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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 12, 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoadley, US Patent No. 8,061,258.
Regarding claim 1, Hoadley discloses a system (figure 1), comprising: a protected asset (30); an armored mesh (14) on the protected asset. the armored mesh comprising a web-like internal structure of high-tensile material (Hoadley discloses multiple nets or multiple layers in 5:31-52 and also discloses the “net” can be a net, scrim or fabric. Therefore, Hoadley sufficiently considers an internal web-like structure. Additionally, “high-tensile” material is a very broad limitation that is met by the structure of Hoadley intended to intercept an object traveling at high speed and also discloses material in 4:54-64 with increased strength) and configured to physically intercept an incoming aerial threat upon expansion (6:1-44 for example); a sensor system (4:65-5:27 discloses a sensor subsystem 60), to detect that a hostile drone will imminently collide with the protected asset in an impact zone (4:65-5:27 discloses detecting incoming threat and selecting what portion of the defense system to deploy and therefore detects what portion of a protected asset will experience impact), the sensor system comprising at least two of a radar, an acoustic sensor, and an optical camera (5:11-26 clearly discloses a radar, acoustic sensor, optical sensor and other subsystems), and the sensor system being configured to classify a detected airborne object as an unmanned aerial vehicle and to predict a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle relative to the protected asset (6:19-30 for example, teaches identifying the threat based on particular signature and predicting when/if a strike will occur); and a responsive mechanism (80a, 80b) of the protected asset to cause a high-pressure gas to rapidly expand the armored mesh in the impact zone of the protected asset when the sensor asset in the impact zone (6:1-5), wherein the impact zone is a localized surface region of the protected asset corresponding to a predicted point of contact between the hostile drone and the protected asset based on the predicted trajectory figure 1 shows several deployment systems 10 and therefore a predicted point of strike, like that discussed in 6:19-30, is determined and the corresponding impact zone is protected); and wherein the armored mesh preserves the protected asset by causing the hostile drone to impact the armored mesh instead of directly the protected asset (the recitation of a hostile drone being an incoming threat to the system is an intended use that does not require any additional structure or function that is not adequately disclosed or taught by Hoadley. The system disclosed is intended to defeat an incoming threat such as an RPG or other threat in 7:12-19, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize could be a hostile drone or similar threat given the nature of current warfare.)
Regarding claim 2, Hoadley further discloses the protected asset is a vehicle (figure 1)
Regarding claim 3, Hoadley further discloses the drone is a loitering munition (as stated above, the system is not dependent on the nature of the incoming threat if the system is capable of functioning to defeat a threat like that recited. Hoadley is capable of defeating, if not specifically intended to defeat, a drone. Furthermore, a loitering munition is threat that functions similar to an RPG with the intent of attacking a target with a warhead. Therefore, the system of Hoadley is sufficient to meet the function of protecting against a drone or loitering munition as a possible threat)
Regarding claim 5, Hoadley further discloses the armored mesh is crafted from an ultra-strong, blast-resistant fabric capable of withstanding explosive forces and shrapnel, incorporating the web-like internal structure to catch and neutralize at least one of a smaller projectile and a fragment. (Hoadley discloses multiple nets or multiple layers in 5:31-52 and also discloses the “net” can be a net, scrim or fabric. Therefore, Hoadley sufficiently considers an internal web-like structure. Additionally, “high-tensile” material is a very broad limitation that is met by the structure of Hoadley intended to intercept an object traveling at high speed and also discloses material in 4:54-64 with increased strength strong enough to defeat an incoming projectile like disclosed in 5:31-52 for example.)
Regarding claim 7, Hoadley further discloses the armored mesh of the system disperses a counter-measure comprising at least one of a net and an electromagnetic pulse to further disable or destroy the hostile drone (net 14 disclosed by Hoadley)
Regarding claim 12, Hoadley further discloses the armored mesh to deform upon impact, absorbing energy and preventing the hostile drone from causing further damage (5:31-52).
Regarding claims 14 and 16-18, the method steps are rendered obvious since such would have been an obvious manner of using the system of Hoadley.
Regarding claim 19, Hoadley discloses a system (figure 1), comprising: a sensor system (4:65-5:27 discloses a sensor subsystem 60), to detect that a hostile drone will imminently collide with a protected asset (30) in an impact zone (4:65-5:27 discloses detecting incoming threat and selecting what portion of the defense system to deploy and therefore detects what portion of a protected asset will experience impact), the sensor system comprising at least two of a radar, an acoustic sensor, and an optical camera (5:11-26 clearly discloses a radar, acoustic sensor, optical sensor and other subsystems), and the sensor system being configured to classify a detected airborne object as an unmanned aerial vehicle and to predict a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle relative to the protected asset (6:19-30 for example, teaches identifying the threat based on particular signature and predicting when/if a strike will occur); and a responsive mechanism (80a, 80b) of the protected asset to cause a high-pressure gas to rapidly expand an armored mesh (14) comprising a web-like internal structure of high-tensile material (Hoadley discloses multiple nets or multiple layers in 5:31-52 and also discloses the “net” can be a net, scrim or fabric. Therefore, Hoadley sufficiently considers an internal web-like structure. Additionally, “high-tensile” material is a very broad limitation that is met by the structure of Hoadley intended to intercept an object traveling at high speed and also discloses material in 4:54-64 with increased strength) in the impact zone of the protected asset when the sensor asset in the impact zone (6:1-5), wherein the impact zone is a localized surface region of the protected asset corresponding to a predicted point of contact between the hostile drone and the protected asset based on the predicted trajectory (figure 1 shows several deployment systems 10 and therefore a predicted point of strike, like that discussed in 6:19-30, is determined and the corresponding impact zone is protected); wherein the armored mesh preserves the protected asset by causing the hostile drone (the recitation of a hostile drone being an incoming threat to the system is an intended use that does not require any additional structure or function that is not adequately disclosed or taught by Hoadley. The system disclosed is intended to defeat an incoming threat such as an RPG or other threat in 7:12-19, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize could be a hostile drone or similar threat given the nature of current warfare.) to impact the armored mesh instead of directly the protected asset (6:1-44 for example), and wherein the protected asset is a vehicle (figure 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 12, 14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach, US Patent Publication No. 2009/0266226 in view of Hoadley.
Regarding claim 1, Beach discloses a system, comprising: a protected asset (HMMWV as in figure 17a/b for example); an armored mesh (1012), a sensor system (1018) to detect a hostile drone will imminently collide with the protected asset in an impact zone ([0087] for example); the sensor system comprising a radar ([0086]), and the sensor system being configured to classify a detected airborne object ([0087] discloses categorizing a threat) as an unmanned aerial vehicle (several sections of the specification consider various threats to be defeated, not just RPGs, such as [0099] which includes several examples which would broadly be considered an unmanned aerial vehicle) and to predict a trajectory of the unmanned aerial vehicle relative to the protected asset ([0087] 1020 categorizes the threat and determines if deployment of the system is warranted); and a responsive mechanism (1014) of the protected asset to cause a high-pressure gas to rapidly expand the armored mesh in the impact zone of the protected asset when the sensor asset in the impact zone ([0087] for example), wherein the impact zone is a localized surface region of the protected asset corresponding to a predicted point of contact between the hostile drone and the protected asset based on the predicted trajectory ([0087-0090] for example discloses determining if a protected area of an asset is to be impacted and deploying the protective measure) and wherein the armored mesh preserves the protected asset by causing the hostile drone to impact the armored mesh instead of directly the protected asset ([0087-0093]); however, Beach does not specifically disclose the armored mesh comprising a web-like internal structure of high-tensile material and configured to physically intercept an incoming aerial threat upon expansion. Nonetheless, Hoadley teaches multiple nets or multiple layers in 5:31-52 and also discloses the “net” can be a net, scrim or fabric. Therefore, Hoadley sufficiently considers an internal web-like structure. Additionally, “high-tensile” material is a very broad limitation that is met by the structure of Hoadley intended to intercept an object traveling at high speed and also discloses material in 4:54-64 with increased strength.
The recitation of a hostile drone being an incoming threat to the system is an intended use that does not require any additional structure or function that is not adequately disclosed or taught by Beach or Hoadley. The system disclosed is intended to defeat an incoming threat such as an RPG or other threat in [0099] of Beach and 7:12-19 of Hoadley, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize could be a hostile drone or similar threat given the nature of current warfare.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Beach to have a fabric and net or several nets in layers similar to that as taught by Hoadley with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the reliability of successfully defeating the incoming munition and ensuring the munition is duded rather than detonated or left armed like that as taught by Hoadley in 5:31-52 and therefore ensuring the system provides the desired level of protection and is reliable. Additionally, employing several layers allows one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the desired threat protection level or customize the threats against which the system is effective depending on the war zone in which the vehicle is deployed.
Further regarding claim 1, Beach discloses a radar detector and further discloses a radio frequency (RF) scanner, an acoustic sensor (5 is disclosed as acoustic or radio frequency sensor in [0072]) used with a radar (7) in an embodiment but does not specifically disclose using the additional sensors with radar 1018. Nonetheless, Hoadley teaches a similar system and 5:11-26 clearly teaches a radar, acoustic sensor, optical sensor and other sensor subsystems.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify or define the embodiment of Beach to utilize a second sensor like that considered in Beach and further taught by Hoadley in order to provide a scanning feature to then pass to monitoring by the radar like that considered by Beach and in order to provide a second level of detection to increase the reliability of the system to deploy and defeat an incoming threat.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Beach as modified by Hoadley further discloses the protected asset is a vehicle (HMMWV), a wearer of a tactical gear (soldier/occupant in the vehicle), a soldier (occupant).
Regarding claim 3, Beach as modified by Hoadley further discloses the drone is a loitering munition (as stated above, the system is not dependent on the nature of the incoming threat if the system is capable of functioning to defeat a threat like that recited. Beach as modified by Hoadley is capable of defeating, if not specifically intended to defeat, a drone. Furthermore, a loitering munition is threat that functions similar to an RPG with the intent of attacking a target with a warhead. Therefore, the system of Beach as modified by Hoadley is sufficient to meet the function of protecting against a drone or loitering munition as a possible threat)
Regarding claim 5, Beach as modified by Hoadley further discloses the armored mesh is crafted from an ultra-strong, blast-resistant fabric capable of withstanding explosive forces and shrapnel, incorporating the web-like internal structure to catch and neutralize at least one of a smaller projectile and a fragment (Beach [0093] discloses the material is strong enough to defeat an incoming threat like an RPG and remain effective against small arms fire. Therefore, the system is made of “ultra-strong” material that is blast resistant, has a web-like internal structure, as taught by Hoadley above, and is intended to also neutralize smaller projectiles or fragments).
Regarding claim 6, Beach as modified by Hoadley further discloses the armored mesh is deployed within milliseconds (30 ms as in [0087]), creating an instantaneous barrier against an incoming attack (in as much as the applicant discloses “instantaneous” deployment, the prior art meets the limitation because a barrier is created in milliseconds and in time to defeat an incoming attack. The limitation of “instantaneous” has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation and because of the fact that a time duration is claimed and the deployment obviously occurs over a duration, even a small duration, “instantaneous” is interpreted as very quickly (i.e. milliseconds))
Regarding claim 7, Beach as modified by Hoadley further discloses the armored mesh of the system disperses a counter-measure comprising at least one of a net and an electromagnetic pulse to further disable or destroy the hostile drone (net taught by Hoadley).
Regarding claim 8, Beach as modified by Hoadley further discloses after deployment and threat neutralization, the armored mesh quickly deflates and prepares for a subsequent activation (Beach, [0091] and figure 19).
Regarding claim 12, Beach as modified by Hoadley further discloses the armored mesh to deform upon impact, absorbing energy and preventing the hostile drone from causing further damage (Beach, figures 20a-i)
Regarding claims 14 and 16-17, the method steps are rendered obvious since such would have been an obvious manner of using the apparatus of Beach as modified by Hoadley.
Claim(s) 4, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Beach as modified by Hoadley in view of Mardirossian, US Patent Publication No. 2015/0241153.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Beach discloses the claimed invention and a processing and
control system but Beach does not specifically disclose the protected asset is communicatively
coupled with a personal protective equipment, comprising: a responsive device integrated in a
tactical gear to haptically notify a wearer of the tactical gear when the sensor system detects
the hostile drone to imminently collide with the protected asset in the impact zone. Nonetheless, Mardirossian teaches a safety system which utilizes a central control center that receives signals and outputs alerts, including haptic alerts, to a receiver worn by the soldier as taught in [0040] for example.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was effectively filed to modify Beach to incorporate an alert system into the central control/processing system similar to that as taught by Maridrossian with a reasonable expectation of success in order to alert the soldier of an incoming attack from a drone and
allow the soldier time before impact to take defensive position if possible. Additionally, because
it is a central command system, soldiers in the field outside of the vehicle can be alerted as well
and take cover and also assess the situation following impact for potential rescue efforts.
Regarding claim 15, the method steps are rendered obvious since such would have
been an obvious manner of using the apparatus of Beach as modified by Hoadley and Maridrossian.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach in
view of Hoadley, US Patent No. 8,061,258.
Regarding claim 9, Beach as modified by Hoadley discloses the claimed invention and
considers a wide variety of high strength materials but does not specifically disclose the
armored mesh is made of a Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) with high
strength-to-density ratio of yield strengths as high as 2.4 GPa (350,000 psi) and density as low
as 0.97 g/cm (0.087 oz/in).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select a material like that claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Beach as modified by Hoadley considers a variety of suitable materials and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art try a UHMWPE with a reasonable expectation of success and expected results.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Beach as modified by Hoadley in view of Santiago, US Patent Publication No. 2024/0208189.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Beach as modified by Hoadley discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the fabric includes graphene or is a webbing of carbon nanotubes. Nonetheless, Santiago teaches a woven ballistic resistant material which includes graphene and/or carbon nanotubes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was effectively filed to modify Beach to have a material similar to that taught by Santiago
incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a lighter weight
material which is effective against high powered projectiles like that taught by Santiago in
[0005].
Regarding claim 16, the method steps are rendered obvious since such would have
been an obvious manner of using the apparatus of Beach as modified by Hoadley and Santiago.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach
in view of Parker et al., hereafter Parker, US Patent Publication No. 2017/0192089
Regarding claim 18, Beach discloses the claimed invention except for using an
electromagnetic pulse. Nonetheless, Parker teaches using an EMP as an interdiction method in
[0084] and being used in combination with a net or other systems.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was effectively filed to modify Beach to utilize an EMP in addition to the physical barrier similar
to that as taught by Parker with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate
disabling of the incoming threat prior to impact with the vehicle which could reduce velocity,
induce tumble, defeat the projectile without need for deploying physical barrier, etc. all of
which would be desirable outcomes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach as modified by Hoadley in view of Smith, US Patent Publication No. 2015/0233678.
Regarding claim 13, Beach as modified by Hoadley discloses the claimed invention and disclose a gas generator but does not disclose the gas is inert and one of helium or nitrogen. Nonetheless, Smith teaches an armor system which utilizes gas in the form of pressurized containers and the gas being used to inflate an armor and Smith further teaches the gas is nitrogen in [0030].
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was effectively filed to modify or define the gas of Beach to be nitrogen similar to that as taught
by Smith with a reasonable expectation of success since Smith provides a clear teaching that
using a pressurized container of nitrogen is well known in the art for inflating an armor system
rapidly.
Claim(s) 4, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoadley in view of Mardirossian, US Patent Publication No. 2015/0241153
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Hoadley discloses the claimed invention and a processing and control system but Beach does not specifically disclose the protected asset is communicatively coupled with a personal protective equipment, comprising: a responsive device integrated in a tactical gear to haptically notify a wearer of the tactical gear when the sensor system detects the hostile drone to imminently collide with the protected asset in the impact zone. Nonetheless, Mardirossian teaches a safety system which utilizes a central control center that receives signals and outputs alerts, including haptic alerts, to a receiver worn by the soldier as taught in [0040] for example.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Hoadley to incorporate an alert system into the central control/processing system similar to that as taught by Maridrossian with a reasonable expectation of success in order to alert a soldier in the vehicle or nearby of an incoming attack from a drone and allow the soldier time before impact to take defensive position if possible, additionally, because it is a central command system, soldiers in the field outside the vehicle can be alerted as well and take cover and assess the situation following impact for potential rescue efforts.
Regarding claim 15, the method steps are rendered obvious since such would have been an obvious manner of using the apparatus of Hoadley as modified by Maridrossian.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoadley in
Regarding claim 9, Hoadley discloses the claimed invention and considers a wide variety of high strength materials but does not specifically disclose the armored mesh is made of a Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) with high strength-to-density ratio of yield strengths as high as 2.4 GPa (350,000 psi) and density as low as 0.97 g/cm (0.087 oz/in).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select a material like that claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Hoadley considers a variety of suitable materials and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art try a UHMWPE with a reasonable expectation of success and expected results.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoadley in view of Santiago, US Patent Publication No. 2024/0208189.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Hoadley discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the fabric includes graphene or is a webbing of carbon nanotubes. Nonetheless, Santiago teaches a woven ballistic resistant material which includes graphene and/or carbon nanotubes.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Hoadley to have a material similar to that taught by Santiago incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a lighter weight material which is effective against high powered projectiles like that taught by Santiago in [0005].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoadley.
Regarding claim 6, Hoadley discloses the claimed invention and specifically discloses the initiators being air bag inflators which are well known to deploy near instantaneously and therefore the armored mesh would have been obviously deployed within milliseconds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach does not disclose a sensor system with at least two of the sensor types, the examiner is not persuaded. As stated above, Beach considers using multiple sensors and, in view of the amendment, Hoadley is relied upon further teach the configuration with more than one sensor is known and would have been obvious.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach is not configured to classify an unmanned aerial vehicle, the examiner is not persuaded. Beach clearly considers a variety of threats in [0099] including several powered, maneuverable airborne objects like a guided missiles, heat seeking missiles, etc. and Hoadley additionally teaches a system intended to be used against a variety of threats. Furthermore, the argument is directed to an intended use of the system. The threat against which the system is protecting is currently very broad and the structure of the prior art references is configured to protect, or at a minimum is capable of protecting, against an unmanned aerial vehicle and meets the intended use. The applicant argues that the trajectory prediction of an unmanned aerial vehicle may change course or hover or approach from various angles which is qualitatively different than incoming-projectile assessment; however, Beach and Hoadley consider a variety of threats, not just straight line projectiles. The sensor systems and computing components disclosed are not only sufficient to meet the structure of the claim but are also more than capable of detecting a threat which can change course or approach from various angles.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach does not specifically configured to classify a UAV or trajectory prediction, the examiner is not persuaded. As stated in the rejection above, both Beach and Hoadley have specific steps of classifying the incoming threat which meets the limitation.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach does not disclose the armored mesh, the examiner is not persuaded. In view of the amendment, Beach is not relied upon to teach or disclose the armored mesh as now claimed. Hoadley provides a clear teaching that an armored mesh configuration with several layers of either fabric, net, scrim, etc. are known and the teaching for having a fabric, like that of Beach, with a net layer, like that taught by Hoadley, is clearly laid out by Hoadley for best defense against incoming threats.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach does not disclose a localized surface region of the asset, the examiner is not persuaded. The claim is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. As such, a localized surface region can broadly, yet reasonably, be considered a side of the asset, which Beach is intended to protect. [0090] of Beach further considers modular implementation which would make it more obvious that each module protects a particular area of the vehicle. Beach further discloses detecting a threat, predicting the trajectory and utilizing a controller to deploy a protective measure. Therefore, Beach alone, or as modified by Hoadley, discloses structure which meets the broadest, reasonable interstation of the claim.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach does not disclose a mesh net barrier, the examiner is not persuaded. In view of the amendment, Beach is modified with Hoadley above and the combination has a mesh with several layers including a net like that taught by Hoadley.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Mardirossian does not disclose detection of a hostile drone or provide notification of an imminent threat collision, the examiner is not persuaded. Mardirossian is not relied upon to teach these features an dis not bodily incorporated as a firearm safety system. Beach and/or Hoadley above disclose the specifics of the systems and each comprise a computer or control system. Mardirossian is relied upon to teach a safety system which utilizes a central control center and outputs alerts, including haptic alerts, to a soldier. The modification would utilize the computer or processor or control system of Beach or Hoadley to output alerts of the threat detected by Beach or Hoadley to a system like that taught by Mardirossian.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Simply that there are differences between two references is insufficient to establish that such references "teach away" from any combination thereof. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
