DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing filed on July 28, 2026 Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 8/21/2024, has been acknowledged.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment field July 28th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in this application. Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/28/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that amended independent claims 1-5 overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 101, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing the method previously presented on a computer does not overcome the abstract ideas presented in the computer implemented method. Each of the claim limitations can either be performed mentally or with the use of pen and paper. As a result, claims 1-8 are still directed to abstract ideas. In addition, claims 4 and 8 are still drawn to non-statutory subject matter, and therefore cannot be given patentable weight.
In response to applicant’s argument that Larson talks about small blast points and not a blast matrix, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The calculation of new optimal burst heights indicates new potential “burst points”. The applicant’s own specification on Page 6 Lines 14-15 states “each simulation point represents a point of potential detonation, i.e. a burst point.” Larson’s calculation of new burst heights and the representation of the weapon system in a coordinate set reads on “burst points arranged in a… matrix.” Simply altering the visual representation of the burst points does not change the scope of the claim and therefore does not give the claim patentable weight. Thus, Larson discloses “processing the weapon effect as burst points arranged in a three-dimensional matrix,” and amended claims 1 and 5 have not overcome the rejection. However, the examiner will bring in an additional reference to further teach this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 5-7 are drawn to a method. As such, claims 1-3 and 5-7 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claims 4 and 8 are drawn to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, because under their broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 4 and 8 recite a computer program product without any structural recitations (see page 8 of the applicant’s specification line 30-35 stating computer readable medium/program product can include transitory medium such as IR and electromagnetic). As such, the computer program product could include transitory media including forms of signal transmission, such as propagating electrical signals or carrier waves, which is enumerated by the courts as non-statutory subject matter (see in re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Further, without any structural recitation, a computer program does not fall within the groupings of a machine, a manufacture, a process, or a composition of matter. The applicant is required to provide structural recitations to amount to eligible subject matter (a manufacture) such as the program being stored on a computer-readable medium and limiting the computer readable medium to only non-transitory embodiments. For this reason, the applicant is suggested to amend the claims to recite the computer program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium for execution by the computer (Step 1: NO).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Claims 1 1 and 5 recite a method for simulating weapon effect against a specific target comprising at least one model of a warhead, comprising adapting the model of the warhead so that the weapon effect of the warhead is simulated as a three dimensional volume, providing a three dimensional model of the target, and showing the weapon effect as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix. If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
Representative Claim 1: A computer implemented method for simulating a weapon system’s effect against a specific target comprising at least one model of a weapon system’s warhead, comprising processing the model of the weapon system warhead so that the weapon effect of the warhead is simulated as a three-dimensional volume, providing a three-dimensional model of the target, and processing the weapon effect as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix, wherein the distance between burst points vary depending upon the warhead, the target, and at least one parameter of the warhead launch device.
Representative Claim 5: A computer implemented method for selecting a weapon system for use against a specific target, the method comprising: simulating weapon effect against the specific target comprising at least one model of a warhead wherein the model of the warhead is adapted so that the weapon effect of the warhead is simulated as a three dimensional volume and where a three dimensional model of the target is provided; and where the weapon effect is shown as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix, processing the model of the weapon effect of the warhead as compared to the three-dimensional model of the target, said target model including path, geometry and construction; and determining system performance of the weapons system against specific targets.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
The additional elements are instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device as, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element of a computer is a generic computer component for performing the above method, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are generic components of a computing device used to apply the abstract idea.
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited steps of a computer implemented method for simulating a weapon effect against a target, comprising: adapting a model to show an effect in a three dimensional volume, providing a three dimensional model of the target, and showing the weapon effect in a three dimensional matrix (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps are a simulation that applies an abstract idea, specifically mental processes (observation (providing a three-dimensional model of the target, and showing the weapon effect in a three dimensional matrix) and/or evaluation (adapting a model to show an effect in a three dimensional volume)). If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, include a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity (CMOHA), the limitations fall under the abstract ideas judicial exception and therefore recite ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1 and 5 recite abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-4, and 6-8 further narrow the abstract ideas of adapting and providing a model as a three dimensional volume of a target, and showing a weapon effect in a three dimensional matrix (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Organizing Human Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 5 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, and 5 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “adapting a model to show an effect in a three-dimensional volume”, “providing a three-dimensional model of a target”, and “showing a weapon effect in a three dimensional matrix” etc. (Claims 1, and 5) are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “adapting a model to show an effect in a three-dimensional volume”, “providing a three dimensional model of a target”, and “showing a weapon effect in a three dimensional matrix” etc. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 5, and dependent claims 2-4, and 6-8 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., adapting a model to show an effect in a three dimensional volume, providing a three dimensional model of a target, and showing a weapon effect in a three dimensional matrix, etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of adapting a model to show an effect in a three dimensional volume, providing a three dimensional model of the target, and showing the weapon effect in a three dimensional matrix (Claim(s) 1, and 5), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-4, and 6-8 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1, and 5, and dependent claims 2-4, and 6-8 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of adapting a model to a three dimensional volume, providing a three dimensional model of a target, and showing a weapon effect in a three dimensional matrix (Claim(s) 1, and 5), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. selecting users (i.e. using a user interface) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0048] acknowledges that “A data processing system suitable for storing and/or executing program code will include at least one processor coupled directly or indirectly to memory elements through a system bus. The memory elements can include local memory employed during actual execution of the program code, bulk storage, and cache memories which provide temporary storage of at least some program code in order to reduce the number of times code must be retrieved from bulk storage during execution. Input/output or I/O devices (including but not limited to keyboards, displays, pointing devices, etc.) can be coupled to the system either directly or through intervening I/O controllers. Network adapters may also be coupled to the system to enable the data processing system to become coupled to other data processing systems or remote printers or storage devices through intervening private or public networks” (i.e. conventional nature of using a computer and/or computer program). This additional element therefore does not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-4, and 6-8 are dependent from claims 1, and 5 and include all the limitations of the independent claims but fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example:
The limitations of claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 recite clarifications of calculating a combat success rate for specific targets with specific warheads, calculating and/or estimating the combat success rate of a specific target, and implementing the method in program code. The limitations are further instructions for applying the judicial exceptions with a generic computing device/interface acting as an intermediary for performing the abstract ideas of adapting the effect of a warhead as a three-dimensional model, providing a three-dimensional model of a target, and showing burst points of a weapon in a three dimensional matrix, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-8 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bober et al. (US 9,830,408 B1) in view of Larson et al. (US 8,267,000 B1), in view of Miller (US 5,881,969 A), in view of Dupont et al. (US 2011/0179966 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bober discloses a computer implemented method for simulating weapon effect against a specific target comprising at least one model of a weapon system’s warhead (Col. 4 Lines 50-67 The present invention provides a system and associated method… for modeling and analyzing the performance of a weapon system… The system 10 generally includes the following interconnected modules that operate on a computer or processor: a target module 100, a projectile module 200, a scenario module 300, a simulation module 400, an error budget module 500, a statistics module 600, and a visualization module 700), comprising:
processing the model of the weapon system warhead so that the effect of the warhead is simulated, providing a model of the target (Col. 5 Lines 49-53 the simulation module 400 and scenario module 300. The digitized target map 101 creates a target image for the specified projectile. It provides this data to the error budget module 500. The projectile effect type selection 205 lets users select the type of effect map to use in the simulation, visualization, specific target chosen by the user from the target database 50 and statistics modules 400, 600, 700. Depending on which 103. It retrieves the target information, translates this information into a visual representation, calculates the relative target dimensions, and then displays the results to the user) and
processing the weapon effect is shown as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix (Abstract Lines 9-11 Monte Carlo simulation is used to calculate the outcome statics and to display individual outcomes (includes the spatial positions of rounds/burst points relative to the three-dimensional target model) of the engagement to the user, Col. 3 Lines 26-28 a visualization module that interprets the analyzed engagement scenario for display to the user).
However, Bober is not relied upon disclosing processing the model of the weapon system warhead so that the weapon effect of the warhead is simulated as a three dimensional volume, providing a three dimensional model of the target; and wherein the distance between burst points vary depending upon the warhead and at least one parameter of the warhead launch device.
Larson teaches processing the model of the weapon system warhead so that the effect of the warhead is simulated as a three dimensional volume, providing a three dimensional model of the target (Col. 3 Lines 53-58 The vulnerabilities for each target are generally precomputed for a three dimensional grid at various representative heights, azimuth and elevation angles and encounter velocities using standard effectiveness codes (such as the Advanced Joint Effectiveness Model) for each class, subclass, and specific target in the weapon's (analogous to a warhead) target set (combination of precomputed three dimensional grid and representative heights, azimuth, and elevation angles is analogous to a three dimensional volume)).
