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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/20/26.
In the response filed, applicant indicated claims 15-20 as withdrawn in the claim status. Claim 6 is also withdrawn as being directed to non-elected species 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wen Jun, et al., hereafter Wen Jun, US Patent Publication No. 2020/0363165.
Regarding claim 1, Wen Jun discloses a projectile (120) configured for launching, the projectile comprising a payload (170) comprising an entanglement material (as disclosed in [0024] and shown in figures 4f-4g for example), wherein said projectile separates after launch to release said payload comprising said entanglement material ([0024]), wherein, upon release from said projectile, said entanglement material is configured to interfere with a target of the projectile ([0024] and figures 4f-4g for example)
Regarding claim 4, Wen Jun further discloses the entanglement materials comprises a streamer (170 is disclosed as a streamer).
Regarding claim 5, Wen Jun further discloses the entanglement material is configured to interfere with at least one of a propulsion system, a control surface, or a sensor of said target ([0024] and figures 4f-4g show intended interaction with propulsion system of a UAV at least)
Regarding claim 8, Wen Jun further discloses wherein said payload comprising said entanglement material is configured to be dispersed proximate said target such that said entanglement material is drawn toward the target via a pressure differential generated by the target (figure 4f and 4g show the entanglement material configured to be dispersed close to the target and the material capable of being drawn toward the target via pressure differential generated by the target. The dispersed material would necessarily be affected by the propulsion system of the UAV depending on the UAV. Because the limitation relies on the specifics of the target or UAV, the claim is treated as being met if the specifics of the payload are met and at least capable of interacting with a target as claimed.)
Regarding claim 10, Wen Jun further discloses said projectile has a diameter between 12 and 45 millimeters ([0026] discloses a 40 mm round)
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bollfrass, US Patent No. 12,305,966.
Regarding claim 1, Bollfrass discloses a projectile (100) configured for launching, the projectile comprising a payload (200/230) comprising an entanglement material (8:34-11:5 discloses how 200/230 is used as an entanglement material), wherein said projectile separates after launch to release said payload comprising said entanglement material (9:38-10:48 discloses the projectile releasing the payload upon impact which broadly, yet reasonably, meets the limitation of separation and release after launch),wherein, upon release from said projectile, said entanglement material is configured to interfere with a target of the projectile (9:38-10:48 at least).
Regarding claim 2, Bollfrass further discloses said entanglement element further comprises an adhesive element (10:62-11:7 discloses using an adhesive on the flexible line/entangling element) configured to promote adhesion of the entanglement material to the target (10:62-11:7).
Regarding claim 4, Bollfrass further discloses the entanglement materials comprises a streamer (figures 2A-2D show the configuration is broadly, yet reasonably, a streamer)
Regarding claim 5, Bollfrass further discloses the entanglement material is configured to interfere with at least one of a propulsion system, a control surface, or a sensor of said target (shown in figure 6A and disclosed in 13:10-32)
Regarding claim 7, Bollfrass further discloses the entanglement material comprises a web configuration (broadly, yet reasonably shown in figures 3A-3D).
Regarding claim 9, Bollfrass further discloses said streamer comprises an adhesive
Regarding claim 10, Bollfrass further discloses said projectile has a diameter between 12 and 45 millimeters (claim 18 discloses diameter of 12-18 mm)
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banga et al., hereafter Banga, US Patent No. 10,663,266.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Banga discloses a projectile (figures 1-4 for example) configured for launching, the projectile comprising; a payload comprising an entanglement material (net shown in figures 1 and 3-4) a sensor (11:34-13:2 discloses on-board sensors); and a control circuit (communications module disclosed in 11:34-13:2), wherein said projectile separates after launch to release said payload comprising the entanglement material (7:23-42, 9:43-9:54 and figure 4 for example), wherein, upon release from said projectile, said entanglement material is configured to interfere with a target of the projectile (2:31-54 and figure 4 for example).
Regarding claim 12, Banga further discloses said sensor comprises at least one of an acoustic sensor, a barometric sensor, a radio frequency sensor, a magnetic sensors an infrared sensor (12:10-31 discloses a variety of sensors including at least some of the claimed sensor types), and wherein said sensor provides input to said control circuit to initiate separation of the projectile (11:34-13:2 discloses the avionics functioning to use sensors to trigger the deployment mechanism of the entangling mechanism via a communications module).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Banga further discloses the entanglement material comprises a streamer (7:43-48 discloses a monofilament entanglement mechanism which is broadly, yet reasonably, a streamer)
Regarding claim 5, Banga further discloses the entanglement material is configured to interfere with at least one of a propulsion system, a control surface, or a sensor of said target (shown in figure 4, the entanglement mechanism interferes with a propulsion system).
Regarding claim 7, Banga further discloses the entanglement material comprises a web configuration (net disclosed and shown in figure 4)
Regarding claim 8, Banga further discloses the wherein said payload comprising said entanglement material is configured to be dispersed proximate said target such that said entanglement material is drawn toward the target via a pressure differential generated by the target (figure 4 shows the entanglement material/net configured to be dispersed close to the target and the material capable of being drawn toward the target via pressure differential generated by the target. The dispersed material would necessarily be affected by the propulsion system of the UAV depending on the UAV. Because the limitation relies on the specifics of the target or UAV, the claim is treated as being met if the specifics of the payload are met and at least capable of interacting with a target as claimed.)
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen Jun in view of Bollfrass.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Wen Jun further discloses said entanglement element and considers additional means for enhancing the ability to secure to the target but does not specifically disclose an adhesive element configured to promote adhesion of the entanglement material to the target. Nonetheless, Bollfrass teaches a similar entanglement mechanism and specifically teaches using an adhesive on the flexible line/entangling element in 10:62-11:7.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Wen Jun to have an adhesive applied to the streamers similar to that as taught by Bollfrass with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase chances for entanglement with the target or for increasing impairment of the target once entangled as taught in 10:62-11:7.
Regarding claim 3, Wen Jun as modified by Bollfrass discloses the claimed invention except for the specific type of adhesive. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select an adhesive like one of the adhesive types claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The adhesives claimed are known adhesives and would have yielded predictable results such as adhesive ability with balancing weight trade offs and not interacting with the surrounding components, for example. Additionally, there appears to be no criticality for the specific adhesives listed as it is a broad listing of known adhesives.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bollfrass.
Regarding claim 3, Bollfrass discloses the claimed invention except for the specific type of adhesive. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select an adhesive like one of the adhesive types claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The adhesives claimed are known adhesives and would have yielded predictable results such as adhesive ability with balancing weight trade-offs and not interacting with the surrounding components, for example. Additionally, there appears to be no criticality for the specific adhesives listed as it is a broad listing of known adhesives.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banga in view of Nazdratenko, US Patent Publication No. 2010/0132580..
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Banga discloses the claimed invention except for the entangling element having an adhesive element. Nonetheless, Nazdratenko teaches a similar entangling deployment device which utilizes a net which is treated with an adhesive substance ([0005]). Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Banga to have an adhesive applied to the net similar to that as taught by Nazdratenko with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase chances for entanglement with the target or for increasing impairment of the target once entangled and increase the degree to which the net is secured to the target.
Regarding claim 3, Banga as modified by Nazdratenko discloses the claimed invention except for the specific type of adhesive. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select an adhesive like one of the adhesive types claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The adhesives claimed are known adhesives and would have yielded predictable results such as adhesive ability with balancing weight trade offs and not interacting with the surrounding components, for example. Additionally, there appears to be no criticality for the specific adhesives listed as it is a broad listing of known adhesives.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banga.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, Banga discloses the claimed invention except for the diameter of the projectile being between 12 and 45 mm. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to define the projectile diameter or caliber to be within the range of 12 to 45 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Defining the diameter of the projectile or sizing the projectile to be less than 45 mm would allow for a wider application of uses for the projectile from a greater number of launching devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
The applicant is invited to call the examiner for additional information on how particular cited references would be interpreted or applied to the claimed invention or potential amendments.
While the Examiner is available via telephone to resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. The Examiner may be reached by telephone at 571-272-6352.
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). 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.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights