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 .
Response to Amendment
Pursuant to the applicant’s response filed 21 July 2026, the amendments to the claims have been entered into the application. By this amendment, claims 4 &10 have been cancelled, no claims have been added, and claims 1-3, 5-9, & 11-20 remain pending with claim 11 withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. The rejections have been updated to reflect the newly claimed limitations, and the arguments are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The phrase “fire the munitions directly into the body of water and at the torpedo along a non-ballistic trajectory” has not been sufficiently disclosed in the specification. The definition of ballistic is “of or relating to the science of the motion of projectiles in flight”, which would appear to be directed to all types of munitions fired through the air. The munitions would all have ballistic trajectory as they are described as traveling through the air in the specification.
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.
The term “rapid” in claims 1 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “rapid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to provide a clear indication of the metes and bounds encompassed by the use of the term “rapid” in describing the number of rounds fired in a given period of time.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2012/0012022 by Bormann et al (Bormann) in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0065597 by Carr et al (Carr).
Regarding claim 1, Bormann, as best understood in light of the section 112 rejections above, discloses an anti-torpedo system (See at least Title, Figure 1, and Paragraphs 0015 & 0018) comprising: a combat management system (See at least Paragraph 0012) including a sonar system configured to determine the current position and track of a torpedo (See at least Figure 1 and Paragraph 0015); a plurality of direct fire munitions each adapted to be launched in rapid succession from at least one gun barrel directly into a body of water (Element 10, see at least Figure 1, as clearly shown in the figure, the projectile is launched directly at a target in direct view of the gun and system without an intervening structure, “indirect fire” is defined as aiming and firing of a weapon at a target that cannot be seen directly by the person or unit operating the weapon, and as shown in the figure, the target is in clear view of the weapon system), each of the munitions including an energetic payload (See at least Paragraphs 0011 and 0013), a programmable fuze configured to detonate the payload (See at least Paragraphs 0010 and 0021), an ogive portion (See at least Figure 1, element 10, clearly illustrated), an auto-fuze setting system, configured to set initiation time of the programmable fuze of each munition (See at least Paragraphs 0010 and 0021); and a gun management system configured to aim and fire the munitions directly into the body of water and at the torpedo along a non-ballistic trajectory, based on the current position and track of the torpedo, so as to cause each fired munition to arrive at the torpedo and to cause detonation of the payload (See Figure 1, clearly illustrated, and at least Paragraphs 0018-0021, the munitions are fired directly at the incoming target without having to traverse over or around an intervening obstacle).
Bormann does not disclose a water drag reduction element within or on the ogive portion that is configured to vaporize water at a water entry location of the corresponding munition.
Carr, a related prior art reference, discloses a water drag reduction element within or on the ogive portion, wherein the water drag reduction element is configured to vaporize water at a water entry location of the corresponding munition (See at least Paragraphs 0117-0122).
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 noted teachings of Bormann with the noted teachings of Carr. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been to reduce damage or shock to the components of the projectile assembly upon entry into the water as clearly taught by Carr.
Bormann as modified by Carr discloses the claimed invention except for the caliber of the munitions being between 12.7mm and 40mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the caliber of the munitions be in the range of 12.7mm to 40mm, since applicant has not disclosed that the specified caliber range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a variety of other sized munitions.
Regarding claim 2, Bormann further discloses wherein the gun management system comprises: the at least one gun barrel (7, See at least Figure 1); a fire control system configured to fire the munitions from the at least one gun barrel (6); and an aiming system configured to control aiming direction of the at least one gun barrel (See at least Paragraphs 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 3, Bormann further discloses wherein the combat management system comprises a target acquisition system (See at least Paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 5, Carr further discloses wherein at least one of the water drag reduction elements is a supercavitating surface feature on an outer surface of the ogive portion, arranged to vaporize the water at the water entry location of the corresponding munition (See at least Figure 16, clearly illustrated and Paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 6, Carr further discloses wherein at least one of the water drag reduction elements comprises a gas generator, or a shaped charge, within the ogive portion and arranged to provide energetic displacement of the water at the water entry location of the corresponding munition, prior to the corresponding munition entering the water at the water entry location (See at least Figures 14-15, clearly illustrated and Paragraphs 0119-0121).
Regarding claim 7, Carr further discloses wherein the plurality of munitions includes a first munition and a second munition, the anti-torpedo system being configured to co-ordinate detonation of the energetic payload in the first munition and the energetic payload in the second munition to establish a co-ordinated explosive event to neutralize the torpedo (See at least Paragraphs 0083-0088).
Regarding claim 8, Bormann further discloses wherein at least one of the programmable fuzes is adapted to trigger detonation of the corresponding energetic payload in accordance with one or more of: after a predetermined time period after entering the water; upon detection of a target sonar signature; upon detection of a target magnetic signature; upon detection of a target electric field signature; at a predetermined pressure under the water surface; at a predetermined depth under the water surface; at a predetermined speed-of-sound in water; or upon impact with said torpedo under the water surface (See at least Paragraphs 0020-0021).
Regarding claim 9, Bormann further discloses wherein the combat management is operably linked to a target deconfliction system configured to determine that an identified target is a torpedo (See at least Paragraphs 0008-0021, stated in the reference that the system can be deployed against a swimmer, underwater object, torpedo, or incoming boat with varied objectives; therefore, it is understood that there is discernment to allow the system to function properly as indicated).
Regarding claim 12, Bormann further discloses wherein the sonar system includes one or more hull-mounted sonars (Elements 4 and 5, See at least Figure 1, clearly illustrated and Paragraphs 0008-0010).
Regarding claim 13, Bormann further discloses wherein the track of the torpedo includes depth and trajectory of the torpedo (See at least Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 14, Bormann further discloses wherein the gun management system is configured to cause: aiming of the one or more gun barrels, based on a location, a depth, and the track of the torpedo; and activation of the fire control system to fire the munitions to cause at least first and second fired munitions to each arrive at or within the threshold distance of the torpedo and to cause detonation of the corresponding energetic payloads, so as to provide a co- ordinated explosive event (See at least Paragraphs 0008-0021).
Regarding claim 15, Carr further discloses wherein at least one of the water drag reduction elements causes water at a water entry location of the corresponding munition to change to a more gaseous state prior to the corresponding munition entering the water (See at least Figures 14-15, clearly illustrated and Paragraphs 0119-0121).
Regarding claim 16, Carr further discloses wherein at least one of the water drag reduction elements comprises a gas generator or shaped charge configured to introduce bubbles at a water entry location of the corresponding munition prior to the corresponding munition entering the water (See at least Figures 14-15, clearly illustrated and Paragraphs 0119-0121).
Regarding claim 17, Carr further discloses wherein the co-ordinated explosive event includes one or both of the first and second munitions receiving a co-ordinating data signal (See at least Paragraphs 0083-0088).
Regarding claim 18, Carr further discloses wherein at least one of programmable fuzes is adapted to trigger detonation of the corresponding energetic payload in accordance with a co-ordinating data signal, to cause a co-ordinated explosive event that includes detonation of two or more of the munitions (See at least Paragraphs 0083-0088).
Regarding claim 19, Bormann as modified by Carr discloses an anti-torpedo system comprising: a combat management system including a sonar system configured to determine the current position and track of a torpedo; a plurality of direct fire munitions each adapted to be launched in rapid succession from at least one gun barrel directly into a body of water, each of the munitions having a caliber in the range of 12.7mm to 40mm and including an energetic payload, a programmable fuze configured to detonate the payload, an ogive portion, and a water drag reduction element within or on the ogive portion, wherein the water drag reduction element is configured to vaporize water at a water entry location of the corresponding munition; an auto-fuze setting system, configured to set initiation time of the programmable fuze of each munition; and a gun management system configured to aim and fire the munitions directly into the body of water and at the torpedo along anon-ballistic trajectory, based on the current position and track of the torpedo; wherein the auto-fuze setting system and/or gun management system is/are further configured to cause a co-ordinated explosive event that includes detonation of two or more of the munitions, at or within a threshold distance of the torpedo (See previous rejections, all aspects addressed above).
Regarding claim 20, Carr further discloses wherein the co-ordinated explosive event includes one or both of first and second munitions of the plurality receiving a co-ordinating data signal (See at least Paragraphs 0083-0088).
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Bormann fails to disclose direct fire munitions, the examiner offers the following: “Indirect fire” is defined as aiming and firing of a weapon at a target that cannot be seen directly by the person or unit operating the weapon, whereas, “direct fire” is defined as aiming an firing of a weapon at a target that is seen directly by the person or unit operating the weapon. Bormann clearly illustrates and describes a situation where the target is in direct view of the munition launcher and detection system, therefore, the examiner maintains that Bormann clearly shows and discloses a direct fire munitions launcher. Accordingly, the examiner would further contend that sizing the munitions properly to operate in the indicated manner would include the specified calibers claimed by the applicant. If the sizing of the munitions is related to the ability of the munitions launcher to direct fire the munitions, then there is no specific problem solved by the sizing of munitions as indicated by the applicant, since the system disclosed by Bormann operates in the indicated manner. Additionally, the examiner would contend that a change in size of a component is considered to be well within the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the rejections are deemed proper and maintained.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Carr and Bormann disclose projectile systems with ballistic trajectory and that the claims require non-ballistic trajectory and that the claims require rapid fire which would not be possible in projectile systems with ballistic trajectory, the examiner offers the following: The definition of ballistic is “of or relating to the science of the motion of projectiles in flight through the air”, which would appear to be directed to all types of munitions fired through the air. The munitions would all have ballistic trajectory as they are described as traveling through the air in the references as well as in the applicant’s own specification. Accordingly, the examiner cannot ascertain how a projectile traverses through the air without a ballistic trajectory, and the claims are uncertain as noted above. In addition, the examiner has noted that Bormann clearly shows a munition that is directly fired at a target, and such systems can be fired rapidly. Given the applicant has not set forth a clear definition for the term “rapid fire”, the examiner maintains that Bormann does disclose a plurality of direct fire munitions each adapted to be launched in rapid succession from at least one gun barrel directly into a body of water. The examiner has deemed the rejections proper and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights