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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/887,432, on September 17, 2024. Claims 1-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) for U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/671,434, on July 15, 2024, is acknowledged and accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 12, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to for including the term “it” as it fails to positively reference a previously introduced feature/element. Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are also objected to for including the same feature as they are dependent upon either claim 2 or 11.
Claims 2-5 and 11-14 are further objected to for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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: “automatic target recognition (ATR) functionality” in claims 2 and 11.
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. In looking at the Specification, an “automatic target recognition (ATR) functionality” comprises algorithms to search and acquired prescribed targets (e.g. see para 0015).
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 § 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)(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.
Claims 1, 6, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PCT Publication No. WO2023/234873. For the purpose of examination, the Office utilizes corresponding U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0341385, to Knezevic et al. (hereinafter Knezevic).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 10, Knezevic discloses an air-based counter-countermeasure system (e.g. see Fig. 7, Abstract and paras 0026, wherein a counter countermeasure device 1 is provided), comprising: an autonomous or semi-autonomous unmanned aircraft (e.g. see paras 0077, 0096 and 0142, wherein the counter countermeasure device is mounted on an arial vehicle which can be autonomously operated) capable of deployment to an area of a countermeasure system (e.g. see Fig. 7 and paras 0003, 0030 wherein the counter countermeasure device is deployed proximate an aircraft 10 having an anti-aircraft missile launch warning and detection system MLWDS 11 to release countermeasures 12 (i.e. countermeasure system)) having (1) a laser detector to receive and identify an incident laser signal as a target designator signal and (2) one or more countermeasure subsystems operative in response to an output of the laser detector to deploy corresponding countermeasures against a laser target designator (e.g. see Fig. 7 and paras 0029-0030, wherein the counter countermeasure device includes an EM source unit 3 that emits laser light to cause deployment of countermeasures (i.e. receive and identify an incident laser signal as a target designator signal)); and a laser-based counter-countermeasure (CCM) subsystem carried by the aircraft, the CCM subsystem being configured and operative, during the deployment of the aircraft (e.g. see Fig. 7, Abstract and paras 0026, wherein a counter countermeasure device 1 is provided; and e.g. see paras 0077, 0096 and 0142, wherein the counter countermeasure device is mounted on an arial vehicle which can be autonomously operated), to direct a simulated target designator laser signal to the laser detector of the countermeasure system to trigger one or more of the countermeasures and thereby reduce protective ability of the countermeasure system against subsequent laser-guided attack (e.g. see Fig. 7 and paras 0029-0030, wherein the counter countermeasure device includes an EM source unit 3 that emits laser light to cause deployment of countermeasures (i.e. receive and identify an incident laser signal as a target designator signal); the Office notes that at a minimum, the deployment of at least one countermeasure device would reduce the total number of countermeasure devices available thereby reducing protective ability (e.g. see para 0079)).
As per claim 6, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Knezevic discloses the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, and further discloses wherein the simulated target designator laser signal has a signature being a unique combination of features including intensity, pulse width, laser frequency, and pulse repetition rate (e.g. the Office notes that all lasers, such as that generated by Knezevic, include a particular intensity, pulse width, frequency and rate of 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 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knezevic, in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,753,160, to Reddy et al. (hereinafter Reddy).
.
As per claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 16, Knezevic discloses the features of claims 1 and 10, respectively, but fails to disclose wherein the aircraft is a multi-rotor aircraft having a plurality of electrical rotors providing lift and maneuvering. However, Reddy teaches an unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) 100, 200, 300 and 400 having a plurality of electrically powered rotors 220, 225, 230, 235 extending from rotor arms 120, 125, 130 and 135 for providing lift, and wherein the UAV includes a cylindrical body defining payload voids 305 and 310 which may include a device for generating electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which would have an effect of countering a countermeasure device; finally, the Office notes that based upon the cylindrical body shown, the battery would be disposed within a compartment thereof (e.g. see Figs. 1-4, Abstract, col. 6, line 64, to col. 7, line 21, col. 14, lines 32-46, and claim 3). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the UAV of Knezevic to include outwardly extending rotors and a cylindrical body as a matter of designer’s choice for encasing components thereof.
As per claim 8, and similarly with respect to claim 17, Knezevic, as modified by Reddy, teaches the features of claims 7 and 16, respectively, and Reddy further teaches wherein the multi-rotor aircraft has a copter configuration having the rotors disposed at ends of respective arms extending from a body of the aircraft (e.g. see Figs. 1-4, Abstract, col. 6, line 64, to col. 7, line 21, col. 14, lines 32-46, and claim 3, wherein Reddy teaches an unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) 100, 200, 300 and 400 having a plurality of electrically powered rotors 220, 225, 230, 235 extending from rotor arms 120, 125, 130 and 135 for providing lift, and wherein the UAV includes a cylindrical body defining payload voids 305 and 310 which may include a device for generating electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which would have an effect of countering a countermeasure device; finally, the Office notes that based upon the cylindrical body shown, the battery would be disposed within a compartment thereof). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the UAV of Knezevic to include outwardly extending rotors and a cylindrical body as a matter of designer’s choice for encasing components thereof.
As per claim 9, and similarly with respect to claim 18, Knezevic, as modified by Reddy, teaches the features of claims 8 and 17, respectively, and Reddy further teaches wherein the body is a generally cylindrical body having a central compartment housing batteries and an end compartment housing the CCM subsystem as a payload (e.g. see Figs. 1-4, Abstract, col. 6, line 64, to col. 7, line 21, col. 14, lines 32-46, and claim 3, wherein Reddy teaches an unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) 100, 200, 300 and 400 having a plurality of electrically powered rotors 220, 225, 230, 235 extending from rotor arms 120, 125, 130 and 135 for providing lift, and wherein the UAV includes a cylindrical body defining payload voids 305 and 310 which may include a device for generating electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which would have an effect of countering a countermeasure device; finally, the Office notes that based upon the cylindrical body shown, the battery would be disposed within a compartment thereof). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the UAV of Knezevic to include outwardly extending rotors and a cylindrical body as a matter of designer’s choice for encasing components thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims:
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability:
With respect to claims 2 and 11, the features of a counter countermeasure device including an automatic target recognition functionality to identify a countermeasure system including a laser detector, at a minimum, renders the claim novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. With respect to the closest prior art, U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2021/0383506 and 2012/0059829 teach automatic target aimpoint recognition systems, but system that are not configured to target a laser receiver of a countermeasure device. Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are dependent, directly or indirectly, upon either claim 2 or 11 and are therefore held to include the same allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B