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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7-14, 16-18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0261292 A1) in view of Pedicini et al. (Pub No. US 2021/0095940 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Armstrong teaches a device (See paragraph 0035 & figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) configured to travel along a trajectory, the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) comprising: a set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) configured to interact with at least one of an airborne device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 104) or a component of the airborne device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 104) via at least one of physical entanglement, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) sensor obscuration, (See paragraph 0071; EMP & figure 5B, ref # 504b) or surface adhesion; (See paragraphs 0040-0042 & figure 1F) and a mechanism (See paragraph 0062 & figure 3, ref # 308) operable between an inactive state and an active state, (See paragraph 0062) and deploy (See figure 1C) the set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) based on at least one of: one or more elapsed times during travel of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory, (See paragraph 0043) one or more positions of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory, (See paragraph 0043) or one or more distances traveled by the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory. (See paragraphs 0038 & 0043)
Armstrong does not teach wherein the mechanism is configured to: transition to the active state in response to inductive energy generated by relative motion through a magnetic field during launch.
However, Pedicini teaches a device (See figures 1, 2, 5-7, & 9, ref # 100) configured to travel along a trajectory, the device (See figures 1, 2, 5-7, & 9, ref # 100) comprising: a set of payloads (See figures 5 & 11, ref # 200 & 110) configured to interact with a target (See paragraphs 0015 & 0034) via at least one of physical entanglement, sensor obscuration, or surface adhesion; (See paragraphs 0015 & 0034) and a mechanism (See figure 5-7, ref # 120) operable between an inactive state and an active state, wherein the mechanism (See figures 5-7, ref # 120) is configured to: transition to the active state in response to inductive energy generated by relative motion through a magnetic field during launch. (See paragraphs 0011, 0048 & figure 9)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mechanism is configured to: transition to the active state in response to inductive energy generated by relative motion through a magnetic field during launch as taught by Pedicini in the device of Armstrong, so as to prevent arming of the projectile until it is being launched. (See paragraph 0011)
Regarding claim 2
Armstrong teaches wherein at least one of the physical entanglement (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) the sensor obscuration, (See paragraph 0071; EMP & figure 5B, ref # 504b) or the surface adhesion comprises: physically entangling using an entanglement element, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) providing contact-based disruption using at least one fragment, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 110) impairing at least one sensor using airborne obscurant particles, providing thermal interference, providing spectral sensing disruption, (See paragraph 0071 & figure 5B) or providing adhesive surface alteration.
Regarding claim 5
Armstrong teaches wherein at least one payload (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) comprises an entanglement element (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) composed of at least one of an ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), (See paragraph 0045; Kevlar) a nylon, a polyester, a cellulose, or a cellulose-based material, (See paragraph 0045) and wherein the entanglement element (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) is configured to at least one of unwind or unravel during travel of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory to create an entanglement volume. (See paragraphs 0040-0042)
Regarding claim 7
Armstrong teaches wherein the mechanism, to deploy the set of payloads, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) is further configured to utilize at least one of: a spring-loaded deployment system, a pyrotechnic actuator, (See paragraph 0043) an inertially-triggered release system activated by at least one of an acceleration threshold or a velocity threshold, (See paragraph 0042) or a rupture-based pressure vessel configured to fail along a pre-weakened seam associated with the device.
Regarding claim 8
Armstrong teaches wherein at least one payload (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) comprises a set of particles (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 110) including at least one of magnetically-responsive materials or iron-containing particles (See paragraph 0071; Federal and state laws require non-lead birdshot typically non-toxic, contains iron) configured to impair at least one of a magnetic system or an electronic system of the airborne device. (See paragraph 0071 & figures 1A-1F, ref # 104)
Regarding claim 9
Armstrong teaches wherein the set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) includes one or more entanglement elements (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) coupled to the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) and configured to be deployed, during travel of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory, in a direction opposite (See paragraph 0066) to a direction of travel of the device, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) the one or more entanglement elements (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) further being configured to at least one of unroll or extend to form an elongated aerial denial volume, (See paragraphs 0040-0042 & figure 1C) wherein the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) is stabilized based on the one or more entanglement elements. (See figures 1C-1F, ref # 108)
Regarding claim 10
Armstrong teaches a device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) configured to travel along a trajectory, (See figures 1A-1F) comprising: a set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, 5A, & 5B ref # 108/110, 504a, & 504b) configured to interact with at least one of an airborne device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 104) or a component of the airborne device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 104) via at least one of physical entanglement, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) sensor obscuration, (See paragraph 0071; EMP & figure 5B, ref # 504b) or surface adhesion; a rotation control component (See paragraph 0066) operable between a non-deployed state and a deployed state and configured to at least one of inhibit or prevent rotation of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) during travel of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory; (See paragraph 0066) and a mechanism (See paragraph 0062 & figure 3, ref # 308) configured to deploy the set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) based on at least one of: one or more elapsed times during travel of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory, (See paragraph 0043) one or more positions of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory, (See paragraph 0043) or one or more distances traveled by the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory, (See paragraphs 0038 & 0043) wherein the rotation control component (See paragraph 0069) is configured to transition from the non-deployed state to the deployed state during travel of the device along the trajectory. (See paragraph 0069)
Armstrong does not teach wherein the mechanism is configured to initiate a separation event associated with a portion of the device separating from the device, and wherein at least one payload is deployed based on the separation event.
However, Pedicini teaches wherein the mechanism (See figures 1, 2, 5-7, & 9, ref # 120) is configured to initiate a separation event (See paragraphs 0034 & 0037) associated with a portion of the device (See figures 5-7, ref # 100) separating from the device, (See figures 5-7, ref # 100) and wherein at least one payload (See figures 5-7, ref # 200) is deployed based on the separation event. (See paragraphs 0034, 0037, 0049 & figure 2)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mechanism is configured to initiate a separation event associated with a portion of the device separating from the device, and wherein at least one payload is deployed based on the separation event as taught by Pedicini in the device of Armstrong, so as to disintegrate or fragment near the target.
Regarding claim 11
Armstrong teaches wherein the rotation control component (See paragraph 0069) comprises a set of fins (See paragraph 0069) configured to deploy after launch of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) to stabilize flight of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory without inducing rotation of the device. (See paragraph 0069 & figures 1A-1F, ref # 106)
Regarding claim 12
Armstrong teaches wherein the set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) comprises at least a first material (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 110) coupled to a second material, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) the first material (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 110) being configured to initiate deployment of the second material (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) during travel of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory. (See paragraph 0041 & figure 1C)
Regarding claim 13
Armstrong teaches wherein the set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) comprises entanglement elements (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) wound in multiple spatially separated layers within the device, (See paragraphs 0040-0042 & figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) and wherein the mechanism (See figure 3, ref # 308) is configured to deploy the entanglement elements (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) sequentially (See paragraph 0043) to create an extended entanglement zone along the trajectory. (See figure 1C)
Regarding claim 14
Armstrong teaches wherein the mechanism (See figure 3, ref # 308) is configured to deploy payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) in at least two different directions, (See paragraph 0066) the at least two different directions comprising a rearward direction opposite a direction of travel of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory and at least one of a vertical direction (See figure 1C) or a lateral direction (See paragraph 0066) relative to a point along the trajectory.
Regarding claim 16
Armstrong teaches wherein the mechanism (See figure 3, ref # 308) is further configured to operate in a selectable termination mode comprising at least one of: (See paragraph 0043) a radial deployment mode configured to eject payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) at least one of outward at or outward near an apex of the trajectory to form a volumetric denial zone, or a trailing deployment mode (See paragraph 0066) configured to release payloads progressively during a descent of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory to form a parabolic curtain. (See paragraph 0066 & figures 1A-1F)
Regarding claim 17
Armstrong teaches wherein the set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) includes one or more entanglement elements (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) configured to be deployed, during travel of the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory, (See figures 1A-1F) in a direction different (See paragraph 0066) from a direction of travel of the device, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) the one or more entanglement elements (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) further being configured to form an elongated aerial denial volume, (See figure 1C) wherein the device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) is stabilized based on the one or more entanglement elements. (See figures 1C-1F, ref # 108)
Regarding claim 18
Armstrong teaches a system, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 100) comprising: a first device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) comprising: a set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) configured to interact with at least one of an airborne device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 104) or a component of the airborne device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 104) via at least one of physical entanglement, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108) sensor obscuration, (See paragraph 0071; EMP & figure 5B, ref # 504b) or surface adhesion; a mechanism (See paragraph 0062 & figure 3, ref # 308) operable to transition from an inactive state to an active state; (See paragraph 0062) and a second device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 102) configured impart motion to the first device, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) the first device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) being configured to travel along a trajectory based on the motion, (See figures 1A-1F) wherein the mechanism (See figure 3, ref # 308) is configured to: transition to the active state, and deploy (See figure 1C) the set of payloads (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) based on at least one of: one or more elapsed times during travel of the first device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory, (See paragraph 0043) one or more positions of the first device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory, (See paragraph 0043) or one or more distances traveled by the first device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along the trajectory. (See paragraphs 0038 & 0043)
Armstrong does not teach a second device configured to create a magnetic field, wherein the mechanism is configured to: transition to the active state based on inductive energy generated by moving through the magnetic field.
However, Pedicini teaches a mechanism (See figure 5-7, ref # 120) operable to transition from an inactive state and an active state, a second device (See paragraph 0034 & figures 1, 4, & 8-10, ref # 1000) configured to create a magnetic field (See figure 9) and impart motion to the first device, (See figure 5-7, ref # 100) the first device (See figure 5-7, ref # 100) being configured to travel along a trajectory based on the motion, wherein the mechanism (See figures 5-7, ref # 120) is configured to: transition to the active state based on inductive energy generated by moving through the magnetic. (See paragraphs 0011, 0048 & figure 9)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second device configured to create a magnetic field, wherein the mechanism is configured to: transition to the active state based on inductive energy generated by moving through the magnetic field as taught by Pedicini in the device of Armstrong, so as to prevent arming of the projectile until it is being launched. (See paragraph 0011)
Regarding claim 20
Armstrong teaches wherein the first device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) comprises a housing (See figure 3, ref # 302) configured to separate, during travel of the first device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 106) along a trajectory, into one or more fragments (See figure 5A, ref # 504a) that disperse in the air the one or more fragments being configured to physically engage with at least one of the airborne device (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 104) or the component of the airborne device. (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 104)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0261292 A1) in view of Pedicini et al. (Pub No. US 2021/0095940 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pedicini et al. (Pub No. US 2020/0318935 A1).
Regarding claim 3
Armstrong teaches wherein at least one payload (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 108/110) comprises particles (See paragraph 0071 & figure 5A; birdshot) having shapes and sizes configured to promote suspension in air and impair at least one sensor associated with the airborne device, (See figures 1A-1F, ref # 104) the shapes comprising at least one of a flake shape or a spherical shape. (See paragraph 0071)
A modified Armstrong is silent about particles the sizes being less than or equal to 100 microns.
However, Pedicini (935) teaches particles the sizes being less than or equal to 100 microns. (See paragraphs 0008 & 0010)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have particles the sizes being less than or equal to 100 microns as taught by Pedicini (935) in the modified device of Armstrong, so as to distribute debilitating material at the target. (See paragraphs 0008 & 0010)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim4, 6, & 19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein at least one payload comprises a set of visual cues comprising at least one of a tracer compound, a color-coded dye, or a phosphorescent marker, the set of visual cues being configured to indicate at least one of a release path or an interaction region” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein at least one payload comprises at least one of a set of fluids or a set of gels comprising at least one of a glycerin-based mist, a biodegradable tackifier, a cyanoacrylate-based, a urethane material, a latex material, or a rubber-based agent configured to provide adhesive surface alteration” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 19,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the mechanism is further configured to deploy payloads sequentially to form multiple interaction zones, and wherein interaction zones, of the multiple interaction zones, are at least one of spatially distinct from one another or formed at different times” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, and amendments to the specification and figures see pages 1-3 or the remarks and the figures and specification, filed 1/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647