DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 11/20/2024, claims 1-5, 7-8, 10, 12-22, and 24, are pending in this application.
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, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15-18, 21, and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert et al. (US 8,408,907) in view of Ford (US 2018/0374380) and Hynes et al. (US 6,748,351).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Herbert discloses, in col. 2: 49-60, an IED training simulation comprising a simulated explosive device (i.e. IED mockup 106), and additional units carried by members of a patrol in a training unit (i.e. trainee unit 108) and a central simulation server (i.e. server 110). Herbert discloses wherein the positions of the simulated IEDs and the trainee units are monitored with respect to each other. See col. 3: 12-18. Herbert discloses transceivers on the simulated IED 106 for communication with the trainee units 108. See col. 3: 19-25. Herbert discloses various operational characteristics to be simulated in col. 4: 23-31 (e.g. simulated blast shape), and it is clear as described in col. 4: 5-15 that server 110 controls the simulation. However, it is not disclosed that the system utilizes mission profiles for various scenarios, and there is no disclosure of ECM training scenarios. Yet, there are other similar combat training systems that utilize such profiles, and others that incorporate ECM training elements. Profiles are disclosed by the combat training system Ford in paragraph 0089, and ECM training scenarios are disclosed by Hynes in col. 3: 35-40. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider these configurations, in order to provide various training scenarios for the trainee.
Regarding claims 2-4, 18, Herbert discloses wherein the transceiver comprises selectable antennas with identification elements (e.g. directional vs non-directional) and connectors. See col. 4: 20-32.
Regarding claims 7, 12, and 16, Herbert discloses determination of distance in col. 5: 45-50 and col. 4: 20-23. Simulation of an IED trigger is disclosed in col. 4: 52-59.
Regarding claim 8, Herbert discloses wherein the system notifies user’s of the determined casualty status in col. 3: 58-60.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Herbert discloses a processor and interface controls and a display that communicates with the tracking devices. See col. 3: 55-60.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Herbert discloses in col. 4: 3-14 a central server 110 for simulation control and monitoring. Herbert further discloses wherein obstacles and so forth are considered in col. 5: 50-54. Herbert does not explicitly disclose a digital representation of the training area (i.e. a map), nor wherein the system can be reconfigured with a peripheral device (e.g.by an instructor). However, these concepts are established, as is disclosed by the system of Ford in paragraph 0077 (map-based display and control), and 0049 (communication with the control server 7 is through a peripheral such as computing devices 5 or 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Herbert system, so as to provide effective monitoring and control of the simulation by a trainer.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert et al. (US 8,408,907) in view of Ford (US 2018/0374380) and Hynes et al. (US 6,748,351) and also Fitzgerald et al. (US 5,556,281).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Herbert discloses location monitoring in col. 4: 3-12. There is no mention of orientation monitoring, but this is well-established with regard to casualty simulation, as is disclosed by Fitzgerald in col. 4: 33-45 and col. 5:49-51. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Herbert system, in order to provide more detailed simulation scenarios.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, and 22, are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach the claimed specifics, including monitoring for the correct antenna selection (claim 19), or wherein the users operate in a simulated protective ECM umbrella (claims 20 and 22)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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.
TIMOTHY A. MUSSELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights