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 .
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.
Claims 1-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Strihagen et al (US 2024/030866) [hereinafter Strihagen].
Regarding claim 1, Strihagen discloses a pyrotechnic misfire detection system (title; Abstract: “determining that a misfire of the pyrotechnical countermeasure has occurred upon no detection of the recoil signal”), comprising;
one or more sensors 5 (“recoil sensing device”) configured to acquire sensor data indicative of a pyrotechnic ignition event at one or more launch devices 1 (Par. 0050: “a recoil-sensing device is installed in order to detect the dispensing of pyrotechnic countermeasures. Necessary adaptations are made to the pyrotechnical countermeasure dispenser control unit 4 such that the recoil-sensing device can send and/or receive information to/from the platform control unit”); and
a controller 4 configured to:
receive the sensor data from the one or more sensors (Par. 0050);
determine whether the sensor data corresponds to pyrotechnic launch instructions; and determine that the one or more launch devices has misfired based on the sensor data not corresponding to the pyrotechnic launch instructions (as defined in abstract; see also claim 13 and 18; “ determining that a misfire of the pyrotechnical countermeasure has occurred upon no detection of the recoil signal (8) during the monitoring window (6)”).
Regarding claim 2, Strihagen further discloses wherein the one or more launch devices are coupled to a plurality of launch tubes 3 (Fig. 1), each launch tube of the plurality of launch tubes comprising a pyrotechnic of a plurality of pyrotechnics (Par. 0048 ; “the pyrotechnical countermeasure dispenser 2 comprises five different pyrotechnical countermeasure cartridges 3”).
Regarding claim 3, Strihagen further discloses wherein determining whether the sensor data corresponds to the pyrotechnic launch instructions comprises identifying a launch status of each respective pyrotechnic (claim 13: “determining that a dispensing of the pyrotechnical countermeasure from the pyrotechnical countermeasure cartridge (3) has occurred upon detection of the recoil signal (8) exceeding a recoil detection threshold value (9) during the monitoring window (6), and determining that a misfire of the pyrotechnical countermeasure has occurred upon no detection of the recoil signal (8) during the monitoring window (6)”).
Regarding claim 4, Strihagen further discloses wherein determining that the one or more launch devices has misfired comprises identifying an individual launch tube of the plurality of launch tubes having a misfire launch status (claim 13 and 17).
Regarding claim 5, Strihagen further discloses wherein the one or more sensors 5 comprise a vibration sensor (“recoil sensing device”) coupled to each launch tube of the plurality of launch tubes (Fig. 1; Recoil sensing device 5 is connected to each launch tube via control unit 4 as shown in fig. 1)
Regarding claim 6, Strihagen further discloses wherein the one or more sensors 5 comprise at least one vibration sensor (“recoil sensing device”) coupled to a launch device of the one or more launch devices (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Strihagen further discloses wherein the sensor data is indicative of vibration of the launch device concurrent with execution of the pyrotechnic launch instructions (Abstract; Claims 13 and 18).
Regarding claim 8, Strihagen further discloses wherein a first vibration amplitude above a threshold 9 is indicative of a successful fire event (as shown in Fig. 2-2c; Par. 0052-0055) and wherein a second vibration amplitude below the threshold is indicative of the misfire (as shown in Fig. 3a-3b; Par. 0057-0060;).
Regarding claim 17, Strihagen discloses a pyrotechnic misfire detection system, (title; Abstract: “determining that a misfire of the pyrotechnical countermeasure has occurred upon no detection of the recoil signal”) comprising;
one or more launch devices 2 (Fig. 1; “a pyrotechnical countermeasure dispenser 2”) comprising:
at least one launch tube (Fig. 1; Par. 0048: “at least one pyrotechnical countermeasure cartridge 3 arranged to be fitted in the pyrotechnical countermeasure dispenser 2”); and
ignition circuitry configured to launch a pyrotechnic from the at least one launch tube based on pyrotechnic launch instructions (Par. 0049-0050; “The pyrotechnical countermeasure cartridges 3 are operated in the same way as is known today by means of igniting a squib charge connected to a bridgewire…The pyrotechnical countermeasure dispenser control unit 4 is a printed circuit board (PCB) comprising all the necessary circuitry required to operate the pyrotechnical countermeasure dispenser 2 and to communicate with a platform control unit of a platform onto which it is installed.);
one or more sensors configured to acquire sensor data at the one or more launch devices (Par. 0050: “ a recoil-sensing device is installed in order to detect the dispensing of pyrotechnic countermeasures”; and
a controller 4 configured to: transmit the pyrotechnic launch instructions to the one or more launch devices; receive the sensor data from the one or more sensors; and determine that the one or more launch devices has misfired based on the sensor data (Par. 0050; Abstract; Claim 13 and 18).
Regarding claim 18, Strihagen further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the one or more launch devices has misfired based on the sensor data being indicative of no pyrotechnic launch at a time range (Monitoring window 6) corresponding to an instructed pyrotechnic launch from the launch tube (Fig. 2a-2c; 3a-3c; Par. 0052-0056; Claim 18: “determining that a dispensing of the pyrotechnical countermeasure has occurred upon detection of the recoil signal (8) exceeding a recoil detection threshold value (9) during the monitoring window (6), and determining that a misfire of the pyrotechnical countermeasure has occurred if no detection of the recoil signal (8) is made during the monitoring window (6)”).
Regarding claim 19, Strihagen further discloses wherein the sensor data comprises a deviation from a reference (recoil detection threshold 9) associated with a pyrotechnic launch (Fig. 2a-3c; Par. 0055-0056 and 0060-0061).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strihagen in view of Russell (US 2009/0145321).
Regarding claim 9 and 12, Strihagen does not expressly disclose comprising generating a notification indicative of the misfire.
Russell teaches that it is known in the art to generate a notification indicative of a misfire (Par. 0107-0109; “In other preferred embodiments this function [referring to misfire detection] could also be performed by, without limitation, a pressure, vibration, thermal, or audio sensor with an indicator light. The use of a sensor for this function would also allow the status of the sensor to be read by the Command Module, so that it could provide feedback [notification] to the system and the pyrotechnician as to the status of each shell.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Strihagen such that control unit provided a notification indicative of a misfire to a user inteface, in view of Russel, to obtain the desired result of notifying the pyrotechnician the status of each shell.
Regarding claim 10 and 15, Russell further teaches wherein the notification comprises a location or identity of a launch device, of the one or more launch devices, associated with the misfire (Par. 0055; 0109).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Strihagen such that control unit provide a notification indicative of a misfire and identity of the launch device to a user interface, in view of Russel, to obtain the desired result of notifying the pyrotechnician the status of each shell.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16, Strihagen does not discloses wherein the sensor data is, pressure sensor data, optical sensor data, or a combination thereof from a launch device.
Russell teaches that it is known in the art to provide a misfire detection sensor wherein the sensor is pressure sensor data, optical sensor data, or a combination thereof from a launch device and wherein the notification comprises an activated indicator light on or near a launch device associated with the misfire (Par. 0107-0109; “In other preferred embodiments this function [refering to misfire detection] could also be performed by, without limitation, a pressure, vibration, thermal, or audio sensor with an indicator light. The use of a sensor for this function would also allow the status of the sensor to be read by the Command Module, so that it could provide feedback [notification] to the system and the pyrotechnician as to the status of each shell.”).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Strihagen such that the sensor data is a pressure, vibration, thermal, or audio sensor with an indicator light, in view of Russel, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The replacement would be expected to yield a misfire detection system that uses a sensor to indicate a misfire.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strihagen in view of Cortelyou et al (US 2015/0338196) [hereinafter Cortelyou].
Regarding claim 11, Strihagen fails to disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera.
Cortelyou teaches that it is known in the art to use cameras for optical tracking in pyrotechnic systems (Par. 0034: “The tracking system 10 also includes a detector 16 (which may be all or a part of a detection subsystem having one or more sensors, cameras, or the like, and associated control circuitry)”).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have modified Strihagen such that the one or more sensors comprise a camera, in view of Cortelyou, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights