DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 12/21/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 1, recites “The system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1” but should recite – The system for targeted operational disablement of the target feature of claim 1 –; claims 3-17 are similarly objected to.
Claim 17, lines 1-2, recites “target data descriptive of the target location” but should recite – the target data descriptive of the target location –
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “propulsion device in communication with…“ in claim 1, coupling device in communication with…” in claim 1 and “disabling device in communication with…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 15-16, recites “maneuvering, by selectively activating the propulsion device, the coupling device to the target feature”. It is unclear the Examiner how the coupling device is being maneuvered to the target feature because the system does not say the coupling device itself moves independently from propulsion. In other words, it is unclear if the system is maneuvered so that the coupling device is brought to the target feature, or if the coupling device itself is maneuvered independently. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets this to mean maneuvering, by selectively activating the propulsion device, the system toward the target feature such that the coupling device is positioned on or near the target feature. Claims 2-17 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 3, line 3, recites “identifying a friendly location remote from the target location”. It is unclear to the Examiner what a “friendly location” is. It is unclear if this is, e.g., a safe waypoint or a return home location. The specification does not further define friendly location. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets this to be a return home location.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 10 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blache (WO 2020173680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blache teaches a system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature, comprising: an electronic processing device (see page 5 “computer or processor”); a sensor device in communication with the electronic processing device (see page 6 “sensors are connected to the computer”); a propulsion device in communication with the electronic processing device (see page 5 “motor”); a coupling device in communication with the electronic processing device (see page 6 “means 5.3” “can be attached to a target 8, e.g. on a weapon barrel 10, can clamp”); a disabling device in communication with the electronic processing device (see page 4 “drone with the effector is attached to the enemy target or on the weapon barrel, the effector is triggered”); and a non-transitory data storage device in communication with the electronic processing device (see page 3 “memory”), the non-transitory data storage device storing predefined target acquisition data and instructions that when executed by the electronic processing device (see page 5 “programming the drone with data for image recognition and entering the search area in which the target is expected”), result in: acquiring, by the sensor device, target data descriptive of a target location (see pages 6-7 “drones 5 are given the data for image recognition, such as a signature of the respective targets 8” “at least one swarmed drone 5 recognizes the target 8 within a radius of several kilometers with the aid of the camera (s) on the basis of the programmed signature”); identifying, by comparing the target data to the predefined target acquisition data, at least one target (see pages 6-7 “at least one swarmed drone 5 recognizes the target 8”); identifying, by comparing a subset of the target data that corresponds to the target to the predefined target acquisition data (see pages 6-7 “at least one swarmed drone 5 recognizes the target 8 with the aid of the camera (s) on the basis of the programmed signature”), at least one target feature (see page 4-5 “the drone searches, among other things, for the muzzle of the gun barrel of a target”); maneuvering, by selectively activating the propulsion device, the coupling device to the target feature (see page 4 “muzzle is recognized, the drone flies to the muzzle to bring the effector into the weapon barrel”); coupling, by activating the coupling device, to the target feature (see page 5 “clasps the weapon barrel”); and disabling, by activating the disabling device, the target feature (see page 5 “at least one effector then achieves that an internal geometry of the weapon barrel is changed, so that the weapon barrel itself becomes unusable”).
Regarding claim 2, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the non-transitory data storage device further stores navigational routing instructions that when executed by the electronic processing device (see page 6-7 “waypoint navigation”), further result in: plotting, by an execution of the navigational routing instructions, a route from a starting location to the target location (see page 6-7 “waypoint navigation” “fly this stored route with the aid of their inertial system or GPS system”); and maneuvering, by selectively activating the propulsion device and in accordance with the plotted route, from the starting location to the target location (see page 6-7 “waypoint navigation” “fly this stored route with the aid of their inertial system or GPS system”).
Regarding claim 6, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the sensor device comprises a visual imaging device (see page 3 “day and/or night vision camera”) and wherein the predefined target acquisition data comprises a visual object signature of at least one of the target and the target feature (see page 7 “special signature or programmed signature of an opposing combat vehicle”).
Regarding claim 7, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the at least one target comprises at least one of a tank and an artillery vehicle (see page 3 “battle tank”).
Regarding claim 8, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 7, wherein the at least one target feature comprises at least one of a main gun barrel, a munitions store, a crew hatch, and an engine compartment (see page 5 “clasps the weapon barrel”).
Regarding claim 10, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the coupling device comprises a claw (see page 7 “means 5.3 of the drone 5 serves to enable the drone 5 to clasp the weapon barrel 10”).
Regarding claim 13, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the disabling device comprises a shaped charge (see page 3 “shaped charges”).
Regarding claim 14, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the disabling device comprises a thermite delivery device (see page 3 “pyrotechnic charge” “thermite charge”).
Regarding claim 15, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the maneuvering comprises: selecting, from a plurality of available maneuvers and based on the target data descriptive of the target location, at least one maneuver to execute (see page 7 “the drone 5 flies to this target 9 preferably directly”; see page 3 “flying autonomously”); and maneuvering, in accordance with the at least one selected maneuver, by selectively activating the propulsion device (see page 4 “muzzle is recognized, the drone flies to the muzzle to bring the effector into the weapon barrel”; see page 7 “the drone 5 flies to this target 9 preferably directly”; see page 5 “drone is able to make decisions about independently flying”).