In response to the applicant’s argument that Mardirossian and Beach solve different problems, the examiner is not persuaded. The applicant is arguing the references piecemeal rather than considering the combination and rationale detailed in the action. It has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach and Hoadley are not combinable because of the threats to be defeated, the examiner is not persuaded. Beach and Hoadley are very analogous art and both consider defeating similar threats such as RPGs and other incoming threats like guided missiles, etc. as detailed above.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to Applicant’s argument that even if combined Beach and Hoadley would not meet the claimed invention, the examiner is not persuaded. The applicant argues that Beach does not detect, classify or predict trajectory of a hostile drone and Hoadley does not cure the deficiencies. As addressed in the rejection above and arguments above, Beach meets the structure limitations required of detecting, classifying and predicting trajectory of an incoming threat like a hostile drone. Additionally, Hoadley provides analogous art that not only supports the position, but also has disclosure and teachings that it is known and would have been obvious in the prior art.
In response to Applicant’s argument that selection of UHMWPE is not a matter of design choice, the examiner is not persuaded. Given the context of the Beach and Hoadley references seeking to use high strength materials to ensure reliable defeating of incoming threats, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try known UHMWPE materials with expected results. Additionally, there is no criticality disclosed which would differentiate the claimed material over the desired intent of the materials considered for Beach and Hoadley of high strength and light weight.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Beach as modified by Santiago does not disclose the claimed invention without hindsight, the examiner is not persuaded. The applicant again argues the references piecemeal without considering how the modification is made in the rejection above or considering what would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to Applicant’s argument that neither Beach or Santiago teaches or discloses the specifics of the armored mesh, the examiner is not persuaded. In view of the amendment, Beach is modified by Hoadley above and not relied upon alone.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Beach as modified by Parker does not disclose the claimed invention without hindsight, the examiner is not persuaded. The applicant again argues the references piecemeal without considering how the modification is made in the rejection above or considering what would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The applicant further argues that the armored mesh itself disperses the EMP which is not supported in the specification. Parker provides a clear teaching that an EMP is known to be used in an interdiction system which also utilizes a net. Incorporation into a system like Beach or Hoadley would have been obvious without hindsight or bodily incorporation. The applicant appears to be ignoring the level of ordinary skill of one in the art with this argument as well as other arguments.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Beach as modified by Smith does not disclose the claimed invention without hindsight, the examiner is not persuaded. The applicant again argues the references piecemeal without considering how the modification is made in the rejection above or considering what would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In response to Applicant’s argument that
In general the applicant’s arguments are focused on piecemeal analysis of the references in each combination rather than the similarities and reasons that the two references could be combined and why one of ordinary skill in the art would want to combine the references. The fact that an individual reference does not disclose each claimed feature is not persuasive against the stated combination.
The arguments also rely heavily on impermissible hindsight. While obviousness determination necessarily is made with the knowledge of the claimed invention, such knowledge does not itself constitute impermissible hindsight. The relevant inquire is whether the proposed modification or combination is supported by the teachings of the prior art and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art rather than by the applicant’s disclosure. Here, the rationale for the combination is based on analogous references and clear teachings or benefits within each reference independent of the applicant’s disclosure. Accordingly, the rejection is not based on impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
The applicant is invited to call the examiner for additional information on how particular cited references would be interpreted or applied to the claimed invention or potential amendments.
While the Examiner is available via telephone to resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. The Examiner may be reached by telephone at 571-272-6352.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights