267) of the EFSM to configure the desired state for the at least one firing line (paragraphs 83 and 86).
Thus, the Plemons embodiment of figure 10 discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the data link (219) is a set of polling lines. Plemons remains silent as to the exact form of the data link. However, Basak teaches it is known to form a data link of a fire select multiplexing assembly (multiplexer 320; figure 4) as a set of polling lines (417sub1-417sub5), in order to independently select a desired state for each one of a plurality of firing lines (figure 4; column 6, lines 44-67; column 7, lines 1-36; a signal applied to one of the polling lines, e.g., 417sub1, will select a desired on/off state for a single firing line, e.g., 374a).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the data link of Plemons as a set of polling lines, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to independently select a desired state for each of the plurality of firing lines.
In reference to claim 2, Plemons in view Basak (the modified Plemons) makes obvious the claimed invention (Plemons, paragraph 86: the portion of the sequencer 218 that polls; paragraph 83, multiplexer of sequencer 218).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached Notice of References Cited. The relevance of each cited reference is made clear by at least the abstract and/or drawings thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 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 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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights