DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 December 2025 against Issacs (US 6,666,405) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that:
“Regarding claim 1, Isaacs discloses a single-thread [in reality this is not the case, since in reality it is “string” in Isaacs (US 6,666,405), unlike “thread” in Application 18963652] device for damaging unmanned aerial vehicles, consisting of one thread [in reality this is not so, since in reality it is “string” in Isaacs (US 6,666,405), in contrast to “thread” in Application 18963652] 12, one end [in reality this is not the case, since in reality it is NOT “one end”, but both, i.e. “TWO ends” in Isaacs (US 6,666,405), in contrast to the fact that it is actually “one end” in Application 18963652] of which is fixed with the possibility of the above-mentioned thread [in reality this is not so, since in reality it is “string” in Isaacs (US 6,666,405), in contrast to “thread” in Application 18963652] being in the airspace (Fig. 1).” The above-mentioned INCORRECTNESS AND UNBASEDNESS clearly follow from the fact that in reality the Isaacs patent (US 6,666,405) quite definitely contains a disclosure of the technical solution in relation to precisely the “string” which has precisely “TWO ends” secured, as follows from the below from the Isaacs patent (US 6,666,405) (see lines 18-67 column 6; lines 1-35 column 7 and lines 1-33 column 8)”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A thread is understood as a long, fine cord of twisted fibers used for sewing, weaving, or embroidery. A string is understood as a thick thread made of fibers twisted together, used for tying, binding, or hanging objects. The string of Isaacs can be reasonably and broadly construed as a thread. Furthermore, Isaacs is secured at one end to allow the thread to be in airspace (as shown in Fig. 1). Applicant should note that the claims are not limited to only one end. Furthermore, applicant’s thread is connected at two ends as well (Par. 0006: “when one end of the thread 1 is attached to the aerostat 2, and the other end of the thread 1 is attached to the weight 3”). Below shows a side by side comparison of Isaccs and the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
419
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 (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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isaacs (US 6,666,405).
Regarding claim 1, Isaacs discloses a single-thread device for damaging unmanned aerial vehicles, consisting of one thread 12, one end of which is fixed with the possibility of the above-mentioned thread being in the airspace (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
419
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant should note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lutz (US 3,735,723).
Regarding claim 1, Lutz discloses a single-thread device 33 for damaging unmanned aerial vehicles, consisting of one thread 33, one end of which is fixed with the possibility of the above-mentioned thread being in the airspace (clearly seen in Fig. 5).
Applicant should note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
734
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOSHUA E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4269. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM MST M-F.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 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 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.
/JOSHUA E FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641