Regarding claim 16, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 15, wherein the at least one selected maneuver comprises a plurality of maneuvers that define a path of travel from a current location to the target feature (see page 6-7 “waypoint navigation”; see page 5 “recognizing a target and approaching the target, preferably directly. The drone flies to a barrel muzzle of at least one weapon barrel of the target, the alignment of the weapon barrel being recognized so that the at least one effector can be placed in the weapon barrel”).
Regarding claim 17, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 15, wherein target data descriptive of the target location comprises data descriptive of a characteristic of the at least one target (see page 7 “drones 5 are given the data for image recognition, such as a signature of the respective targets 8 to be fought”).
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 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blache (WO 2020173680 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Abramov et al. (US 20190063881 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Blache does not explicitly teach the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the electronic processing device, further result in: identifying a friendly location remote from the target location; and maneuvering, after the disabling and by selectively activating the propulsion device, from the target location to the identified friendly location. However, Abramov discloses an aerial vehicle interception system and teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the electronic processing device, further result in: identifying a friendly location remote from the target location (see ¶[00142]-[0143] “autonomously return to a home base”); and maneuvering, after the disabling and by selectively activating the propulsion device, from the target location to the identified friendly location (see ¶[00142]-[0143] “defensive UAV 102 survives after a successful engagement, the defensive UAV 102 may autonomously return”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drone and method for attacking a target of Blache to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, identifying a friendly location remote from the target location; and maneuvering, after the disabling and by selectively activating the propulsion device, from the target location to the identified friendly location, as taught by Abramov, to provide autonomously returning to a home base (Abramov at ¶[0142]) following successful neutralization of a target. (Abramov at ¶[0143])
Regarding claim 4, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the predefined target acquisition data comprises a geometric signature of at least one of the target and the target feature (see page 7 “special signature or programmed signature of an opposing combat vehicle”).
Blache does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor device comprises a LiDAR device. However, Abramov discloses an aerial vehicle interception system and teaches wherein the sensor device comprises a LiDAR device (see ¶[0092] “LiDAR devices”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drone and method for attacking a target of Blache to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the sensor device comprises a LiDAR device, as taught by Abramov, to provide facilitating navigation and, where desired, an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) functionality. (Abramov at ¶[0092])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blache (WO 2020173680 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Abramov et al. (US 20190063881 A1) and in further view of Rasmussen et al. (WO 2019010428 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Blache does not explicitly teach the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the sensor device comprises a thermal imaging device and wherein the predefined target acquisition data comprises a thermal signature of at least one of the target and the target feature. However, Abramov discloses an aerial vehicle interception system and teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the sensor device comprises a thermal imaging device (see ¶[0078] “infrared sensors”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drone and method for attacking a target of Blache to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the sensor device comprises a thermal imaging device, as taught by Abramov, to provide an improvement in accuracy that guides the vehicle into the vicinity of the target. (Abramov at ¶[0078])
The combination of Blache and Abramov does not explicitly teach wherein the predefined target acquisition data comprises a thermal signature of at least one of the target and the target feature. However, Rasmussen discloses a navigation system for a drone and teaches wherein the predefined target acquisition data comprises a thermal signature of at least one of the target and the target feature (see page 13 “thermal signature” “thermal sensor can provide an image depicting thermal emissions of features”; see page 15 “compare data gathered to known data signature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drone and method for attacking a target of Blache as modified by Abramov to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the predefined target acquisition data comprises a thermal signature of at least one of the target and the target feature, as taught by Rasmussen, to provide processing shape, size, and etc. of thermal emissions of features/objects to determine what the features/objects are. (Rasmussen at page 13, second paragraph)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blache (WO 2020173680 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Goossen et al. (US 20100193626 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Blache teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the propulsion device comprises (i) a set of motorized rotors (see page 3 “drone” “preferably has at least four propellers”).
However, Blache does not explicitly teach (ii) ground-engaging treads. However, Goossen discloses a transforming unmanned aerial-to-ground vehicle and teaches (ii) ground-engaging treads (see Fig. 2 “45”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drone and method for attacking a target of Blache to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, ground-engaging treads, as taught by Goossen, to provide rapid deployment of an unmanned ground vehicle and/or obstacle avoidance through integration with an unmanned aerial vehicle. (Goossen at ¶[0006])
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blache (WO 2020173680 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Zhang et al. (US 10787259 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Blache does not explicitly teach the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the coupling device comprises at least one bistable spring band. However, Zhang discloses a bistable gripper for aerial perching and grasping and teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the coupling device comprises at least one bistable spring band (see Col. 3, lines 36-52, “bistable grippers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drone and method for attacking a target of Blache to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the coupling device comprises at least one bistable spring band, as taught by Zhang, to provide aerial perching and grasping. (Zhang at Col. 3, lines 36-38)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blache (WO 2020173680 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Semke et al. (US 10081421 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Blache does not explicitly teach the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the coupling device comprises a magnetic mounting device. However, Semke discloses a perching attachment for unmanned aircraft and teaches the system for targeted operational disablement of a target feature of claim 1, wherein the coupling device comprises a magnetic mounting device (see Col. 1, line 66 to Col. 2, line 6, “attachment mechanism is an electro-permanent magnet device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drone and method for attacking a target of Blache to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the coupling device comprises a magnetic mounting device, as taught by Semke, to provide securely attaching at a desired location without using power for flight or attachment. (Semke at Col. 3, lines 21-23)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Raz (US 11021249 B2) is pertinent because it relates to methods and systems responding to an attacker including a shooter who opens fire at a site where people are gathered, including identifying, neutralizing, and restraining the attacker.
Miralles (US 9127908 B2) is pertinent because it is a system comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) configured to transition from a terminal homing mode to a target search mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666