However, Larson is not relied upon teaching showing the weapon effect as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix; and wherein the distance between burst points vary depending upon the warhead and at least one parameter of the warhead launch device.
Miller teaches showing the weapon effect as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix (Col. 3 Lines 35-63 The terminal coordinate system to the earth centered earth fixed (ECEF) (a right handed three dimensional coordinate system which has its origin at the center of the earth, a Z vector through the north pole and an X vector through the equator/Greenwich meridian intersection) conversion transforms as well as the ECEF coordinate of the terminal coordinate system origin are saved).
However, Miller is not relied upon teaching wherein the distance between burst points vary depending upon the warhead and at least one parameter of the warhead launch device.
Dupont teaches wherein the distance between burst points vary depending upon the warhead and at least one parameter of the warhead launch device ([0011] A side-firing fragmentation assembly in the void space expels metal fragments in a side-firing pattern upon detonation of the explosive. A forward-firing fragment assembly positioned in front of the explosive expels metal fragments in a forward-firing pattern upon detonation (varying burst point patterns based on warhead assembly), [0025] The dual-mass warhead 14 detonates expelling a first mass of fragments 16 in a forward-firing pattern 18 and a second mass of fragments 20 in a side-firing pattern 22, [0026] An initiator 44 (a small booster charge) placed aft of the explosive initiates detonation of the explosive at the end of the taper. This type of single-point detonation is typical for these types of warheads. Other multi-point configurations may be used (varying distance between (burst) points), [0040] FIG. 4 illustrates the directional blast patterns of dual-mass warhead 14 launched from helicopter 10 to engage threat 12).
Bober and Larson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of evaluating weapon effectiveness against a target. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for simulating weapon effect against a specific target, as disclosed by Bober, further including adapting the model of the warhead so that the weapon effect of the warhead is simulated as a three dimensional volume as taught by Larson for the purpose of predicting weapon effectiveness associated with aiming and guiding toward a selected point regardless of whether the weapon achieves a particular coordinate (Larson, Col. 3 Lines 53-67).
Bober and Miller are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of weapons systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for simulating weapon effect against a specific target, as disclosed by Bober, further including showing the weapon effect as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix, as taught by Miller for the purpose of ensuring all regions of the uncertainty area are covered (Miller, Col. 5 Lines 50-67).
Bober and Dupont are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of improving weapons systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for simulating weapon effect against a specific target, as disclosed by Bober, further including wherein the distance between burst points vary depending upon the warhead and at least one parameter of the warhead launch device, as taught by Dupont for the purpose of controlling the respective firing patterns (Dupont, [0011]).
Regarding Claim 2, Bober discloses wherein the method comprises calculating an estimate of a combat success rate of the specific target with a specific warhead (Col. 1 Lines 22-27 Traditionally, the task of evaluating the effectiveness of a weapon system in a combat engagement is performed using a two-step approach. The first step is to create an error budget for the system being analyzed, and the second step is to use that error budget to evaluate the probability of defeating a target).
Regarding Claim 3, Bober discloses wherein the method comprises at least:
one model of a sight unit (Col. 7 Lines 46-51 The aim setup module 302 (analogous to a sight unit) lets the user place aim points in the scene and describes how the simulation module will use the aim points. The aim points can be placed in a specific location in space or they can follow targets. This module provides the aim point coordinates to the simulation module 50 400 and the scene visualization module 301),
one model of a fire control unit (Col. 5 The simulation module 400 acquires the target parameters, aim points, and firing sequence from the scenario module 300, Col. 7 The firing sequence setup module 305 allows the user to describe how to fire projectile in the engagement),
one model of a launch unit (Col. 7 Lines 64-67 The firing sequence setup module 305 (analogous to a launch unit) allows the user to describe how to fire projectile in the engagement. The user can specify how to group the projectiles and what quantity of each group is to be fired at an aim point. This module Col. 8 Lines 1-4 communicates with the error budget module 500 to obtain top level container information that is used to create the groups of projectiles. The firing sequence is passed to the 5 simulation module 400), and
one model of a projectile trajectory unit arranged with a model of a warhead unit (Col. 3 Lines 9-11 a projectile module that handles all projectile (analogous to a model of a warhead unit) related calculations and that provides all projectile related 10 data to the simulation module and to an error budget module, Col. 6 Lines 17-19 the projectile module 200 includes a projectile effects map 201, a firing tables 202),
the method comprising collectively the at least one model of a sight unit, one model of a fire control unit, one model of a launch unit, and one model of a projectile trajectory unit to calculate the estimate of combat success rate of the specific target (Col. 3 Lines 17-20 The simulation module acquires target parameters, aim points, and firing sequence from the scenario module, and target information from the target module, and further places the target within the engagement scenario).
However, Bober is not relied upon disclosing one model of a projectile trajectory unit to calculate the estimate of combat success rate of the specific target.
Larson teaches one model of a projectile trajectory unit to calculate the estimate of combat success rate of the specific target (Col. 6 Lines 38-42 the controller determines which of respective one of the plurality of vulnerabilities having the highest probability of kill (analogous to combat success rate) quantity can be attacked, calculates a optimal attack azimuth and elevation angle and a optimal burst height) and further teaches wherein the method comprises at least:
one model of a sight unit (Col. 3 Lines 18-22 The weapon is launched and the sensor system identifies target and a first position coordinate set (position of the target and position of the weapon) and communicates the target identified (sight unit) and the first position coordinate set to the controller, Col. 3 Lines 41-46 The system continually updates so that the sensor system identifies a second coordinate set subsequent to the identification of the first coordinate set and has the controller calculate a new optimal attack azimuth and elevation angle and elevation angle which is communicated to the guidance system),
one model of a fire control unit (Col. 6 Lines 58-62 the controller (the controller is analogous to a fire control unit) calculates a new optimal attack azimuth and elevation angle which is communicated to the guidance system),
one model of a launch unit (Col. 4 Lines 46-50 This information is passed to the guidance system 14 (guidance system is analogous to a launch unit) So that the guidance system 14 can calculate a flight plan in order to guide the weapon 12 to the target 22, such flight plan being passed to the flight controls 20 in order for the flight controls 20 to physically guide the weapon 12 to the target 22), and
one model of a projectile trajectory unit arranged with a model of a warhead unit (Col. 6 Lines 58-62 such that the controller calculates a new optimal attack azimuth and elevation angle (calculating attack azimuth and elevation angle are functions of a projectile trajectory unit) which is communicated to the guidance system and a new optimal burst height which is communicated to the fuze system).
Regarding Claim 4, Bober discloses wherein a computer program product is implemented in program code (Abstract Lines 1-3 A system and method for evaluating the performance of a weapon platform by modeling, simulating, and analyzing all relative aspects of an engagement, Col. 4 Lines 51-55 The present invention provides a system and associated method (collectively referred to herein as “the method,” “the system,” “the tool,” “the computer program product," or “the modeling and simulation system”) 10 for modeling and analyzing the performance of a weapon system (the system disclosed by Bober can be referred to or is analogous to a “computer program product”)).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bober et al. (US 9,830,408 B1) in view of Larson et al. (US 8,267,000 B1), in view of Miller (US 5,881,969 A), in view of Burford (US 2010/0099059 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Bober discloses a computer implemented method for (Col. 4 Lines 50-67 The present invention provides a system and associated method… for modeling and analyzing the performance of a weapon system… The system 10 generally includes the following interconnected modules that operate on a computer or processor: a target module 100, a projectile module 200, a scenario module 300, a simulation module 400, an error budget module 500, a statistics module 600, and a visualization module 700), the method comprising:
simulating weapon effect against a specific target comprising at least one model of a warhead wherein the model of the warhead is adapted so that the weapon effect of the warhead is simulated as a volume (Col. 4 Lines 50-67 The present invention provides a system and associated method… for modeling and analyzing the performance of a weapon system… The system 10 generally includes the following interconnected modules that operate on a computer or processor: a target module 100, a projectile module 200, a scenario module 300, a simulation module 400, an error budget module 500, a statistics module 600, and a visualization module 700), and
where a model of the target is provided and where the weapon effect is shown as burst points arranged in a matrix (Abstract Lines 9-11 Monte Carlo simulation is used to calculate the outcome statics and to display individual outcomes (includes the spatial positions of rounds/burst points relative to the three-dimensional target model) of the engagement to the user, Col. 3 Lines 26-28 a visualization module that interprets the analyzed engagement scenario for display to the user); and
determining system performance of the weapons system against specific targets (Col. 3 Lines 4-24 To this end, the present method for evaluating the performance of a weapon system in an engagement scenario, is implemented by a system comprised of a target module that handles all target related calculations and that provides all target related data to a simulation module and to a scenario module).
However, Bober is not relied upon disclosing selecting a weapon system for use against a specific target; adapting the model of the warhead so that the weapon effect of the warhead is simulated as a three dimensional volume; showing the weapon effect as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix; and processing the model of the weapon effect of the warhead as compared to the three-dimensional model of the target, said target model including path, geometry and construction.
Larson teaches adapting the model of the warhead so that the weapon effect of the warhead is simulated as a three dimensional volume (Col. 3 Lines 53-58 The vulnerabilities for each target are generally precomputed for a three dimensional grid at various representative heights, azimuth and elevation angles and encounter velocities using standard effectiveness codes (such as the Advanced Joint Effectiveness Model) for each class, subclass, and specific target in the weapon's (analogous to a warhead) target set (combination of precomputed three dimensional grid and representative heights, azimuth, and elevation angles is analogous to a three dimensional volume));
processing the model of the weapon effect of the warhead as compared to the three-dimensional model of the target, said target model including path, geometry and construction (Col. 1 Lines 30-35 The present invention relates to an airborne munitions asset onboard system that automatically calculates optimal detonation points, munitions orientation, velocity, and final trajectory (path) for the asset in order to achieve the optimal endgame conditions for the munitions in order to maximize the prob ability of kill of the target, Col. 1 Lines 55-67 and Col. 2 Lines 1-6 FIG. 5a illustrates a typical weapon aimed at centroid of the target. Although Such aiming minimizes miss distance, the resulting detonation attacks the target at a protected area so that a kill is not achieved. Instead, the war head's detonation position must be chosen to insure the fragments, blast effects and/or munitions debris impact on the critical components, Col. 2 Lines 35-67 should a desired azimuth and elevation angle at detonation no longer be achievable due to change of position of the target and the proximity of the weapon to the target, the munitions endgame geometry for optimal lethality system recalculates in order to determine the optimal endgame geometry that is achievable under the current real-time conditions).
However, Larson is not relied upon teaching selecting a weapon system for use against a specific target; and showing the weapon effect as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix.
Miller teaches showing the weapon effect as burst points arranged in a three dimensional matrix (Col. 3 Lines 35-63 The terminal coordinate system to the earth centered earth fixed (ECEF) (a right handed three dimensional coordinate system which has its origin at the center of the earth, a Z vector through the north pole and an X vector through the equator/Greenwich meridian intersection) conversion transforms as well as the ECEF coordinate of the terminal coordinate system origin are saved).
However, Miller is not relied upon teaching wherein the distance between burst points vary depending upon the warhead and at least one parameter of the warhead launch device.
Burford teaches selecting a weapon system for use against a specific target ([0005] M242 chain gun has been in widespread use for some time and is the primary armament on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV)… The Mark 44, however, is capable of conversion to fire 40 mm rounds in situations where greater armor penetration and urban target neutralization require… he M242, Mark 44 and 35/50 mm are highly accurate in the hands of a trained operator and can destroy lightly armored vehicles and aerial targets such as helicopters and slow-flying aircraft (specific targets), [0010] Finally, various embodiments may allow the operator to select gun type. Examples of available gun types include, but are not limited to 25 mm and 30 mm. In this way the simulator reflects what control signals an actual gun firing live ammunition would produce under the same conditions).
Bober and Burford are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of weapons simulation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention of a method for simulating weapon effect against a specific target, as disclosed by Bober, further selecting a weapon system for use against a specific target, as taught by Burford for the purpose of the simulator reflects what an actual weapon firing live ammunition would produce under the same conditions (Burford, [0010]).
Regarding Claim 6, Bober discloses wherein the method comprises calculating an estimate of a combat success rate of the specific target with a specific warhead (Col. 1 Lines 22-27 Traditionally, the task of evaluating the effectiveness of a weapon system in a combat engagement is performed using a two-step approach. The first step is to create an error budget for the system being analyzed, and the second step is to use that error budget to evaluate the probability of defeating a target).
