DETAILED NON-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 .
Comments
The drawings of April 11, 2025 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) of April 11, 2025 and of August 8, 2025 have been considered during examination.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Trademarks in the Specification
The use of the terms GSM, Wi-Fi, and WiMAX, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each of these terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each of these terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. THIS IS NOT AN OBJECTION TO THE SPECIFICATION.
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 1-10 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.
The text if independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. 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 by a light signal from an aircraft to a guided missile.”
Independent claim 1 is indefinite and unclear in that it is presented as being directed to “controlling at least one guided missile” (line 1), but the transmitted “mission command” is only transmitted to a single “guided missile.” So, it is unclear in claim 1 how a single command to a single “guided missile” can control more than one “guided missile.”
Dependent claim 2 is indefinite and unclear in context as to how a single “missile command” can be transmitted “both” before launching and after launching. Is the “missile command” transmitted twice?
Dependent claim 4 is indefinite and unclear in context as to how a single “light signal” can be transmitted “both” before launching and after launching. Is the “light signal” transmitted twice?
Dependent claim 7 is indefinite and unclear in context as to what is meant by a single “missile command” being “individually encrypted.” This would only make logical sense if there were, at least, two missile commands.
Dependent claim 8 is indefinite and unclear in context as to how the “plurality of guided missiles” can be launched “both” simultaneously and successively.
Dependent claim 9 is indefinite and unclear in context in that the method of independent claim 1 only refers to the action of the “aircraft,” not to the action of a “guided missile.” What is the configuring that is claimed in claim 9?
Each of dependent claims 2-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Non-Statutory Subject Matter Rejection
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of transmitting a signal without significantly more. The claims recite, “transmitting at least one mission command by a light signal from an aircraft to a guided missile” (claim 1 at lines 3-4), along with further characterization of the transmission in dependent claims 2-7. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the transmission is mere insignificant extra-solutional activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because: claim 1 only recites the judicial exception; claim 2 merely indicates when the transmission occurs; claim 3 merely further describes the transmitted signal; each of claims 4 and 5 merely recites a transceiver to receive the transmitted signal, which is trivial; and, each of dependent claims 6 and 7 merely merely further describes the transmitted signal.
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 to the west German patent document Precitronic (‘697), but they, also, apply to Eichweber.
The text if independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. 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 by a light signal from an aircraft to a guided missile.”
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, “A method” (line 1) is met in Precitronic (‘697) by the disclosed method of operation of the disclosed device. The claim 1 features “for controlling at least one guided missile to be launched by an aircraft during flight” (lines 1-2) are met in Precitronic (‘697) by the disclosed guided missile 14, the passage on page 8 at lines 9-12, and, the passage on page 12 at lines 16-19. And, the claim 1 limitations, “transmitting at least one mission command by a light signal from an aircraft to a guided missile” (lines 3-4) are met in Precitronic (‘697) by the passage on page 7 at lines 16-20. Additionally, to elaborate the comments above, in Eichweber (‘380), please note, for example, column 1, lines 15-19; column 3, lines 60-61; column 4, lines 24-28; and, column 5, lines 41-43.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Precitronic (‘697), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Precitronic (‘697).
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 2, these are met in Precitronic (‘697), at least, by Figure 1, and, by the laser beam being continuously trained on the missile 14 from launch and afterwards. For example, in Eichweber (‘380), please note column 3 at lines 42-47.
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are met in Precitronic (‘697) by the passage on page 8 at lines 9-12. In addition, in Eichweber (‘380), please note column 1 at lines 16-19, and, column 3 at lines 60-61.
The further limitations of dependent claims 4 and 5 are in Precitronic (‘697), please note items 46 and 56 in drawing Figure 1. In Eichweber (‘380), please note 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 Precitronic (‘697) by guide signals/control signals and the “information transferred.” In Eichweber (‘380), please note column 3 at lines 60-66, and, column 4 at lines 58-67.
The further limitations of dependent claim 9 are met in Precitronic (‘697) by the disclosed guided missile 14.
The further limitations of dependent claim 10 are met in Precitronic (‘697) by the disclosed launching base on an airplane, noting, in Precitronic (‘697) the sole full paragraph on page 12. In Eichweber (‘380), please note column 5 at lines 41-45.
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.
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. 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.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leonard et al (‘898) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the interface between an aircraft and a missile, and, to the mission-planning unit.
Zank et al (‘033) is of general interest for the disclosure related to a missile pod on an aircraft.
Murphy et al (‘302) is of general interest for the disclosure related to coupling of data to a guided missile pre-launch and in-flight.
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