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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5-9-2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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) 1-4 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dryer, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0181375, published July 19, 2012.
As per claim 1, Dryer discloses a projectile system adapted for launch from an unmanned aerial vehicle controlled from a base site, said system comprising:
a projectile body having forward and aft ends (Dryer, Fig. 1 and ¶18);
a first payload unit having an aft end configured for manually removable engagement at the base site with the forward end of the projectile body (Dryer, Fig 1, 120 and ¶20).
As per claim 2, Dryer further discloses the projectile system of claim 1, wherein the removable engagement is a threaded engagement (Dryer, ¶20).
As per claim 3, Dryer further discloses the projectile system of claim 2, further comprising:
a hollow generally cylindrical aft end of said payload unit; a generally cylindrical connector projecting forward from projectile body (Dryer, Fig. 2 120 and 117);
wherein said threaded engagement comprises exterior threading on an exterior surface of said connector, and interior threading on an interior surface at the aft end of said payload unit, said interior threading being configured to threadedly engage said exterior threading of said connector (Dryer, ¶20).
As per claim 4, Dryer further discloses the projectile system of claim 3, further comprising a second payload unit having a hollow generally cylindrical aft end with interior threading substantial identical to said first payload unit, wherein said first and second payload units are configured to perform different respective mission functions and be interchangeably threadedly engaged with the projectile body (Dryer, ¶21).
As per claim 7, Dryer further discloses the projectile system of claim 1, further comprising a second payload unit configured for manually removable engagement with the forward end of said projectile body, wherein said first and second payload units are configured to perform different respective mission functions and be interchangeable on the projectile body (Dryer, ¶29).
As per claim 8, Dryer further discloses the projectile system of claim 7, wherein the removable engagement is a threaded engagement (Dryer, ¶20).
As per claim 9, Dryer further discloses the projectile system of claim 8, further comprising: hollow generally cylindrical aft ends of said first and second payload units; a generally cylindrical connector projecting forward from projectile body; wherein said threaded engagement comprises exterior threading on an exterior surface of said connector, and interior threading on an interior surface at the aft end of each of said first and second payload units, said interior threading being configured to threadedly engage said exterior threading of said connector (Dryer, Fig. 2 and ¶20).
As per claim 10, Dryer further discloses the projectile system of claim 1 wherein said first payload unit is a warhead (Dryer, ¶30).
As per claim 11, Dryer further discloses a method of replacing payloads of a projectile adapted for launch from an unmanned aerial vehicle controlled from a base site, said method comprising, at said base site, manually unscrewing a first payload unit from a threaded engagement with the forward end of the projectile body, and manually screwing a second payload unit onto the forward end of the projectile body (Dryer, ¶40).
As per claim 12, Dryer further discloses the method of claim 10 wherein said first and second payload units are configured to perform different respective mission functions (Dryer, ¶29).
As per claim 13, Dryer further discloses the method of claim 12 wherein at least one of said first and second payload units is an explosive warhead (Dryer, ¶29).
As per claim 14, Dryer further discloses a method of securing a payload unit to projectile body comprising manually screwing the payload unit onto the forward end of the projectile body (Dryer, ¶40).
As per claim 15, Dryer further discloses the method of claim 14 wherein said payload unit is an explosive warhead (Dryer, ¶29).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dryer in view of Treadway, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0363386, published November 17, 2022.
As per claim 5, Dryer discloses the projectile system of claim 4, wherein the projectile body houses: an onboard steering system, including a steering mechanism operable to change an attitude, orientation, and/or direction of flight of the projectile system, and a steering actuator operable to control the steering mechanism (Dryer, ¶24).
Dryer fails to disclose an RF receiver.
Treadway teaches an RF receiver on a projectile (¶89).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have an RF receiver in order to gain the benefit of receiving updated commands in flight.
As per claim 6, Dryer as modified by Treadway discloses the projectile system of claim 5 wherein at least one of said first and second payload units is an explosive warhead (Dryer, ¶29).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646