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
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2017/0320570 A1 to Horn that was filed in 2017.
PNG
media_image1.png
608
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Horn discloses “...1. (Currently Amended) A re-usable intercept drone comprising:
an elongate fuselage; (see element 12)
a first wing and a second wing operably coupled to the elongate fuselage and extending substantially away from the elongate fuselage; (see element wings 14 and 16 that extend from the fuselage 12 and that are providing lift for vertical or horizontal flight)
a first propulsion unit and a second propulsion unit operably coupled to the first wing and the second wing, respectively; and (see elements 30, and 24 and 22 and 36 where the device has four propulsion devices)
a third propulsion unit and a fourth propulsion unit operably coupled to the fuselage; wherein (see elements 30, and 24 and 22 and 36 where the device has four propulsion devices)
the first, second, third and fourth propulsion units are circumferentially spaced about the elongate fuselage. (see elements 30, and 24 and 22 and 36 where the device has four propulsion devices and around the fuselage in Fig. 1 where they form a circular pattern around 12 where the device can provide vertical or horizontal flight and see abstract)
HORN discloses “..2. (Currently Amended) A-The drone as-claimed- in claim 1, wherein at least one of the first, second, third and fourth propulsion units is a ducted fan propulsion unit. (see paragraph 19 and elements 30, and 24 and 22 and 36 where the device has four propulsion devices and around the fuselage in Fig. 1 where they form a circular pattern around 12 where the can provide vertical or horizontal flight and see abstract)
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2017/0320570 A1 to Horn that was filed in 2017 and in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP 2927122 A1 to Newman et al. filed in 2014.
Horn discloses “... 3. (Currently Amended) A-The drone as-claimed- to claim 1, wherein
at least one of the first, second, third and fourth propulsion units” (see paragraph 19 and elements 30, and 24 and 22 and 36 where the device has four propulsion devices and around the fuselage in Fig. 1 where they form a circular pattern around 12 where the can provide vertical or horizontal flight and see abstract)
PNG
media_image2.png
554
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Horn is silent but Newman teaches “... is a shrouded prop propulsion unit”. (see Fig. 1 where the device has two ducted fans 12, 12, 24 and 25)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of NEWMAN with a reasonable expectation of success since NEWMAN teaches that a number of shrouded ducted fans as propulsion device can be placed in the ends of the wings and the fuselage 36, 36 and 36-36. This can provide a vertical or horizontal flight.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2017/0320570 A1 to Horn that was filed in 2017 and in view of Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 210 882 584 U to Shenzhen et al. filed in 2020.
Horn discloses “..4. (Currently Amended) A-The drone as-claimed-in-a claim1 and_ls, further comprising:
a plurality of leading edges relative to an intended direction of travel; wherein” (see wings 16 with a leading edge to create lift in a horizonal flight)”.
Shenzhen teaches “...a number of the plurality of leading edges are reinforced”. (see abstract where the leading edge has a protection device in the main part of the wing)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of SHENZHEN with a reasonable expectation of success since SHENZHEN teaches that a leading edge of the wing can include a protection device to protect the leading edge to prevent damage of the wing that can prevent the lift of the wing.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2017/0320570 A1 to Horn that was filed in 2017 and in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP 2927122 A1 to Newman et al. filed in 2014 and Shenzhen.
Newman teaches “..5. (Currently Amended) A-The drone as claimed i to claim Claim 4, wherein the fuselage comprises a nose cone portion, the nose cone portion comprising a reinforcement structure”. (see claims 1-14 where the fuselage includes a reinforced structure to place a thrust device which is to fortify the fuselage and nose)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of NEWMAN with a reasonable expectation of success since NEWMAN teaches that a number of shrouded ducted fans as propulsion device can be placed in the ends of the wings and the fuselage 36, 36 and 36-36. This can provide a vertical or horizontal flight.
Newman teaches “..6. (Currently Amended) A-The drone as-claimed- to claim 5, wherein the nose cone comprises a ram constituting the reinforcement structure. (see claims 1-14 where the fuselage includes a reinforced structure to place a thrust device with a nose)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of NEWMAN with a reasonable expectation of success since NEWMAN teaches that a number of shrouded ducted fans as propulsion device can be placed in the ends of the wings and the fuselage 36, 36 and 36-36. This can provide a vertical or horizontal flight.
Newman teaches “.7. (Currently Amended) A-The drone as-claimed-in- claim 4, wherein the reinforcement is material-based. (see claims 1-14 where the fuselage includes a reinforced structure to place a thrust device and includes a fuselage duct material in the aperture 24 to reinforce the fuselage)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of NEWMAN with a reasonable expectation of success since NEWMAN teaches that a number of shrouded ducted fans as propulsion device can be placed in the ends of the wings and the fuselage 36, 36 and 36-36. This can provide a vertical or horizontal flight.
Shenzhen teaches “...8. (Currently Amended) A-The drone as claimed in claim 4, wherein the reinforcement is a coating of a material”. (see summary of the invention where the leading edge reinforcement is a carbon fiber material)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of SHENZHEN with a reasonable expectation of success since SHENZHEN teaches that a leading edge of the wing can include a protection device to protect the leading edge to prevent damage of the wing that can prevent the lift of the wing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of HORN and in view of United States Patent Pub. No.: US 2019/0088046 A1 to Herlihy et al. filed in 2019.
PNG
media_image3.png
780
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
760
938
media_image4.png
Greyscale
HERLIHY teaches “...9. (Currently Amended) A—The drone as according to claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of sensor modules configured to generate a plurality of data; (see abstract and FIG. 1 where the airframe has a number of 1. Ribbon sensors and 2. Flex sensors on the airframe and body to detect a crack or a damage in the wing)
a processing resource; wherein the plurality of sensor modules is operably coupled to the processing resource and the processing resource is configured to detect damage sustained by the drone in response to one or more data received from one of more of the plurality of sensors, respectively”. (see blocks 410-440 where the stress on the airframe via one or more sensors is detected where a status of damage of the airframe can be determined in blocks 410-420 and then a message can be provided to the ground station indicating via an RF link that there is damage to the airframe via the RF signal)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of HERLIHY with a reasonable expectation of success since HERLIHY teaches that a wing can include a series of ribbon sensors. These cover the area of the wing. If a wing is punctured or fractured, then the drone can be ordered to land as it is no longer flight worthy anymore.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Horn and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190180632A1 to MELAMED filed in 2017.
PNG
media_image5.png
830
834
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Horn discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
608
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Horn discloses “..A drone engagement system comprising: | a plurality of re-usable intercept drones as claimed in any one of the preceding claims; and.a re-usable intercept drone comprising:
an elongate fuselage; (see element 12)
a first wing and a second wing operably coupled to the elongate fuselage and extending substantially away from the elongate fuselage; (see element wings 14 and 16 that extend from the fuselage 12 and that are providing lift for vertical or horizontal flight)
a first propulsion unit and a second propulsion unit operably coupled to the first wing and the second wing, respectively; and (see elements 30, and 24 and 22 and 36 where the device has four propulsion devices)
a third propulsion unit and a fourth propulsion unit operably coupled to the fuselage; wherein (see elements 30, and 24 and 22 and 36 where the device has four propulsion devices)
the first, second, third and fourth propulsion units are circumferentially spaced about the elongate fuselage. (see elements 30, and 24 and 22 and 36 where the device has four propulsion devices and around the fuselage in Fig. 1 where they form a circular pattern around 12 where the can provide vertical or horizontal flight and see abstract)
MELAMED teaches “...10. (Currently Amended).... a control system; wherein the control system is configured to communicate with the plurality of re-usable intercept drones, and the plurality of re-usable intercept drones is configured to communicate with the control system; the control system is configured to receive an identity of a target; (see paragraph 21-24 where there is a protected area and an indication system 120 that can scan using sensors on the drone or ground sensors to determine a hostile object in the area and this can be remote piloted vehicle or a drone and an interception vehicle is needed)
the control system is configured to plan one or more collisions of the plurality of intercept drones with the target; and (see paragraph 61 where the interception apparatus can crash the hostile vehicle using different vehicles and see paragraph 61-68)
the control system is configured to communicate the identity of the target and a location to the plurality of re-usable intercept drones in accordance with the planned one or more collisions”. (see abstract where a hostile drone is detected via one or more multimedia sensor elements and then the vehicle can be determined to be 1. Hostile and 2. An indicator of the hostile vehicle and then a speed and direction of the hostile vehicle is determined and then a first vehicle can change a flight plan from a current to a second flight plan to crash into the second vehicle using the first vehicle and intercepting it).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of MELAMED with a reasonable expectation of success since MELAMED teaches that a drone that include multimedia collecting sensors. These can detect a second drone. The second drone can enter a so called protected area and be determined hostile based on the sensors. The first drone can then fly and identify and intercept the second drone. This can be to bring down the second drone. See abstract and claims 1-10.
MELAMED teaches “...11. (Currently Amended) A-The drone engagement system according to claim 10, wherein the control system is configured to coordinate the one or more collisions of a number of the plurality of intercept drones with the target. (see paragraph 61 where the interception apparatus can crash the hostile vehicle using different vehicles and see paragraph 61-68) (see paragraph 61 where the interception apparatus can crash the hostile vehicle using different vehicles and see paragraph 61-68)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of MELAMED with a reasonable expectation of success since MELAMED teaches that a drone that include multimedia collecting sensors. These can detect a second drone. The second drone can enter a so called protected area and be determined hostile based on the sensors. The first drone can then fly and identify and intercept the second drone. This can be to bring down the second drone. See abstract and claims 1-10.
MELAMED teaches “...12. (Currently Amended) A-The drone engagement-system according to claim 10- wherein the control system is configured to choreograph the one or more collisions of a number of the plurality of intercept drones with the target. (see paragraph 61 where the interception apparatus can crash the hostile vehicle using different vehicles and see paragraph 61-68) (see paragraph 61 where the interception apparatus can crash the hostile vehicle using different vehicles and see paragraph 61-74 where the device can move the interception vehicle into the vehicle or activate a spear or a net)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of MELAMED with a reasonable expectation of success since MELAMED teaches that a drone that include multimedia collecting sensors. These can detect a second drone. The second drone can enter a so called protected area and be determined hostile based on the sensors. The first drone can then fly and identify and intercept the second drone. This can be to bring down the second drone. See abstract and claims 1-10.
MELAMED teaches “...13. (Currently Amended) The drone of Claim 9 engagement-system-further comprising:
a re-usable intercept drone as claimed in any one of Claims | to 9; and
a control system; wherein
the control system is configured to communicate with at the re-usable intercept drone; and-the-re-usable-intercept-drone-is configured to communicate with the control system; (see paragraph 44-47 where the drone that is an interception drone can communicate via a network interface with the flight planning system to indicate the target and receive the flight plan and communicate with the control)
the control system is configured to identify a target to the re-usable intercept drone and instruct the re-usable intercept drone to collide with the target. (see paragraph 61 where the interception apparatus can crash the hostile vehicle using different vehicles and see paragraph 61-68) (see paragraph 61 where the interception apparatus can crash the hostile vehicle using different vehicles and see paragraph 61-74 where the device can move the interception vehicle into the vehicle or activate a spear or a net)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of MELAMED with a reasonable expectation of success since MELAMED teaches that a drone that include multimedia collecting sensors. These can detect a second drone. The second drone can enter a so called protected area and be determined hostile based on the sensors. The first drone can then fly and identify and intercept the second drone. This can be to bring down the second drone. See abstract and claims 1-10.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Horn and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190180632A1 to MELAMED filed in 2017 and in view of United States Patent No.: 9,524,648 B1 to Gopalakrishnan et al. that was filed in 2014 and Herlihy.
Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches “... 14. (Currently Amended) A-The drone system as-claimed-in- according to claim 13, wherein the control system is configured to interrogate the re-usable intercept drone to determine (see FIG. 9, block 906 that communicates with the UAV 102 via signal 908) (see Col. 6, line 66 to Col. 7, line 12 and FIG. 2, where the uav 102 has sensors 210(1) to (8)) (See col. 2, lines 10 to 45 where the threat can be to the UAV of 1. Redirecting the UAV to an incorrect destination, 2. Destruction of the UAV or in block 124 of FIG. 1 providing malicious data to the UAV)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of Gopalakrishnan with a reasonable expectation of success since Gopalakrishnan teaches that a drone can be detected as a threat and the drone can be destroyed via an interrogation. The drone can be uploaded a malicious data to crash the drone. See Col. 7, lines 1-15.
Herlihy teaches “...a degree of flightworthiness of the re-usable intercept drone after an attempted collision of the re-usable intercept drone with the target”. (see abstract where the sensors can indicate that a wing is damaged and cannot fly again and is separated and see paragraph 15-18)”.
See motivation statement above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Horn and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190180632A1 to MELAMED filed in 2017 and in view of United States Patent No.: 9,524,648 B1 to Gopalakrishnan et al. that was filed in 2014 and Herlihy and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO 2021 150149 to Agarkov filed in 2021.
HERLIHY et al. teaches “...15. (Currently Amended) The drone system as claimed in according to claim 14, wherein the control system is configured to identify another target to the re-usable intercept drone in response to the degree of flightworthiness being acceptable to continue missions, (see abstract where the sensors can indicate that a wing is damaged and cannot fly again and is separated and see paragraph 15-18)”.
See motivation statement above.
AGARKOV et al. teaches and to instruct the re-usable intercept drone to collide with the another target”. (see Fig. 2 where the drone can include a ram to be extended from a toothed rack and the device can slam the ram into a target to provide a shock to the target and can crash it; Fig. 2 UAV-interceptor 20 with a body 21, a ram 22 with an impact part in the form of a weighting agent 24, an impact energy absorption device is represented by a balanced automation system in the form of a gear 23 mounted on a ram 22 and a toothed rack with a counter-mass 25, the net is rolled into a roll 27 and mounted on the ram, the movable rod 28 is connected to the grid, the servo 29 controls the rotation of the rod 28. The ram in the "flight" mode is in the "C" position, the ram in the "intercept" mode is in the "D" position. In a collision with a target, the weighting agent 24 slows down the speed of the rearward displacement of the ram 22, the gear 23 turns and begins to linearly displace the gear rack with the counter-mass 25 to position 26 - thereby, the principle of compensation of the ram rollback impulse with the counter-mass is realized and shock loads on the housing 21 are minimized.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of HORN with the teachings of AGARKOV with a reasonable expectation of success since AGARKOV teaches that a drone can include a jamming device or a ram. The drone can detect a second bad drone with a ultrasonic or radar sensor and then ram the drone to disable and down the drone. This can be with the ram.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Horn and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190180632A1 to MELAMED filed in 2017 and in view of HERLIHY.
United States Patent Pub. No.: US 2019/0088046 A1 to Herlihy et al. filed in 2019 teaches “... 16. (Currently Amended) A-The drone system according to claim 13, wherein the control system is configured to instruct the re-usable intercept drone to land at a predetermined location in response to the degree of flightworthiness being unacceptable to continue missions”. (see paragraph 18 where the drone is severely damaged it is ordered to land and discontinue flying and then power down)
See motivation statement above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by International Patent Pub. No.: WO 2021 150149 to Agarkov filed in 2021.
AGARKOV teaches “...17. (Original) A method of colliding a re-usable intercept drone with a target, the method comprising: a control system communicating an identity of the target to the re-usable intercept drone; (see ultrasonic sensor and a radio beacon to determine that there are multiple small energy drones; an electronic stabilization system, analysis of the operation of on-board devices, external loads can be installed in the housing, and the housing can be equipped with gyroscopes, a pressure sensor, an autopilot, an accelerometer, controllers, a sonar, a GPS receiver and other known devices. A radio beacon can be installed to recognize "friend or foe".) and the control system instructing the re-usable intercept drone to collide with the target”. (see Fig. 2 where the drone can include a ram to be extended from a toothed rack and the device can slam the ram into a target to provide a shock to the target and can crash it; Fig. 2 UAV-interceptor 20 with a body 21, a ram 22 with an impact part in the form of a weighting agent 24, an impact energy absorption device is represented by a balanced automation system in the form of a gear 23 mounted on a ram 22 and a toothed rack with a counter-mass 25, the net is rolled into a roll 27 and mounted on the ram, the movable rod 28 is connected to the grid, the servo 29 controls the rotation of the rod 28. The ram in the "flight" mode is in the "C" position, the ram in the "intercept" mode is in the "D" position. In a collision with a target, the weighting agent 24 slows down the speed of the rearward displacement of the ram 22, the gear 23 turns and begins to linearly displace the gear rack with the counter-mass 25 to position 26 - thereby, the principle of compensation of the ram rollback impulse with the counter-mass is realized and shock loads on the housing 21 are minimized.)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO 2021 150149 to Agarkov filed in 2021 and in view of Herilihy.
AGARKOV et al. discloses “... 18. (Currently Amended) A-The method according to claim 17, wherein the re-usable intercept drone attempts to collide with the target;” (see Fig. 2 where the drone can include a ram to be extended from a toothed rack and the device can slam the ram into a target to provide a shock to the target and can crash it; Fig. 2 UAV-interceptor 20 with a body 21, a ram 22 with an impact part in the form of a weighting agent 24, an impact energy absorption device is represented by a balanced automation system in the form of a gear 23 mounted on a ram 22 and a toothed rack with a counter-mass 25, the net is rolled into a roll 27 and mounted on the ram, the movable rod 28 is connected to the grid, the servo 29 controls the rotation of the rod 28. The ram in the "flight" mode is in the "C" position, the ram in the "intercept" mode is in the "D" position. In a collision with a target, the weighting agent 24 slows down the speed of the rearward displacement of the ram 22, the gear 23 turns and begins to linearly displace the gear rack with the counter-mass 25 to position 26 - thereby, the principle of compensation of the ram rollback impulse with the counter-mass is realized and shock loads on the housing 21 are minimized.)
HARLIHY teaches “...the control system communicates with the re-usable intercept drone to determine a degree of flightworthiness of the re-usable intercept drone after the attempted collision”. (see abstract where the sensors can indicate that a wing is damaged and cannot fly again and is separated and see paragraph 15-18)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of AGAROV with the teachings of HERLIHY with a reasonable expectation of success since HERLIHY teaches that a wing can include a series of ribbon sensors. These cover the area of the wing. If a wing is punctured or fractured, then the drone can be ordered to land as it is no longer flight worthy anymore.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO 2021 150149 to Agarkov filed in 2021 and in view of Herilihy.
AGARKOV et al. teaches “... 19. (Currently Amended) A-The method according to claim 18, further comprising: the control system communicating an identity of another target to the re-usable intercept drone (see Fig. 2 where the drone can include a ram to be extended from a toothed rack and the device can slam the ram into a target to provide a shock to the target and can crash it; Fig. 2 UAV-interceptor 20 with a body 21, a ram 22 with an impact part in the form of a weighting agent 24, an impact energy absorption device is represented by a balanced automation system in the form of a gear 23 mounted on a ram 22 and a toothed rack with a counter-mass 25, the net is rolled into a roll 27 and mounted on the ram, the movable rod 28 is connected to the grid, the servo 29 controls the rotation of the rod 28. The ram in the "flight" mode is in the "C" position, the ram in the "intercept" mode is in the "D" position. In a collision with a target, the weighting agent 24 slows down the speed of the rearward displacement of the ram 22, the gear 23 turns and begins to linearly displace the gear rack with the counter-mass 25 to position 26 - thereby, the principle of compensation of the ram rollback impulse with the counter-mass is realized and shock loads on the housing 21 are minimized.)
HERLIHY teaches “... in response to the degree of flightworthiness being acceptable to continue missions. (see paragraph 18 where the drone is severely damaged it is ordered to land and discontinue flying and then power down)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of AGAROV with the teachings of HERLIHY with a reasonable expectation of success since HERLIHY teaches that a wing can include a series of ribbon sensors. These cover the area of the wing. If a wing is punctured or fractured, then the drone can be ordered to land as it is no longer flight worthy anymore.
HERLIHY teaches “...20. (Currently Amended) A-The method according to claim 18, further comprising:
the control system instructing the re-usable intercept drone to land at a predetermined location in response to the degree of flightworthiness being unacceptable to continue missions”. (see paragraph 1-18 where the drone is severely damaged it is ordered to land and discontinue flying and then power down) (see paragraph 18 where the drone is severely damaged it is ordered to land and discontinue flying and then power down)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of AGAROV with the teachings of HERLIHY with a reasonable expectation of success since HERLIHY teaches that a wing can include a series of ribbon sensors. These cover the area of the wing. If a wing is punctured or fractured, then the drone can be ordered to land as it is no longer flight worthy anymore.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of AGARKOV and in view of United States Patent No.: 9,524,648 B1 to Gopalakrishnan et al. that was filed in 2014.
AGARKOV discloses “...21. (Original) A method of controlling engagement of a plurality of re-usable intercept drones with a target, the method comprising:
a control system receiving an identity of a target;
the control system planning one or more collisions of the plurality of re-usable intercept drones with the target; and... to the plurality of re-usable intercept drones in accordance with the planned one or more collisions.” (see Fig. 2 where the drone can include a ram to be extended from a toothed rack and the device can slam the ram into a target to provide a shock to the target and can crash it; Fig. 2 UAV-interceptor 20 with a body 21, a ram 22 with an impact part in the form of a weighting agent 24, an impact energy absorption device is represented by a balanced automation system in the form of a gear 23 mounted on a ram 22 and a toothed rack with a counter-mass 25, the net is rolled into a roll 27 and mounted on the ram, the movable rod 28 is connected to the grid, the servo 29 controls the rotation of the rod 28. The ram in the "flight" mode is in the "C" position, the ram in the "intercept" mode is in the "D" position. In a collision with a target, the weighting agent 24 slows down the speed of the rearward displacement of the ram 22, the gear 23 turns and begins to linearly displace the gear rack with the counter-mass 25 to position 26 - thereby, the principle of compensation of the ram rollback impulse with the counter-mass is realized and shock loads on the housing 21 are minimized.)
Gopalakrishnan et al. teaches “...the control system communicating the identity of the target and a location thereof (see FIG. 9, block 906 that communicates with the UAV 102 via signal 908) (see Col. 6, line 66 to Col. 7, line 12 and FIG. 2, where the uav 102 has sensors 210(1) to (8)) (See col. 2, lines 10 to 45 where the threat can be to the UAV of 1. Redirecting the UAV to an incorrect destination, 2. Destruction of the UAV or in block 124 of FIG. 1 providing malicious data to the UAV)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of the primary reference with the teachings of Gopalakrishnan with a reasonable expectation of success since Gopalakrishnan teaches that a drone can be detected as a threat and the drone can be destroyed via an interrogation. The drone can be uploaded a malicious data to crash the drone. See Col. 7, lines 1-15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666