DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that “neither Morin nor Hodge teaches a single camera "provides both the sighting visuals for the firearm and the operating visuals for the military equipment[,]" as recited in amended claim 15”, 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. The camera as taught by the combination of Morin and Hodge, as applied to claim 15, is capable of providing sighting visuals for the military equipment and operating visuals for the military equipment. Furthermore, applicants arguments are too narrow in view of the broad limitation “operating visuals for the military equipment”. Visuals of a target provided by the camera can be reasonably and broadly construed as operating visuals for the military equipment.
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.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodge (US 2011/0030544) in view of Morin et al (US 7,974,736) [hereinafter Morin].
Regarding claim 15, Hodge discloses a targeting and surveilling system for remotely controllable military equipment (abstract: “A firearm mount including a base that supports a movable cradle within which is positioned a firearm. Remotely controlled motors turn the cradle about horizontal and vertical axes. Remote operation of the motors is enhanced by a video camera secured to the firearm and connected to a transmitter that broadcasts an electronic video signal to the user stationed away from the mount. The trigger of the firearm in the cradle is moved to fire by a remotely controlled solenoid.”) comprising:
a remotely controllable firearm mount 10 capable of being mounted on a military equipment (Par. 0008: “ The device features a stand for positioning on the ground, but, with minor changes, the mount can be secured within the branches of a tree or affixed atop a vehicle”), and further capable of providing angular adjustability of a firearm mounted within the remotely controllable firearm mount (shown in Fig. 1; Abstract: “Remotely controlled motors turn the cradle about horizontal and vertical axes”; Par. 0020; 0028-0029);
a camera 22 comprising a field of view, the camera further being attached to the firearm and in alignment with the barrel of the firearm, such that the camera is capable of providing both the sighting visuals for the firearm and the operating visuals for the military equipment (Par. 0020: “ A video camera 22 is affixed to firearm 18 for generating a video signal stream broadcast to a remote user”); and
a set of controls capable 148, 150, 152, 154 of providing a user remote controllability firearm mount (Par. 0052: The user of mount 10 observes video images generated by cameras 22, 116, 118 and 120 on monitor 122 positioned in a safe place, remote from mount 10. Monitor 122 comprises a LCD, LED, or CRT display. In response to the playback signals from receiver 126, monitor 122 simultaneously produces four video images. The user points cradle 16 and discharges firearm 18 in response to the dangers posed by potential targets seen in the images produced by monitor 122”; see also Par. 0053-0055).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
1426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hodge fails to disclose expressly wherein the set of controls provide a user with the combined remote controllability both of the firearm mount and the military equipment on which the mount is mounted.
Morin teaches that it is known in the art of target and surveilling system to provide a set of controls capable of providing a user with the combined remote controllability both of the firearm mount and the military equipment on which the mount is mounted (“Operator control unit 40, FIG. 3 is used to remotely control the robot and to fire the weapon mounted to the robot.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Hodge such that the vehicle was a remote controlled vehicle and the set of controls capable of providing a user with the combined remote controllability both of the firearm mount and the military equipment on which the mount is mounted, in view of Morin, to obtain the desired result of providing and unmanned vehicle minimizing hazard to human life in a hazardous environment.
Regarding claim 16, Hodges further discloses a transmitter 112 (Fig. 4) capable of receiving and transmitting video images provided by the camera (Par. 0038: “Video camera 22 includes a lens and an imager (neither shown). The lens gathers and focuses light received from scope 104 on the imager. The imager, in turn, converts light into an electronic video signal conveyed to radio transmitter 112”) .
Regarding claim 17, Hodges further discloses a display 122 (Fig. 5) capable of receiving and displaying video images provided by the transmitter (Par. 0044: “transmitter 112 broadcasts the video communications signal generated by multiplexer 124 to a remote receiver 126. The video communications signal is converted by a receiver 126 into a video playback signal that monitor 122 utilizes to simultaneously produce four video images in real time”).
Regarding claim 18, Hodges further discloses wherein the remotely controllable firearm mount additionally comprises a first rotatable portion 14 capable of providing horizontal angular adjustability to the angularly positionable firearm mount (Fig. 1; Par. 0028: “Motor 70 is capable of operating with electrical current flowing through it in either of two directions. With electricity flowing through motor 70 in one direction, mast 14 is caused to rotate in a clockwise direction by the rotation of worm 74 on drive shaft 72. With electricity flowing in an opposite direction, however, mast 14 is rotated counterclockwise by worm 74”).
Regarding claim 19, Hodges further discloses wherein the firearm and the camera are disposed upon a second rotatable portion of the mount, capable of providing vertical angular adjustability to the firearm and camera (Fig. 1; Par. 0029: “An electric motor 76 selectively elevates the front end of cradle 16”).
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