Regarding Claim 7, Bober discloses wherein the method comprises at least
one model of a sight unit (Col. 7 Lines 46-51 The aim setup module 302 (analogous to a sight unit) lets the user place aim points in the scene and describes how the simulation module will use the aim points. The aim points can be placed in a specific location in space or they can follow targets. This module provides the aim point coordinates to the simulation module 50 400 and the scene visualization module 301),
one model of a fire control unit (Col. 5 The simulation module 400 acquires the target parameters, aim points, and firing sequence from the scenario module 300, Col. 7 The firing sequence setup module 305 allows the user to describe how to fire projectile in the engagement),
one model of a launch unit (Col. 7 Lines 64-67 The firing sequence setup module 305 (analogous to a launch unit) allows the user to describe how to fire projectile in the engagement. The user can specify how to group the projectiles and what quantity of each group is to be fired at an aim point. This module Col. 8 Lines 1-4 communicates with the error budget module 500 to obtain top level container information that is used to create the groups of projectiles. The firing sequence is passed to the 5 simulation module 400), and
one model of a projectile trajectory unit arranged with a model of a warhead unit (Col. 3 Lines 9-11 a projectile module that handles all projectile (analogous to a model of a warhead unit) related calculations and that provides all projectile related 10 data to the simulation module and to an error budget module, Col. 6 Lines 17-19 the projectile module 200 includes a projectile effects map 201, a firing tables 202),
the method comprising collectively the at least one model of a sight unit, one model of a fire control unit, one model of a launch unit, and one model of a projectile trajectory unit to calculate the estimate of combat success rate of the specific target (Col. 3 Lines 17-20 The simulation module acquires target parameters, aim points, and firing sequence from the scenario module, and target information from the target module, and further places the target within the engagement scenario).
However, Bober is not relied upon disclosing one model of a projectile trajectory unit to calculate the estimate of combat success rate of the specific target.
Larson teaches one model of a projectile trajectory unit to calculate the estimate of combat success rate of the specific target (Col. 6 Lines 38-42 the controller determines which of respective one of the plurality of vulnerabilities having the highest probability of kill (analogous to combat success rate) quantity can be attacked, calculates a optimal attack azimuth and elevation angle and a optimal burst height) and further teaches wherein the method comprises at least:
one model of a sight unit (Col. 3 Lines 18-22 The weapon is launched and the sensor system identifies target and a first position coordinate set (position of the target and position of the weapon) and communicates the target identified (sight unit) and the first position coordinate set to the controller, Col. 3 Lines 41-46 The system continually updates so that the sensor system identifies a second coordinate set subsequent to the identification of the first coordinate set and has the controller calculate a new optimal attack azimuth and elevation angle and elevation angle which is communicated to the guidance system),
one model of a fire control unit (Col. 6 Lines 58-62 the controller (the controller is analogous to a fire control unit) calculates a new optimal attack azimuth and elevation angle which is communicated to the guidance system),
one model of a launch unit (Col. 4 Lines 46-50 This information is passed to the guidance system 14 (guidance system is analogous to a launch unit) So that the guidance system 14 can calculate a flight plan in order to guide the weapon 12 to the target 22, such flight plan being passed to the flight controls 20 in order for the flight controls 20 to physically guide the weapon 12 to the target 22), and
one model of a projectile trajectory unit arranged with a model of a warhead unit (Col. 6 Lines 58-62 such that the controller calculates a new optimal attack azimuth and elevation angle (calculating attack azimuth and elevation angle are functions of a projectile trajectory unit) which is communicated to the guidance system and a new optimal burst height which is communicated to the fuze system).
Regarding Claim 8, Bober discloses wherein a computer program product the is implemented in program code (Abstract Lines 1-3 A system and method for evaluating the performance of a weapon platform by modeling, simulating, and analyzing all relative aspects of an engagement, Col. 4 Lines 51-55 The present invention provides a system and associated method (collectively referred to herein as “the method,” “the system,” “the tool,” “the computer program product," or “the modeling and simulation system”) 10 for modeling and analyzing the performance of a weapon system (the system disclosed by Bober can be referred to or is analogous to a “computer program product”)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jaklitsch et al. (US 2008/0206718 A1) teaches a weapon simulation method, system, and computer program product for modeling a target and performing hit/miss assessment on the model target.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4629. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM, Monday through Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached on 571-270-1344. 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.
/HAMID TARIQ HAFIZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Examiner notes that claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for failing Step 1 as discussed above for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. This rejection under steps 2A and 2B for being directed to ineligible subject matter is included herein for the sake of compact prosecution, assuming the Applicant(s) amends the claims to overcome Step 1.
Prosecution Insights