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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds et al., hereafter Edmonds, US Patent No. 9,749,789 in view of Hershey et al., hereafter Hershey, US Patent No. 5,381,445 in further view of Nugent Jr. et al., hereafter Nugent, US Patent No. 9,739,585.
Regarding claim 1, Edmonds discloses a projectile (200) arranged with an antenna (230), where the projectile, a launch device including a separate propellant charge disposed in the barrel (broadly, yet reasonably, the propellant charge 420 of Edmonds is separate from the projectile and is disposed in a barrel of the launching device), wherein the projectile is arranged with the antenna in a rear edge of the projectile (230 as in figure 4B for example) and the antenna being a patch antenna (6:26-32 discloses the antenna is a micro-strip or nano-strip antenna. A patch antenna is well known as a micro-strip antenna type). Edmonds also considers protecting the devices on the rear end of the projectile in 6:38-53; however, Edmonds does not specifically disclose a protective cap which protects the antenna during an ejection phase. Nonetheless, Hershey provides analogous art in the form of a projectile with an antenna at the rear end and specifically teaches a protective structure 430 which covers the rear end of the projectile which includes the antenna and other circuitry. Modifying Edmonds to have a protective cap similar to that of Hershey creates a projectile structure that has cap with an outer diameter substantially equal to a caliber of a barrel of a launch device and because the teaching of Hershey is that of a protective structure that is part of the projectile that leaves the barrel after discharge, the projectile of Edmonds as modified by Hershey has an outer diameter that is substantially equal to a caliber of a barrel of a launch device.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Edmonds to have a protective element similar to that as taught by Hershey with a reasonable expectation of success since Edmonds clearly considers protecting a rear end of the projectile which includes the antenna and other circuitry and utilizing a structure like that of Hershey would ensure protection of the components while providing an additional benefit of sealing with the interior of a barrel during launch to prevent gas leaks around the projectile thus providing a more reliable and consistent performance of the projectile.
Further regarding claim 1, the cap structure of Hershey is specifically taught to cover the rear end components of the projectile and is intended to assist in deploying the antenna. While Hershey does not explicitly teach the cap/cup structure as being intended to protect the rear end of the projectile, the structure would inherently provide some level of protection to the projectile and components, like the antenna, at the rear end. In order to support the assertion that the cap would provide at least some level of protection or the fact that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look at the structure of Hershey to provide a protective cap/cup, Nugent is relied upon as evidence that removable structures covering the rear end of a projectile and sensitive surfaces is well known in the art. Nugent specifically teaches a protective cap or cup 102 as in the second and third embodiments of figure 5 respectively.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to recognize that the structure of Hershey would necessarily provide a level of protection to the rear end and rear components similar to that as evidenced by Nugent with a reasonable expectation of success since the desire to protect a sensitive surface/component is specifically taught by Nugent and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize or modify the material of Hershey to also serve the purpose of protection in addition to the deployment mechanism.
Regarding claim 3, Edmonds as modified by Hershey and Nugent further discloses where the patch antenna is arranged on a surface of a radar reflector (broadly, yet reasonably, figure 4B of Edmonds has a radar reflector on the rear surface as shown by the inwardly angled surfaces on the rear face)
Regarding claim 4, Edmonds as modified by Hershey and Nugent further discloses the antenna is a patch antenna type arranged on a recessed part (shown in figure 4B of Edmonds) where a distance how far the recessed part is recessed relative to a rear edge is between 1mm and 20mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed define the distance to be within the range of 1 mm to 20 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Defining the distance to be in the claimed range would be obvious for any number of reasons including but not limited to, desired performance of the antenna, aerodynamic performance, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Edmonds as modified by Hershey and Nugent discloses the protective cap but does not disclose the thickness of the shield is between 2mm and 10mm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed define the thickness to be within the range of 2 mm to 10 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Defining the thickness to be in the claimed range would be obvious for any number of reasons including but not limited to, desired level of protection of the antenna and circuitry, optimization of weight constraints, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Edmonds as modified by Hershey and Nugent further discloses the protective cap has a circular plate (rear plate of 430) with a same diameter as the projectile (broadly, yet reasonably, the rear end/rear plate of 430 is substantially the same diameter as the projectile); however, Edmonds does not specifically disclose the thickness in the range of .1 mm to 30 mm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed define the thickness to be within the range of .1 mm to 30 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Defining the thickness to be in the claimed range would be obvious for any number of reasons including but not limited to, desired level of protection of the antenna and circuitry, optimization of weight constraints, etc.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds as modified by Hershey and Nugent in view of Dunne, US Patent No. 4,951,901.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Edmonds disclose the claimed invention and shows a slightly recessed rear with angled surfaces which is inset in the rear of the projectile as in figure 4B, for example, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to reflect signals; however, Edmonds does not specifically disclose the rear end is shaped as a corner reflector. Nonetheless, Dunne provides a clear teaching of a projectile with a transponder 78 at a rear end and the rear end specifically structured as a waveguide/feed throat 74 which gathers signals.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Edmonds to have a rear surface structured similar to that as taught by Dunne with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate more reliable communication with the antenna of Edmonds.
