DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 3/23/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim has function claim terms comprising indefinite claim languages which are “wherein when the cover is in the pre-flight configuration, the viewing window of the guidance device is completely shielded by the cover, and wherein when the cover is in the flight configuration, the viewing window of the guidance device is free from being shielded by the cover” (line 8-11).
The cited limitation terms are unclear because the limitations merely states functions/properties (--shielding of cover) without providing any indication about how the functions are performed. It is unclear which one/ones of cited components is/are involved in performing the cited functions. Appears that the functions/properties were naturally common functions of cited guided vehicle cover system. The recited functions/properties do not follow from the structures/compositions recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structures or is simply a result of operating the guided vehicle cover system in a certain manner.
Therefore, proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scope of the claim and overcome the rejections. A suggestion for how applicants could resolve the unclear boundaries is: amending the claim to specify how the shielding functions are achieved, such as by specifying a component, or a structure arrangements in the guided vehicle cover system, provided such an amendment is supported by the specification. For example, the amendment could specify compositions/structures that performs these functions/properties, or could even just specify that the functions/properties are accomplished by an additional composition/structure in the guided vehicle cover system. Each of these amendments when interpreted in view of the specification would inform one of ordinary skill in the art of the metes and bounds of the functional limitation.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1of US patent US 12571618. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of that of the present invention are disclosed in the respective claims of patent application 18415542 and are therefore anticipated by said claims. This is a provisional, obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
For comparison, the claim 1 of instant application with claim 1 of US patent 12571618 are listed as follows side by side in the following table:
Claims of instant application: 18608831
Claims of US patent 12571618
Claim 1: A guided vehicle, comprising:
a propulsion system;
a housing operably engaged with the propulsion system;
a guidance device defining a viewing window and being operably engaged with the housing and disposed inside of the housing; and
a cover rotatably engaged with the housing and configurable between a pre-flight configuration and a flight configuration;
wherein when the cover is in the pre-flight configuration, the viewing window of the guidance device is completely shielded by the cover, and
wherein when the cover is in the flight configuration, the viewing window of the guidance device is free from being shielded by the cover.
Claim 1: A guided vehicle, comprising:
a body;
a propulsion system operably engaged inside of the body;
a housing operably engaged with the body and encasing
a guidance device inside of the housing;
a viewing window of the guidance device; and
a cover moveably engaged with the housing, wherein the
cover is moveable between a pre-flight configuration and a flight configuration,
wherein the cover covers the
viewing window in the pre-flight configuration;
wherein the cover is configured to expose the viewing window in the flight configuration in response to an impulse of acceleration generated by a launch of the guided vehicle;
wherein the cover comprises:
a sleeve slidably engaged with the housing; and a set of first flaps moveably engaged with the sleeve; a set of pivot pins, wherein each pivot pin pivotably
engages one flap from the set of first flaps with the sleeve; and
wherein each flap of the set of first flaps is configured to individually pivot about the corresponding pivot pin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White et al (US 8931738).
Regarding Claim 1, White teaches a guided vehicle (abstract; figs. 1-4), comprising:
a propulsion system (abstract, line 1-5, A protective cover (10)… a vehicle, such as a missile);
a housing operably engaged with the propulsion system (fig. 2, 20);
a guidance device defining a viewing window and being operably engaged with the housing and disposed inside of the housing (figs. 2-3, 20, 12- transparent instrument dome; col. 1, line 15-20, High speed vehicles, such as aircraft and missiles, often use an array of electronic instruments for guidance, tracking, and targeting functions. A transparent dome, which is transparent to the electromagnetic waves used by the instruments); and
a cover rotatably engaged with the housing and configurable between a pre-flight configuration and a flight configuration (fig. 1, 10; abstract, line 1-15, The cover (10) includes multiple segments (14 and 16) having trailing ends (18) connectable to the body (20) at joints (22) that allow for rotational movement);
wherein when the cover is in the pre-flight configuration (fig. 1, 10), the viewing window of the guidance device is completely shielded by the cover (fig. 1, 10; col. 3, line 25-30, The cover 10 protects the dome 12 from damage during transport or storage or otherwise until the instruments are needed), and
wherein when the cover is in the flight configuration (fig. 2, 10), the viewing window of the guidance device is free from being shielded by the cover (col. 4, line 45-55, The cover 10 generally is removed while the body 20 is in flight).
Regarding Claim 2, White teaches the guided vehicle of claim 1, wherein when the propulsion system, the housing, and the guidance device collectively rotate in a first direction in flight (figs. 1-4, center axis of 20), the cover rotates about the housing in a second direction opposite to the first direction (figs. 1-4, 14, 16, 22; col. 4, line 50-58, …forces applied to those segments 14 and 16 typically accelerate their separation and rotation about the pivot provided by the joint 22);
wherein the cover transitions from the pre-flight configuration (fig. 1, 14, 16) to the flight configuration in response to this rotation or rotational action (fig. 2, 14, 16).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wedertz et al (US 4944226).
Regarding Claim 1, Wedertz teaches a guided vehicle (abstract; figs. 1-11), comprising:
a propulsion system (figs. 5 and 9, 26; col. 4, line 65-68, End plate 26 can contain a control section, a drogue parachute, or a base bleed (slow-burning propellant)…);
a housing operably engaged with the propulsion system (figs 1-9, 12, 22);
a guidance device defining a viewing window and being operably engaged with the housing and disposed inside of the housing (figs. 7-9, 72; col. 6, line 47-55, front portion 72. Front portion 72 contains seeker 74, warhead 76, guidance electronics 78); and
a cover rotatably engaged with the housing and configurable between a pre-flight configuration and a flight configuration (figs. 7-8, 70, 70A, 70B);
wherein when the cover is in the pre-flight configuration, the viewing window of the guidance device is completely shielded by the cover (fig. 1, 12; fig. 7, 70; col. 5, line 5-8, FIG. 1 represents a shortest overall length for the missile with no projecting surfaces. This configuration is convenient for storage, transportation, or handling of
the missile), and
wherein when the cover is in the flight configuration, the viewing window of the guidance device is free from being shielded by the cover (fig. 8, 70A, 70B; col. 7, line 6-10, the pieces 70a and 70b separate from missile airframe 10 in flight).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12 are rejected 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 in case the 112 rejections of the independent claim is overcome by proper amendments.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claim 3, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a guided vehicle further comprise wherein a gear system operably engaged with the housing and the fairing; and at least one set of shields operably engaged with the gear system and retractable from the pre-flight configuration to the flight configuration relative to the fairing.
Claims 4-12 are also objected to as they depend on claim 3.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights