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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 1/9/2026 is acknowledged and appreciated. Applicant first argues that the prior art does not teach coupling the directed energy weapon onto a vehicle and that there would have been no motivation to those of ordinary skill in the art to removably mount the weapon to a vehicle, since the prior art laser weapons are small portable systems operable to be easily carried by a single person and thus there would be no reason to mount the small weapons to a vehicle. In response, Examiner asserts that the Hopkins prior art teaching explicitly describes mounting the “compact” laser device in/on a flying platform including a drone, helicopter or airplane (par. 23 of Hopkins). Note that Hopkins is the primary teaching.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS documents submitted 2/11/2026 and 3/3/2026 are acknowledged and has been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0085548) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0042774).
In regards to claim 1, Hopkins et al (henceforth referred to as Hopkins) disclose a laser weapon system configured to be coupled to at least one vehicle. Hopkins teaches a portable laser system that can be mounted on various vehicles (e.g. airplane, drone, helicopter) as described in par. 23, the laser weapon system comprising:
a laser source portion comprising:
a power source. The device of Hopkins includes a power source (item 402);
a laser generator (item 301);
a thermal regulation unit. Hopkins teaches a heat dissipation or management configuration (par. 242);
and a control unit. Hopkins describes components to manage/control the laser (par. 172);
Hopkins does teach an embodiment with at least one fiber optic cable attached to the laser generator (par. 209); and
Hopkins teaches a laser projector portion (“output optics component” and “focusing component”, items 319 and 322), but fails to explicitly teach that the laser projection portion is coupled to the laser source portion via the at least one fiber optic cable such that a laser produced by the laser generator is provided to the laser projector portion. However, it is well know to transmit laser energy via a fiber optic cable and Lee et al (henceforth referred to as Lee) teaches transmission of a laser from a laser generator to a laser projector via a fiber optic cable (item 400/410 of figure 2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize a fiber optic cable in this capacity in/on the Hopkins laser system to transmit a produced laser beam from one point to another efficiently;
the laser projector portion comprising laser transmitter optics configured to focus a laser at a target. Hopkins teaches focusing optics to focus the laser at a target (item 303),
wherein the laser projector portion is removably mounted on the at least one
vehicle. Hopkins teaches using an apparatus for mounting of the laser on an aircraft (par. 23). Note that the laser device, in this scenario, is removable.
In regards to claim 2, Hopkins discloses that the laser weapon system is integrated into an at least semi-autonomous drone, and wherein the laser projector portion is mounted onto a portion of the at least semi-autonomous drone. Hopkins teaches mounting the laser system in/on a drone that is at least semi-autonomous.
In regards to claim 7, Hopkins discloses a drone-mounted directed-energy system configured to be coupled to a drone. Hopkins teaches a handheld directed-energy system that is disclosed as mountable in/on a drone or other aircraft (figure 3 and par. 23), the drone-mounted directed-energy system comprising:
a directed-energy source portion comprising:
a directed-energy generator (item 301 of figure 3);
a thermal regulation unit. In par. 242, Hopkins describes a heat dissipation configuration;
and a control unit. Hopkins describes components to manage/control the laser (par. 172);
Hopkins does not teach a tether attached to the directed-energy source portion, or the tether comprising at least one fiber optic cable directly attached to the directed-energy generator. However, it is well know to transmit laser energy via a fiber optic cable and Lee teaches transmission of a laser from a laser generator to a laser projector via a tether that includes a fiber optic cable (item 400/410 of figure 2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize a fiber optic cable in this capacity in/on the Hopkins laser system to transmit a produced laser beam from one point to another efficiently;
the at least one fiber optic cable operable to transmit laser energy. The cable of the Lee design between the laser generator and the laser weapon transmits laser energy;
As modified, the Lee cable is described as including a communication control cable (item 420 of figure 3);
Lee also illustrates that the at least one communication cable is integrated with the at least one fiber optic cable (see figure 3);
and
Hopkins as modified by Lee teaches a directed-energy projector portion (“output optics component” and “focusing component”, items 319 and 322) coupled to the directed-energy source portion via the at least one fiber optic cable such that directed-energy produced by the directed-energy generator is provided to the directed-energy projector portion;
wherein the directed-energy projector portion is configured to be mounted on the
drone. The laser device is taught to be mounted on a drone (par. 23).
In regards to claim 8, Hopkins discloses that the thermal regulation unit is not orientation sensitive. Hopkins teaches material and heat sink thermal mitigation not dependent on orientation of the drone (pars. 244 and 245).
In regards to claim 9, Hopkins discloses that the drone is an aerial drone and the drone-mounted directed-energy system is configured for aerial use. Hopkins teaches drone aircraft (par. 23).
In regards to claim 10, Hopkins discloses that the thermal regulation unit reuses forced air convection associated with travel of the aerial drone to cool a phase change material disposed in the thermal regulation unit. Hopkins teaches using a fan to provide cooling and/or using air flowing over the unit in the case of aircraft mounting.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0085548) and Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0042774) as further in view of Fullerton et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0028373).
In regards to claim 15, Hopkins discloses a vehicle-mounted directed-energy system configured to be coupled to a vehicle. Hopkins teaches a portable laser system that can be mounted on various vehicles (e.g. airplane, drone, helicopter) as described in par. 23, the vehicle-mounted directed-energy system comprising:
a directed-energy source portion comprising:
a directed-energy generator (item 301);
a thermal regulation unit. Hopkins teaches a heat dissipation or management configuration (par. 242);
and a control unit. Hopkins describes components to manage/control the laser (par. 172);
Hopkins describes at least one fiber optic cable attached to the directed-energy generator (par. 209);
Hopkins discloses a directed-energy projector portion (“output optics component” and “focusing component”, items 319 and 322), but fails to teach that it is coupled to the directed-energy source portion via the at least one fiber optic cable such that a directed-energy produced by the directed-energy generator is provided to the directed-energy projector portion. However, it is well know to transmit laser energy via a fiber optic cable and Lee teaches transmission of a laser from a laser generator to a laser projector via a fiber optic cable (item 400/410 of figure 2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize a fiber optic cable in this capacity in/on the Hopkins laser system to transmit a produced laser beam from one point to another efficiently,
Hopkins teaches that the system may be mounted on a vehicle (par. 23), but not explicitly that the directed-energy projector portion is removably mounted onto a directed-energy mounting portion of the vehicle using a directed-energy mounting structure and the directed-energy mounting portion on an upper portion of the vehicle above a vehicle cab. However, Fullerton et al (henceforth referred to as Fullerton) teaches mounting a high energy laser weapon onto a cab of a vehicle including a mounting structure (par. 43 and figure 5) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to place the system of Hopkins in/on various vehicles including aircraft, drones and land vehicles with cabs as taught by Fullerton, to broaden the application of the laser system.
In regards to claim 16, Hopkins discloses that the directed-energy source portion is coupled to a vehicle battery of the vehicle. The system of Hopkins utilizes a battery and the battery is mounted, as part of the system, in/on the aircraft/drone/vehicle constituting “a vehicle battery of the vehicle”.
In regards to claim 17, Hopkins discloses that the thermal regulation unit comprises a multi-fluid heat exchanger. Hopkins teaches various cooling means including multi-fluid systems (par. 245).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0085548) and Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0042774) and Fullerton et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0028373) as applied to claim 15, and in further view of Paranto et al. (U.S. Patent 10,900,755).
In regards to claim 21, Hopkins does not explicitly disclose a global positioning system (GPS) receiver coupled to the control unit. However, Paranto et al (henceforth referred to as Paranto) teaches including a GPS module in/on a mobile laser system (col. 6, lines 63-67 and col. 7, lines 1-2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a GPS module in/on the Hopkins system as taught by Paranto, to allow the system to identify where it is relative to a target.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0085548) and Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0042774) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Paranto et al. (U.S. Patent 10,900,755).
In regards to claim 22, Hopkins does not explicitly disclose a global positioning system (GPS) receiver coupled to the control unit. However, Paranto et al (henceforth referred to as Paranto) teaches including a GPS module in/on a mobile laser system (col. 6, lines 63-67 and col. 7, lines 1-2) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a GPS module in/on the Hopkins system as taught by Paranto, to allow the system to identify where it is relative to a target.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0085548) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0042774) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delcassian et al. (Great Britain Patent Document GB 21483933).
In regards to claim 4, Hopkins does not explicitly disclose that the at least one vehicle is a subterranean drone, but the drone of Hopkins is capable of functioning as a subterranean drone, since the Hopkins drone can be utilized in a cave for instance. Note that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987);
Also, Hopkins does not describe that the laser projector portion is mounted onto a front portion of the subterranean drone. However, Delcassian et al (henceforth referred to as Delcassian) teaches mounting a laser onto a front portion of a drone (see figure 3) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to position a laser projection device on the front portion of a platform including a drone as taught by Delcassian, to direct the laser from the forward portion of the platform.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0085548) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0042774) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paranto et al. (U.S. Patent 10,900,755).
In regards to claim 5, Hopkins does not disclose that the laser source portion is disposed at a surface portion located at a distinct location from the subterranean drone. However, Paranto teaches various applications for a portable laser system including in/on various types of drone vehicles and including have the laser generation portion separate from the drone itself (col. 11, lines 16-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to position the laser generation portion and the laser projector portion of Hopkins in any of various configurations including with the laser source portion at some distance from the drone as taught by Paranto, to increase the versatility of the system.
In regards to claim 6, Hopkins as modified by Paranto discloses that the subterranean drone is tethered to the at least one fiber optic cable. Note embodiments where the projector is separate from the generation portion and the fiber optic cable connecting the two (item 118).
In regards to claim 13, Hopkins does not explicitly disclose that the thermal regulation unit comprises a multi-fluid heat exchanger. However, Paranto teaches using a multi-fluid heat exchanger to cool a laser projection system (note the phase change materials, col. 7, lines 6-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize a phase changing multi-material system in/on the Hopkins laser system as taught by Paranto, to efficiently cool the laser system;
the multi-fluid heat exchanger including:
a primary fluid circulated therein, the primary fluid configured to cool the directed-
energy generator. Hopkins as modified by Paranto teaches fluids that absorb heat through phase change;
a phase change material disposed within at least one compartment of the multi-fluid heat exchanger, the phase change material operable to absorb heat from the directed-energy generator (col. 7, lines 6-67); and
a secondary fluid circulated therein, the secondary fluid configured to regenerate the phase change material (col. 7, lines 6-67).
In regards to claim 14, Hoplins as modified by Paranto discloses one or more pumps operable to circulate the primary fluid and the secondary fluid through respective fluid loops (col. 7, lines 6-67).
In regards to claim 18, Hopkins does not disclose that the multi- fluid heat exchanger is integrated with a vehicle cooling system of the vehicle such that a vehicle coolant from the vehicle cooling system is circulated through the multi-fluid heat exchanger. However, Paranto et al (henceforth referred to as Paranto) teaches use of a laser system in/on a vehicle with the laser cooling system integrated, at least partially, with the cooling system of the vehicle (col. 4, lines 11-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to incorporate a cooling system in/on the Hopkins device as at least partially integrated with the cooling system of the platform vehicle as taught by Paranto, to allow the system to operate more efficiently.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0085548) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0042774) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fullerton et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0028373).
In regards to claim 20, Hopkins does not explicitly disclose that the directed-energy mounting structure includes one or more vibration damping structures operable to mitigate effects of vibration associated with motion of the vehicle. However, Fullerton et al (henceforth referred to as Fullerton) teaches a vehicle mounted laser system that utilizes a vibration damping mount (par. 111) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a vibration damping mounting structure in/on the Hopkins device as taught by Fullerton, to protect the laser.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 11, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 11 and the base claim, that the drone is a submarine drone and the drone-mounted directed-energy system is configured for submarine use in a submarine environment.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 13-22 are rejected and claims 11 and 12 are objected to.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. 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).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641