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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 6/25/2026 is acknowledged and appreciated. The claim amendment and arguments have been considered. The amendments and arguments pertaining to claims 1 and 7 are persuasive as follows. The amendments to claim 15 as well as the new claims are considered as follows.
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) 15-17 and 23 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 mounted at a first vehicle portion of the vehicle. Hopkins teaches mounting the laser system in/on various vehicles including aircraft, drones, helicopters with the system mounted in/on at least multiple “portions” of the vehicle, the 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 the directed-energy projector portion 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 known 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 the second vehicle portion using a directed-energy mounting structure, or mounted at a second vehicle portion of the vehicle distinct from the first vehicle portion. 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) with the projector portion mounted at a separate location from other components providing the source of the laser 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 and distribute the components of the system as taught by Fullerton, to broaden the application of the laser system;
As modified, Fullerton teaches 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. Note that Fullerton teaches mounting using an inertially stabilized gimbaled platform to isolate and protect from vibration (par. 116).
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).
In regards to claim 23, Hopkins as modified by Fullerton teaches that the first vehicle portion comprises a bed portion of the vehicle and the second vehicle portion comprises a cab portion of the vehicle. Note the “bed” and “cab” (top) in figure 5 of Fullerton.
Claim(s) 18 and 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 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.
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.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-14 and 24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 1, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 1, that the control unit is configured to limit firing of the laser weapon system based at least in part on the position data. With respect to claim 7, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 7, a directed-energy operation inhibitor operable to prevent operation of the drone-mounted directed-energy system based on a firing angle of the directed-energy projector portion.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4-14 and 24 are allowed and claims 15-18, 21 and 23 are rejected.
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
Prosecution Insights