Modifying Edmonds to have a structure similar to that of Dunne broadly, yet reasonably, meets the limitation of a corner reflector and, in conjunction with the antenna of Edmonds, a corner reflector antenna. Edmonds further discloses the antenna is a dipole in 6:22-30.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds in view of Nugent Jr. et al., hereafter Nugent, US Patent No. 9,739,585.
Regarding claim 1, Edmonds discloses a projectile (200) arranged with an antenna (230), where the projectile is intended for launch in a launch device with a propellant charge (420) in a barrel (figure 4b shows an ammunition round which is known to be fired from a firearm with a barrel), wherein the projectile is arranged with an antenna in a rear edge of the projectile (230 as in figure 4B for example) and the antenna being a patch antenna (6:26-32 discloses the antenna is a micro-strip or nano-strip antenna. A patch antenna is well known as a micro-strip antenna type). Edmonds also considers protecting the devices on the rear end of the projectile in 6:38-53; however, Edmonds does not specifically disclose a protection in the form of a protective cap arranged to protect the antenna that is removed when the projectile has left the barrel. Nonetheless, Nugent teaches a projectile which has a rear end with a component which is subject to damage from the heat from the propellant from firing that is removed when the projectile has left the barrel and specifically teaches a protective disk/plug on the rear end as clearly taught in the second embodiment in figure 5 and in 6:25-61.
Furthermore, the law requires that for a thing to be patentable to an alleged inventor, it must not have been “described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country for more than two years prior to his application.” While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of the claims. Further, description for the purposes of anticipation can be by drawings alone as well as by words. (Emphasis added.) See In re Bager, 8 USPQ 484 and In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972). In the instant case, the protective cap/disk of Nugent is shown as equal to the rear end diameter of the projectile and therefore it would have been obvious to make the protective cap equal to the diameter of the projectile and barrel in order to ensure the protective cap/disk, as taught by Nugent, performs as intended in protecting the rear of the projectile until leaving the barrel.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Edmonds to have a protective material surrounding the antenna and electronics similar to the rear protective structure taught by Nugent with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure the antenna/electronics of Edmonds are protected from the heat of the propellant like the rear components of Nugent as taught in 6:25-61.
Regarding claim 3, Edmonds as modified by Nugent further discloses where the patch antenna is arranged on a surface of a radar reflector (broadly, yet reasonably, figure 4B of Edmonds has a radar reflector on the rear surface as shown by the inwardly angled surfaces on the rear face)
Regarding claim 4, Edmonds as modified by Nugent further discloses the antenna is a patch antenna type arranged on a recessed part (shown in figure 4B of Edmonds) where a distance how far the recessed part is recessed relative to a rear edge is between 1mm and 20mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed define the distance to be within the range of 1 mm to 20 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Defining the distance to be in the claimed range would be obvious for any number of reasons including but not limited to, desired performance of the antenna, aerodynamic performance, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Edmonds as modified by Nugent discloses the protective cap but does not disclose the thickness of the shield is between 2mm and 10mm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed define the thickness to be within the range of 2 mm to 10 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Defining the thickness to be in the claimed range would be obvious for any number of reasons including but not limited to, desired level of protection of the antenna and circuitry, optimization of weight constraints, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Edmonds as modified by Nugent further discloses the protective cap has a circular plate (Nugent, embodiment 2 of figure 5) with a same diameter as the projectile (broadly, yet reasonably, the rear end/rear plate of Nugent is substantially the same diameter as the projectile); however, Edmonds does not specifically disclose the thickness in the range of .1 mm to 30 mm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed define the thickness to be within the range of .1 mm to 30 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Defining the thickness to be in the claimed range would be obvious for any number of reasons including but not limited to, desired level of protection of the antenna and circuitry, optimization of weight constraints, etc.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds as modified by Nugent in view of Dunne, US Patent No. 4,951,901.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Edmonds disclose the claimed invention and shows a slightly recessed rear with angled surfaces into the projectile as in figure 4B of Edmonds which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to reflect signals; however, Edmonds does not specifically disclose the rear end is shaped as a corner reflector. Nonetheless, Dunne provides a clear teaching of a projectile with a transponder 78 at a rear end and the rear end specifically structured as a waveguide/feed throat 74 which gathers signals.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Edmonds to have a rear surface structured similar to that as taught by Dunne with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate more reliable communication with the antenna of Edmonds.
