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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/07/2025 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/07/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on application number 18/555,362 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment of claims 1-2, 5, 9, and 17 in Applicant’s Response to Official Action dated 10/07/2025 (“Response”). Claims 1-17 are currently pending in this application and are subject to examination herein.
Based upon Applicant’s amendment of Claim 2 to remove the extra “the” and Claim 5 to add the word “of”, the prior objections to the Drawings are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Claims 17, as currently amended, requires an optical target finder. However, the Examiner relied upon the combination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,163,176 to Geswender et al. in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0056723 to Clancy et al. to meet similar target finder limitations in independent Claims 1 and 17. The Examiner concedes that Clancy et al. does not appear to teach a conical scan area, as required in amended independent Claims 1, 9 and 17. However, the Examiner is relying upon U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0289694 to Bredy (cited as pertinent prior art in the final Official action mailed on 10/07/2025) to teach those limitations, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant argues that the “independent claims now require that the original trajectory is not affected during the initial oscillation phase.” (Response at p. 10, lines 1-2). The Examiner does not clearly see where this limitation was included in the amendments to independent claims 1, 9 or 17. Should Applicant wish to so limit the claims, the Examiner suggests that Applicant should expressly add such limitation to the claims. Should that path be chosen, the Examiner will still need to perform an updated search of the prior art, so no agreement is being indicated at present that such amendment would be considered allowable subject matter and that determination could not be made until after an updated search is completed based on the actual language of any amendment that may be filed.
Applicant also may wish to request an interview to discuss how to amend the independent claims in such a manner to overcome the prior art. The Examiner would be amenable to such interview request because it appears there is potential to advance prosecution therethrough. To the extent that a proposed claim amendment could be provided to the Examiner prior to any such interview, the Examiner also would be willing to conduct a very narrowly-focused search relating to the actual amended language to try to identify prior art that might read thereon.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 7,163,176 to Geswender et al. (hereinafter Geswender) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0289694 to Bredy (cited in final Official action dated 07/07/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Geswender discloses a projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) adapted to be launched from a launching device (Abstract; Figs. 1-8; Col. 1, lines 5-10; col. 3, lines 8-14; col. 6, lines 34-59; col. 7, lines 7-22; Claim 5), the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) comprising one or more extensible fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), wherein the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), upon launching of the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) and extension of the fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), cause the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) to be put into a controlled oscillating movement characteristic (e.g., caused by adjustment to precession/”nudges”) (Abstract; Figs. 4, 9a, 9b; Col. 2, lines 43-51; col. 3, line 55 to col. 4, line 3; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of one or more of a selected fin shape (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), an amount of fin extension (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4, 6a; Col. 2, lines 43-64; col. 3, lines 60 to col. 4, line 3; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 39-48; col. 6, lines 12-30) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, line 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), a frequency or interval of fin extension (Fig. 6a; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6), a speed of fin extension (Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), and an acceleration of fin extension (Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11).
However, Geswender does not expressly disclose the projectile/fuse comprising an optical target finder that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target or providing a conical scan area for the target finder. Nevertheless, Bredy teaches a projectile/fuze comprising an optical target finder (input optic sensor 5b) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0060]) that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target (Paras. [0014]-[0016]; Claim 1) and providing a conical scan area for the target finder (see Fig. 1; Paras. [0060], [0110]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the projectile/fuze disclosed in Geswender with the optical target finder that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target taught in Bredy with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide on-board real-time target acquisition and tracking rather than the guidance to a fixed target location. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the projectile/fuze disclosed in Geswender with the optical target finder that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target taught in Bredy with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Geswender discloses a fuze (fuze kit 16) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4; Col. 1, lines 40-49; col. 2, lines 43 to col. 3, line 2; col. 4, lines 4-60) adapted to be affixed to a projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) the fuze (fuze kit 16) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4; Col. 1, lines 40-49; col. 2, lines 43 to col. 3, line 2; col. 4, lines 4-60) comprising one or more extensible fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), wherein the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), upon launching (Abstract; Figs. 1-8; Col. 1, lines 5-10; col. 3, lines 8-14; col. 6, lines 34-59; col. 7, lines 7-22; Claim 5) of the projectile to which the fuze is affixed and extension of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), cause the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) to which the fuze (fuze kit 16) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4; Col. 1, lines 40-49; col. 2, lines 43 to col. 3, line 2; col. 4, lines 4-60) is affixed, to be put into a controlled oscillating movement characteristic (e.g., caused by adjustment to precession/”nudges”) (Abstract; Figs. 4, 9a, 9b; Col. 2, lines 43-51; col. 3, line 55 to col. 4, line 3; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of one or more of selection of a fin shape (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), an amount of fin extension (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4, 6a; Col. 2, lines 43-64; col. 3, lines 60 to col. 4, line 3; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 39-48; col. 6, lines 12-30) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), a frequency or interval of fin extension (Fig. 6a; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), a speed of fin extension (Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), and an acceleration of fin extension (Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11).
However, Geswender does not expressly disclose the projectile/fuse comprising an optical target finder that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target or providing a conical scan area for the target finder. Nevertheless, Bredy teaches a projectile/fuze comprising an optical target finder (input optic sensor 5b) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0060]) that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target (Paras. [0014]-[0016]; Claim 1) and providing a conical scan area for the target finder (see Fig. 1; Paras. [0060], [0110]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the projectile/fuze disclosed in Geswender with the optical target finder that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target taught in Bredy with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide on-board real-time target acquisition and tracking rather than the guidance to a fixed target location. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the projectile/fuze disclosed in Geswender with the optical target finder that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target taught in Bredy with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the combination of Geswender in view of Bredy teaches the projectile according to claim 1 and the fuze according to claim 9, respectively (see above). Furthermore, Geswender discloses that the one or more fins comprises a single fin (Col. 4, lines 11-13; col. 4, lines 55-56; Claims 1 and 13).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the combination of Geswender in view of Bredy teaches the projectile according to claim 1 and the fuze according to claim 9, respectively (see above). Furthermore, wherein each fin of the one or more fins is arranged on the projectile, in a longitudinal direction of the projectile (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4). However, neither Geswender nor Bredy expressly discloses or teaches that the fins are arranged in a range between a factor of 0.1 of a projectile caliber to a factor 2 of the projectile caliber, from the tip of the projectile. Nevertheless, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 4 and 12, the combination of Geswender in view of Bredy teaches the projectile according to claim 1 and the fuze according to claim 9, respectively (see above). Furthermore, Geswender discloses a projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) wherein a radial extent of each fin (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) relative to a surface of the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25), in an extended position of the fin, is in a range between a factor of 0.1 (see Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4) of a caliber of the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) and a factor 1 (see Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4) of the caliber of the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25). Moreover, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5 and 13, the combination of Geswender in view of Bredy teaches the projectile according to claim 1 and the fuze according to claim 9, respectively (see above). Furthermore, Geswender discloses a projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) wherein a width each fin (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) is in a range between a factor of 0.1 (see Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4) of a circumference of the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) and a factor of 0.5 (see Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4) of the circumference of the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25). Moreover, in cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A). As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6 and 14, the combination of Geswender in view of Bredy teaches the projectile according to claim 1 and the fuze according to claim 9, respectively (see above). Furthermore, Geswender discloses a projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) wherein the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) are variably adjustable between a fully extended position and a fully retracted position (Col. 3, lines 2-3; col. 5, lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 7 and 15, the combination of Geswender in view of Bredy teaches the projectile according to claim 1 and the fuze according to claim 9, respectively (see above). Furthermore, Geswender discloses a projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) wherein the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) comprises two fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11).
Regarding claim 8 and 16, the combination of Geswender in view of Bredy teaches the projectile according to claim 1 and the fuze according to claim 9, respectively (see above). Furthermore, Geswender discloses a projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) wherein each fin (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) is disposed at an angle a of between 0.1 degrees and 5 degrees to a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 4) of the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25).
Regarding claim 17, Geswender discloses a method of launching a projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) from a launching device (Abstract; Figs. 1-8; Col. 1, lines 5-10; col. 3, lines 8-14; col. 6, lines 34-59; col. 7, lines 7-22; Claim 5), the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) comprising one or more extensible fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), the method comprising:
launching (Abstract; Figs. 1-8; Col. 1, lines 5-10; col. 3, lines 8-14; col. 6, lines 34-59; col. 7, lines 7-22; Claim 5) the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25); and
causing the projectile (projectile 10) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 4, lines 4-25) to be put into a controlled oscillating movement (e.g., caused by adjustment to precession/”nudges”) (Abstract; Figs. 4, 9a, 9b; Col. 2, lines 43-51; col. 3, line 55 to col. 4, line 3; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) by extending at least one fin (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) and one or more of
selecting a fin shape (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4) for the at least one fin (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11),
selecting an amount of fin extension (Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, 4, 6a; Col. 2, lines 43-64; col. 3, lines 60 to col. 4, line 3; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 39-48; col. 6, lines 12-30) of the at least one fin (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11),
selecting a frequency or interval of fin extension (Fig. 6a; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the at least one fin (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11),
selecting a speed of fin extension (Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of the at least one fin (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11), and
selecting an acceleration (Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11; col. 6, lines 12-30; col. 6, line 59 to col. 7, line 6) of fin extension of the at least one fin (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11) of the one or more fins (canards 18) (Figs. 1-2, 4; Col. 4, lines 4-25; col. 4, lines 55-60; col. 5, lines 30-38; col. 5, line 49 to col. 5, line 11).
However, Geswender does not expressly disclose the projectile/fuse comprising an optical target finder that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target or providing a conical scan area for the target finder. Nevertheless, Bredy teaches a projectile/fuze comprising an optical target finder (input optic sensor 5b) (Fig. 1; Paras. [0060]) that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target (Paras. [0014]-[0016]; Claim 1) and providing a conical scan area for the target finder (see Fig. 1; Paras. [0060], [0110]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the projectile/fuze disclosed in Geswender with the optical target finder that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target taught in Bredy with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide on-board real-time target acquisition and tracking rather than the guidance to a fixed target location. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the projectile/fuze disclosed in Geswender with the optical target finder that controls the projectile flight after locating an identified target taught in Bredy with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDE J BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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.
/CLAUDE J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671