DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2009/0046902 to Williams et al. (“Williams”).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a missile system comprising: (a) a sight (18, 22) having a targeting image sensor with a first iFOV (¶ [0005]), said sight being configured to employ said targeting image sensor to obtain a reference image including a target, and to receive an input designating the target within the reference image, thereby defining a desired point of impact (¶ [0031]); (b) a missile (14) for launching towards the target, said missile having a seeker image sensor having a second iFOV (¶ [0005]), said missile further having a processing system including at least one processor and data storage, said processing system being in data communication with said seeker image sensor, and in data communication prior to launch with said sight (¶¶ [0036], [0038]), said processing system being configured to: (i) receive the reference image sampled by said targeting image sensor and the desired point of impact within the reference image (¶ [0038], FIG. 6); (ii) receive sampled images from the seeker image sensor during flight of the missile (¶ [0036], see particularly step 73; FIG. 6); (iii) perform image registration between said reference image and said sampled image (¶ [0036], see particularly steps 74, 76, 78; FIG. 6), said image registration including down- sampling of the reference image so as to substantially match a resolution of the sampled images (¶¶ [0009], [0033]); (iv) employ the image registration to determine the desired point of impact within the sampled images (¶¶ [0014], [0039]-[0040]); and (v) continuously steer the missile towards the desired point of impact (¶¶ [0004], [0036]-[0037]).
Williams does not explicitly teach that the second iFOV is at least three times wider in each of two dimensions than the iFOV of said targeting image sensor. It is well settled, however, that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04, citing In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Applicant has not shown the patentable significance of making the second iFOV at least three times wider in each of two dimensions than the iFOV of said targeting image sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Williams so that the second iFOV is at least three times wider in each of two dimensions than the iFOV of said targeting image sensor, in order to improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Williams, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, and it appears to teach wherein said data communication between said processing system and said sight is through a wired connection prior to launch of the missile, but it does not explicitly teach this claim limitation. It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Williams so that the data communication between said processing system and said sight is through a wired connection prior to launch of the missile, in order to improve accuracy and security.
Regarding claim 3, Williams, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach that the data communication between said processing system and said sight is through a wireless communication link prior to launch of the missile. It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Williams so that the data communication between said processing system and said sight is through a wireless connection prior to launch of the missile, in order to reduce the amount of wires and weight.
Regarding claim 4, Williams, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein said targeting image sensor has an angular pixel resolution at least one order of magnitude higher than said seeker image sensor. However, “a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree… is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Williams so that wherein said targeting image sensor has an angular pixel resolution at least one order of magnitude higher than said seeker image sensor, in order to improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, Williams, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the seeker image sensor is rigidly mounted to a body of said missile. It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Williams so that the seeker image sensor is rigidly mounted to a body of said missile, in order to improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, Williams, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the seeker image sensor is mounted with a gimbal to a body of said missile. It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Williams so that the seeker image sensor is mounted with a gimbal to a body of said missile, in order to improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 7, Williams, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the second iFOV is at least three times wider in each dimension than the first iFOV. However, “a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree… is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Williams so that the second iFOV is at least three times wider in each dimension than the first iFOV, in order to improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, Williams, as modified, teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein an angular field of view of said seeker image sensor is at least twice the angular field of view of said targeting image sensor. However, “a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree… is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Williams so that an angular field of view of said seeker image sensor is at least twice the angular field of view of said targeting image sensor, in order to improve accuracy.
Regarding claims 9-14, please see the above analysis of claims 1-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach systems and methods similar to those recited in claims 1-14: WO-2024057102-A1 OR US-6157875-A OR US-6573486-B1 OR US-5260709-A OR US-8412450-B1 OR US-9383170-B2 OR US-8525088-B1 OR US-4164728-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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.
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
