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, 6, 8, 12, 14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beach et al., hereafter Beach, US Patent Publication No. 2009/0266226.
Regarding claim 1, Beach discloses a system, comprising: a protected asset (HMMWV as in figure 17a/b for example); an armored mesh (1012) on the protected asset; a sensor system (1018) to detect a hostile drone will imminently collide with the protected asset in an impact zone ([0086]); 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 system detects the hostile drone to imminently collide with the protected asset in the impact zone ([0087]), wherein the armored mesh to preserve the protected asset by causing the hostile drone to impact the armored mesh instead of directly the protected asset ([0087-0093]).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Beach 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 further discloses the drone is a loitering munition (in as much as the applicant defines a loitering munition, the system of Beach is capable of, if not specifically configured to, defend against a “loitering munition” drone)
Regarding claim 6, Beach 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 8, Beach further discloses after deployment and threat neutralization, the armored mesh quickly deflates and prepares for a subsequent activation ([0091] and figure 19).
Regarding claim 12, Beach further discloses the armored mesh to deform upon impact, absorbing energy and preventing the hostile drone from causing further damage (figures 20a-i)
Regarding claims 14 and 17, the method steps are rendered obvious since such would have been an obvious manner of using the apparatus of Beach as disclosed and shown in the figures.
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) 4, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach 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 Maridrossian.
Claim(s) 5 and 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 5, Beach discloses a heavy denier nylon which is an ultra-strong, blast-resistant fabric capable of withstanding explosive forces and shrapnel, but Beach does not specifically disclose incorporating a web-like internal structure to catch and neutralize at least one of a smaller projectile and a fragment. Nonetheless, Hoadley discloses a protection system which utilizes a bladder and net and further teaches nets, fabrics with loose weaves and other structures and teaches multiple nets or meshes in layers or plies in 4:54-5:10.
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 in layers similar to that as taught by Hoadley with a reasonable expectation of success in order to create additional layers of protection and additional strength to the inflatable system of Beach.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach in view of Santiago, US Patent Publication No. 2024/0208189.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Beach 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 Santiago.
Claim(s) 7 and 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 7, 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.
Regarding claim 18, the method steps are rendered obvious since such would have been an obvious manner of using the apparatus of Beach as modified by Parker.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beach in view of Smith, US Patent Publication No. 2015/0233678.
Regarding claim 13, Beach 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 2/16/26, with respect to the 112 rejections and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections and objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/26 with respect to the 102 and 103 prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach does not detect a hostile drone, the examiner is not persuaded. While Beach does disclose a system which is designed to detect and defeat explosive rounds or projectiles with shaped charges, the system of Beach meets the limitations of a sensor system that is capable of detecting a hostile drone. The applicant argues that the sensor system must detect, classify and predict collision of a drone; however, the claims merely require a sensor system and the sensor system capable of detecting a hostile drone. Beach clearly discloses a system which detects an incoming threat will impact the protected asset and is therefore capable of, if not specifically disclosed to protect against impact of a drone.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach does not disclose an armored mesh, the examiner is not persuaded. The airbag system of beach broadly, yet reasonably meets the limitation of an armored mesh because the protective structure of Beach is clearly disclosed as a fabric, which is known to be woven and meets the limitation of a mesh, and the structure of Beach provides protection and therefore meets the limitation of an armor or armored. The applicant argues a webbing or entangling structure is not disclosed; however, there are no claim requirements that would require such a disclosure by Beach.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach does not disclose an impact zone for drone interception, the examiner is not persuaded. Again, Beach discloses a protective system that is capable of, if not specifically configured to, defeat an incoming hostile drone. A drone is not claimed in such a way that would prevent a broad interpretation of an incoming projectile and not necessarily a maneuverable drone. Additionally, the sensor system and deployment system would function as claimed to protect against any type of incoming threat.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach doesn’t meet the function, the examiner is not persuaded. Beach meets the required structure of the claims and is intended to be used in a similar manner. Therefore, where the structure is met, or the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach doesn’t meet the limitations of claims 2 and 19, the examiner is not persuaded. The applicant relies on the arguments against Beach with respect to claim 1 and those arguments are addressed above.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Beach does meet the limitations of claims 3, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 17, the examiner is not persuaded. Again, the applicant’s arguments are directed primarily at the assertion that Beach does not disclose a system for detecting and protecting against a hostile drone. The system disclosed by Beach is not only capable of detecting and defeating a hostile drone, the system of Beach is intended to protect against incoming threats to a protected vehicle, at least. The components of Beach meet the structural requirements of a sensor and deployable armor or armored mesh and therefore the claims do not differentiate over the prior art by merely asserting a different intended use.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Mardirossian is directed to a firearm safety system and not a drone detection system, the examiner is not persuaded. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). The Mardirossian reference is not being bodily incorporated. Instead Beach is disclosed as a drone protection system, as argued above, and further has a processing and control system. The teaching of Mardirossian is merely used to teach that the processing and control system is known to be used like the control system of Mardirossian to alert based on a triggering event.
In response to the applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine Beach and Mardirossian, the examiner is not persuaded. The applicant is arguing the reference piecemeal instead of relying on the teaching specifically detailed in the rejection. At the basic level, Beach detects threats and possible impacts and has a control system. Mardirossian has a control system for a notification system based on threats or other battlefield information. The motivation to combine does not need to be specifically provided in either reference; however, Mardirossian as a whole is directed to the benefit of informing soldiers of threats and other information.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the combination still wouldn’t disclose the claim, the examiner is not persuaded. The applicant is again arguing the references separate. Beach is not relied upon as teaching or disclosing triggering countermeasure and not human alerts in the rejection, but, instead, is relied upon as teaching a control and processing system.
In response to the applicant’s argument that claims 5 and 9 are not met by Beach in view of Hoadley, the examiner is not persuaded. With respect to the arguments against Beach, the specifics are addressed above. The argument that Hoadly does not disclose protective systems in the drone interception context is not persuasive because Hoadly is not relied upon to teach this. Again, the applicant appears to be addressing the references piecemeal. The claims are clearly addressed as Beach disclosing the system and components thereof and the use for protecting against a drone. Hoadly is merely relied upon to teach the known configuration of bladders or a fabric layer being used with a net in a protection system.
The applicant’s argument that the material is not disclosed or properly taught or an obvious design choice is not persuasive. Absent any unexpected results or criticality, UHMWPE is a well-known material that is used in the art for protective structures. For example, US Patent Publication No. 2020/0108926 provides evidence to support the examiner’s position of design choice.
In response to the applicant’s argument that claims 10-11 and 16 are not taught or disclosed by Beach in view of Santiago, the examiner is not persuaded. The arguments directed to Beach not disclosing the foundational system or method are addressed above. The argument that Santiago does not disclose a deployable armored mesh for drone interception or integrating materials into Beach appears to assume Santiago is being bodily incorporated. The piecemeal arguing of the references fails to acknowledge the rejection and rationale of the Office Action. Santiago is merely relied upon to teach a ballistic resistant material which includes graphene or carbon nanotubes, not deployment of an armored mesh. The reasons for modifying Beach with a material like Santiago include at least the reason in the rejection of providing a lighter weight material. Additional reasons or rationales that are not specifically taught or disclosed in the references are also relevant such as extending lifespan, cost to manufacture, ease of manufacture or assembly, etc. Additionally, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosure. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
In response to the applicant’s argument that Parker does not disclose or suggest EMP integration into a system for interdiction of a drone, the examiner is not persuaded. the applicant’s arguments are a piecemeal analysis of the references and 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). By arguing Parker doesn’t disclose a deployment system for defeating a drone and Beach doesn’t disclose an EMP, the applicant is ignoring the specifics of the rejection and specifically the teaching and rationales applied above. Additionally, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosure. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
In response to the applicant’s argument that Smit does not provide a teaching for using a nitrogen gas and the examiner relies merely on material substitution, the examiner is not persuaded. Smith provides a clear teaching that using a nitrogen gas considered equivalent to carbon dioxide in [0030] in the context where it is used to fill an inflatable protective structure is well known in the art. Beach discloses a gas generator, which are known to produce nitrogen gas, and also considers using carbon dioxide in an embodiment to enhance the fire protection of the system in [0066]. Absent any unexpected results or criticality of the specific use of nitrogen in the claimed invention, the prior art clearly shows use of nitrogen in an environment/system which meets the claims is known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a substitution like that alleged or to try using nitrogen with the expectation of yielding predictable results without undue experimentation. At a minimum, Beach discloses carbon dioxide and considers the desire to enhance fire protection. Smith teaches carbon dioxide and nitrogen are known equivalents in a similar system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for any number of reasons including, but not limited to, availability of gases, cost of implementation, chemical reaction of the gas generator, etc.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 DERRICK R MORGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 5712726874. 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.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641