Modifying Edmonds to have a structure similar to that of Dunne broadly, yet reasonably, meets the limitation of a corner reflector and, in conjunction with the antenna of Edmonds, a corner reflector antenna. Edmonds further discloses the antenna is a dipole in 6:22-30.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAlexander et al., hereafter McAlexander, US Patent No. 3,758,052 in view of Nugent.
Regarding claim 1, McAlexander discloses a projectile (11) arranged with an antenna (31), where the projectile has a diameter equal to a caliber of a barrel of a launch device (figure 2), the launch device including a separate propellant charge disposed in the barrel (gun 12 has a barrel as in figure 1 and is disclosed as firing the projectile 11. The claims are specifically drawn to a projectile and not the launch device, therefore, because the projectile is shown as launched from a launch device, a separate charge in the launch device is not necessarily required to meet the claim limitation; however, the system of McAlexander being adapted to launch from a gun launch device meets the limitation.), wherein the projectile is arranged with the antenna in a rear edge of the projectile (figure 2) where the antenna is arranged behind a protection in the form of a molding compound (epoxy as in 3:24-30) arranged in a recess of the projectile to protect the antenna from the propellant charge during launch (figure 2 and disclosed for protection), said molding compound remains with the projectile after launch and does not interfere with antenna performance (figures 1 and 2 and 3:24-30), with the antenna being a corner reflector antenna (figure 2 shows the antenna having an angled surface for reflecting a signal which is broadly, yet reasonably, considered a corner reflector); however, while McAlexander appears to adequately disclose a corner reflector antenna, for the sake of thoroughness, Nugent is relied upon as a teaching that a corner reflector (40) is a well-known structure in the art.
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 structure of McAlexander to be a corner reflector similar to that as taught by Nugent with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate directing of sent and received signals to a direction parallel to the source direction like that taught by Nugent which would provide more reliable communication to the system of McAlexander.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, McAlexander as modified by Nugent further discloses wherein the antenna is the corner reflector antenna and is arranged with a dipole, said corner reflector antenna inset in to the projectile (figure 2 of McAlexander).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McAlexander as modified by Nugent in view of Wang, CN113405404.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, McAlexander as modified by Nugent discloses the claimed invention but does not specifically disclose the antenna is the patch antenna type. Nonetheless, Wang specifically teaches a similar type projectile and specifically teaches the antenna is to be selected based on the desired performance of the projectile and can be any number of antennas including a patch antenna.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify McAlexander to utilize a patch antenna similar to that as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success since Wang teaches it is known to select from known antennas based on the desired performance of the projectile. Furthermore, patch antennas are known to be used for applications in which a compact robust antenna is required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify McAlexander with a patch antenna because of the teaching of Wang and the known applications of a patch antenna for use as a compact antenna with integration into a projectile or missile without the use of wires for a more robust configuration.
Regarding claim 4, McAlexander as modified by Nugent and Wang discloses the antenna is the patch antenna type and is arranged on a recessed part, but does not specify the distance the part is recessed. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to define the recessed distance as being between 1 mm and 20 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Edmonds does not disclose an antenna for receiving course corrections and fuse initiations, the examiner is not persuaded. The claims are not directed to an antenna or projectile that requires course corrections or fuse initiations. The claimed structure is adequately disclosed by Edmonds as modified by the teaching references above.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Edmonds is ejected from a side port of the pistol after firing, the examiner is not persuaded. The cartridge case of Edmonds is not relevant to the rejection. The projectile of Edmonds is relied upon for the rejection and the projectile is discharged/ejected from the barrel.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Hershey does not disclose a projectile having the same caliber as the barrel, the examiner is not persuaded. Hershey teaches the protective cap is discharged from the barrel and is therefore part of the projectile. As stated above, Edmonds is modified to have a protective cap similar to that of Hershey. The projectile structure of Edmonds with a protective cap thus forms a projectile and that projectile has an outermost diameter that is the same as the outer diameter of the protective cap that, as modified by Hershey, surrounds the rear end. The outer diameter of the cap and projectile are known to be sized for the caliber of the barrel in order to facilitate safe and optimal operation.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Nugent does not teach a protective cap or cup, the examiner is not persuaded. Nugent clearly shows 102 as a protective cap in embodiment 2 of figure 5 and a protective cup in embodiment 3 of figure 5 and disclosed in 6:25-47. The applicant appears to rely on the fact that Nugent does not have an antenna in the argument; however, Nugent is not relied upon to teach an antenna or even protecting an antenna. Nugent is specifically relied upon to teach that the cup of Hershey would act as a protective structure as is known in the art in the first rejection. In the second rejection, Nugent is relied upon to teach that it is known to provide a protective structure on a rear end of a projectile that has a surface or components that could be damaged by discharge of the projectile and would require protection. Therefore that adequately teaches that it would have been obvious to protect an antenna structure from discharge gases and forces.
Conclusion
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