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 1-20 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2009/0308238 to Schwartz (“Schwartz”).
Regarding claim 1, Schwartz teaches a method of protecting a zone from attack by an armed projectile (FIG. 4), comprising: anchoring (via 426/428/430) proximal ends of a plurality of poles around the zone (FIG. 4); securing a net between an adjacent two of the poles (FIG. 4); receiving an impact by an armed projectile into the net (¶¶ [0006]-[0007]); and repelling the armed projectile away from the zone (¶¶ [0006]-[0007]).
Schwartz teaches protecting a zone from attack by an armed projectile, but it does not explicitly teach an armed drone. 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 method of Schwartz to protect a zone from attack by an armed drone, rather than an armed projectile, because armed drones are now often used instead of armed projectiles.
Regarding claim 2, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein the plurality of poles supports a dome- shaped net assembly including the net (FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein the net assembly includes multiple net segments (FIG. 4; [0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Schwarts as modified teaches each and every element of claim 1 above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the net is secured to each pole by cord wrapped through the net and around the pole. 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 method of Schwartz so that the net is secured to each pole by cord wrapped through the net and around the pole, in order to better secure the net.
Regarding claim 5, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein distal ends of two or more of the poles are connected by a tensioner (434, FIG. 4; ¶¶ [0045]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Schwarts as modified teaches each and every element of claim 5, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the tensioner includes an elastic shock absorber. 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 method of Schwartz so that the tensioner includes a shock absorber, in order to optimize its deflection capabilities.
Regarding claim 7, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein the anchoring step includes securing a proximal end of each pole in an above-ground foundation (via 426/428/430, FIG. 4; ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, Schwarts as modified teaches each and every element of claim 7, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein each above-ground foundation comprises concrete. A selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular material was significant. MPEP at 2144.07, citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Schwartz so that the foundation comprises concrete, because concrete is oftentimes found in above-ground foundations for strength and durability.
Regarding claim 9, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein each above-ground foundation has a recess for receiving the proximal end of one of the poles (¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein each pole is linear when not under tension (FIG. 4; ¶¶ [0042], [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein the receiving step includes transferring kinetic energy from the impact of the armed drone between two or more of the poles (¶¶ [0006], [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Schwarts as modified teaches each and every element of claim 11, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein each pole comprises a composite of fibers in an epoxy matrix. A selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular material was significant. MPEP at 2144.07, citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Schwartz so that each pole comprises a composite of fibers in an epoxy matrix, in order to improve its strength.
Regarding claim 13, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein each pole varies in thickness (FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Schwarts as modified teaches each and every element of claim 13, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein each pole is linearly tapered. Merely changing the size or configuration of a prior art device, however, is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular size or configuration was significant (MPEP 2144, citing In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Schwartz so that each pole is linearly tapered, in order to optimize its ability to flex.
Regarding claim 15, Schwarts teaches a method of repelling an armed projectile attack (FIG. 4), comprising: supporting a net on a plurality of flexible poles anchored around a zone (FIG. 4); receiving an impact by an armed projectile into the net, absorbing kinetic energy from the impact with the net, and transferring kinetic energy from the impact between the poles (¶¶ [0006]-[0007]); repelling the armed projectile away from the zone with a release of the absorbed kinetic energy (¶¶ [0006]-[0007]).
Schwartz teaches protecting a zone from attack by an armed projectile, but it does not explicitly teach an armed drone. 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 method of Schwartz to protect a zone from attack by an armed drone, rather than an armed projectile, because armed drones are now often used instead of armed projectiles.
Regarding claim 16, Schwarts as modified teaches each and every element of claim 15, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein each pole comprises a composite of fibers in an epoxy matrix. A selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular material was significant. MPEP at 2144.07, citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Schwartz so that each pole comprises a composite of fibers in an epoxy matrix, in order to improve its strength.
Regarding claim 17, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein the net comprises an aramid fiber (¶¶ [0032], [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Schwarts as modified teaches each and every element of claim 15 as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the net is secured to each pole by cord wrapped through the net and around the pole. 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 method of Schwartz so that the net is secured to each pole by cord wrapped through the net and around the pole, in order to better secure the net.
Regarding claim 19, Schwarts as modified teaches wherein distal ends of two or more of the poles are connected by a tensioner (434, FIG. 4; ¶¶ [0045]-[0047]) and a proximal end of each pole is anchored in an above-ground foundation (via 426/428/430, FIG. 4; ¶ [0044]).
Regarding claim 20, Schwarts teaches a method of protecting a zone from an attack with an explosive projectile, comprising: arranging a plurality of anchors around the zone (FIG. 4); mounting a proximal end of each of a plurality of poles to a respective anchor of the plurality of anchors, at a fixed angle (FIG. 4); connecting a distal end of each pole to another pole (FIG. 4); securing a dome-shaped net assembly on the poles (FIG. 4); receiving an impact by the explosive projectile into the net assembly (¶¶ [0006]-[0007]); and repelling the explosive projectile away from the zone (¶¶ [0006]-[0007]).
Schwartz does not explicitly teach connecting a distal end of each pole to another pole with cord. 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 method of Schwartz so that cord is used to connect the poles, in order to optimize its deflection capabilities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references disclose methods having similar steps to those disclosed in the instant application: US-10005556-B2 OR US-10839699-B2 OR US-8857309-B2 OR US-8881638-B2 OR US-8011285-B2 OR US-8468927-B2 OR US-8733225-B1 OR US-8365803-B2 OR US-8443709-B2 OR US-8607685-B2 OR US-8813631-B1 OR US-10215536-B2 OR US-10670375-B1 OR US-12607436-B2 OR US-5915449-A OR US-2100211-A OR US-4856436-A OR US-2326713-A OR US-2348387-A OR US-2351297-A OR US-1410820-A OR US-4625668-A OR US-9784537-B2 OR US-6865852-B2 OR US-6161648-A OR US-9038777-B2 OR US-2155209-A OR US-1242611-A OR US-10456656-B2 OR US-7080967-B2 OR US-20260118096-A1 OR US-2100211-A OR US-20260118096-A1 OR CH-705683-A2.
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
