DETAILED FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Examiner’s Comments/Remarks
This office action is in response to the amendment of April 9, 2026, which amendment has been ENTERED. In the amendment, independent claim 1 has been significantly amended, and, formerly dependent claim 10 has been rewritten as an independent claim. The changes to the claims in the amendment have necessitated further search and examination.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of January 14, 2026 have been overcome by the amendment of April 9, 2026 and by the remarks with that amendment.
First, on page 5 of the amendment, Applicant has argued generally that Eichweber (‘380) “does not relate no [sic] any kind of mission commands that are transmitted, but merely control signals” (last full paragraph on page 5 of the amendment at lines 4-6 of the paragraph). In response, it is pointed out that in the absence of a clear definition in the application of what a “mission command” is, control signals can be considered a mission commands in that they are commands that are used during a mission.
Second, on pages 5-6 of the amendment, Applicant has argued generally that Pinson (‘968) “merely discloses an optical transmission of control data via a fiber-optic connection, but says nothing about any kind of transmission of ‘mission commands (N)’ as claimed.” First of all, the claims fail to mention, “mission commands (N).” Second, in response to this point, it is pointed out that in the absence of a clear definition in the application of what a “mission command” is, control signals can be considered a mission commands in that they are commands that are used during a mission.
Third, Applicant has argued (page 6, second full paragraph) that the “cited art remains completely silent regarding ‘transmitting at least one mission command wirelessly by a light signal from an aircraft to at least one guided missile,’ as demanded by claim 1. Claim 10 includes similar features which are similarly not disclosed.” In response to Applicant’s third point, it is pointed out that in the absence of a clear definition in the application of what a “mission command” is, control signals can be considered a mission command in that they are commands that are used during a mission. Further, the claim limitation in claim 1, “from an aircraft to at least one guided missile” is met in Eichweber (‘380), at least, by column 5 at lines 41-45, “The launching base comprising the laser emitter need not be stationary on the ground but can also be mounted on an airplane …” (especially noting the word, “airplane”), and, by column 1 at lines 38-42, “to produce a light transmission path in a weapon system of the above-described type without using a fiber light line and without any connection between the missile and the launching base.
Fourth, Applicant has argued on page 6 of the amendment in the paragraph starting near the end of the page, “in demanding to remotely control a single missile, the system of Eichweber does not, for example, allow for controlling multiple missiles at the same time.” In response, the limitations in independent claims 1 and 10 as newly-amended of “at least one guided missile” is met by any reference that discloses a single guided missile, such as Eichweber (‘380). In addition, Eichweber (‘380) states in column 1 at lines 11-12, “a weapon system in which missiles are guided from a launching site or base” (noting the use of the plural, “missiles”). Further, Eichweber (‘380) discloses that the system has “launching devices” (column 2, lines 52-53), where the system of the plural “launching devices” would necessarily control a plurality of missiles.
Fifth, Applicant argues in the first full paragraph on page 7 of the amendment that Pinson (‘968), “does not comprise any computing device.” In response, no “computing device” is recited in the claims.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
On line 2 of dependent claim 3, “the guided missile” lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular term it cannot take the potentially-plural “at least one guided missile” as antecedent.
On line 2 of dependent claim 4, “the guided missile” lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular term it cannot take the potentially-plural “at least one guided missile” as antecedent.
On line 2 of dependent claim 5, “the guided missile” lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular term it cannot take the potentially-plural “at least one guided missile” as antecedent.
On lines 2-3 of dependent claim 6, “the guided missile” lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular term it cannot take the potentially-plural “at least one guided missile” as antecedent.
On line 2 of dependent claim 7, “the guided missile” lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular term it cannot take the potentially-plural “at least one guided missile” as antecedent.
On line 1 of dependent claim 9, “the guided missile” lacks antecedent basis in that as a singular term it cannot take the potentially-plural “at least one guided missile” as antecedent.
Prior Art Rejections
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Precitronic (DE 2533697 A1), hereinafter Precitronic (‘697) or Eichweber (US 4,096,380 A), hereinafter Eichweber (‘380)..
Please note that the west German patent document Precitronic (DE 2533697 A1) corresponds to the U.S. Patent 4,096,380. The remarks in the rejection are made with reference Eichweber (‘380), but they also apply to the west German patent document Precitronic (‘697).
The text if independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. (Currently Amended) A method for controlling at least one guided missile to be launched by an aircraft during flight, the method comprising: transmitting at least one mission command wirelessly by a light signal from an aircraft to the at least one guided missile; and, executing the at least one mission command..”
Concerning independent claim 1 as newly-amended, the claim limitation of “A method of controlling at least one guided missile to be launched by an aircraft during flight” (lines 1-2) is met in Eichweber (‘380) by the method of operation of the disclosed system as it operates in “controlling at least one guided missile.” In Eichweber (‘380), please note, for example, column 1, lines 10-19 (“missiles” in the plural are launched from a single “weapons system”; using “control signals” transmitted to the missile); column 2, lines 52-53 (a “launching base” with a plurality of “launching devices”); and, column 5, lines 41-45 (“launching base” can be on an “airplane” or a “helicopter”).
The first claim 1 method step of “transmitting at least one mission command wirelessly by a light signal from an aircraft to the at least one guided missile” (lines 3-4) is met in Eichweber (‘380) by the disclosed transmission of the control signals modulated on a laser beam wirelessly, noting, for example, column 1, lines 38-42, “to produce a light transmission path in a weapon system … without using a fiber light line and without any physical connection between the missile and the launching base”, and, column 3, lines 60-66. The term, “at least one mission command” in claim 1 (line 3) is “for controlling at least one guided missile” (claim 1 at lines 1-2). Since there is no special definition of the term “mission command” in the application, the term “mission command” is used in the usual and ordinary sense of the words, meaning commands for the missile as it is on its “mission.”
The second claim 1 method step of “executing the at least one mission command” (line 5) is met by the use of the disclosed control signals in controlling the “at least one missile,” noting, for example, column 3, lines 60-66, and, column 1, lines 14-19.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 as newly-amended is plainly disclosed by Eichweber (‘380), independent claim 1 as newly-amended is anticipated by Eichweber (‘380).
The remarks with respect to independent claim 10 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1, in that claim 10 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 1.
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 2, these are met in Eichweber (‘380), at least, by the laser beam being continuously trained on the missile from launch and afterwards, for example,, please note column 3 at lines 42-47.
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are met by Eichweber (‘380), noting, for example. column 1 at lines 16-19, and, column 3 at lines 60-61.
The further limitations of dependent claims 4 and 5 are in Eichweber (‘380), noting, for example, column 3 at lines 60-66, and, column 4 at lines 24-28 (noting, especially, the phrase, “to the missile and vice-versa”). Please note that the missile is connected to the launch base at the beginning of the launch, and, that the transmission/reception continues after the missile is launched and moves away from the launch base.
The further limitations of dependent claim 6 are met in Eichweber (‘380) by guide signals/control signals and the information transferred. In Eichweber (‘380), please note, for example, column 3 at lines 60-66, and, column 4 at lines 58-67.
The further limitations of dependent claim 9 are met in Eichweber (‘380) by the disclosed guided missile 14, noting, for example, column 2, lines 52-53 (“guidable missile 14”).
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Precitronic (‘697) or Eichweber (‘380) in view of Pinson (‘968).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics, with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of systems for controlling guided missiles.
The further limitations of dependent claims 7 and 8 are not disclosed in either Precitronic (‘697) or Eichweber (‘380).
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claims 7 and 8, Pinson (‘968) teaches the use of a plurality of missiles which are “interrelated over a common data bus by the use of unique codes,” noting, for example, column 4 at lines 57-64, for the advantage of having “multiple missiles” which are “attached to a common carrier,” as opposed to requiring multiple carriers, which could be launched “simultaneously, successively, or both” (claim 8) by the “launching devices” in Eichweber (‘380), noting, for example, column 1, lines 10-19 (a plurality of “missiles” are launched from “a launching site or base”; laser beam is used). Please note that the claim 7 claim limitations of “individually encrypted” is met by the “use of unique codes.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the modifications taught by Pinson (‘968) in order to obtain the advantages taught by Pinson (‘968), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Precitronic (‘697) or Eichweber (‘380)..
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics, with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of systems for controlling guided missiles.
The further limitations of dependent claims 7 are not disclosed in either Precitronic (‘697) or Eichweber.
In that encryption, in general, is directed to data security, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art to encrypt command signals propagating through free space for the advantages of data security, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Finality of this Office Action
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights