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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 6/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all claims would not necessarily result in a serious search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons already stated on pages 2-3 of the Restriction mailed on 6/3/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/9/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation "the contact assembly of the first type and/or second type" renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is unclear whether the claim requires the first type contact assembly to be open/closed, the second type contact assembly to be open/closed, or both the first and second type contact assemblies to be open/closed. Appropriate correction would clarify whether the limitation applies to the first type, the second type, or both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2714975B2 to Hayashi et al. (hereinafter "Hayashi").
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a switch for controlling electrical power supplied by a power source to an electronic safe and arm unit or to a munition, the switch comprising:
a contact assembly arrangement comprising a contact assembly of a first type movable from a first arrangement defining a first switch state to a second arrangement defining a second switch state (Hayashi discloses switch contact piece groups A and B including first switch contact pieces 22, 25, second switch contact pieces 23, 26, and third switch contact pieces 24, 27 disposed in switch case 10; before firing, first and second switch contact pieces 22/23 and 25/26 are separated and third switch contact pieces 24/27 are in contact, and after firing the first and second switch contact pieces contact one another while the third switch contact pieces separate, thereby changing the switch from an OFF state to an ON state; Figs. 1-2); and
an actuator configured to act on the contact assembly of the first type to cause said movement of the contact assembly (Hayashi discloses centrifuges 12 and 13 mounted for rotation about mounting shafts 18 and 19 and biased by toggle springs 20 and 21; the centrifuges engage the switch contact pieces through engaging holes 14-17 and cause the switch contact pieces to deform/move; Figs. 1-2),
wherein the actuator is configured to act on the contact assembly of the first type under the influence of a centrifugal force caused by rotation of the switch (Hayashi discloses that when a shell is fired, centrifugal force is applied to switch case 10 by rotation, causing centrifuges 12 and 13 to rotate outward against toggle springs 20 and 21, thereby deforming/moving the switch contact pieces to contact/separate and detect firing; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi discloses the switch according to claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a flexure member, and the flexure member is configured to deflect due to the centrifugal force caused by rotation of the switch so as to cause the actuator to act on the contact assembly of the first type. In particular, Hayashi discloses flexible switch contact pieces 22-27 formed as elongated leaf spring members, wherein the centrifugal elements 12 and 13 engage and deform the switch contact pieces during projectile rotation, thereby causing switching contact pieces to contact/separate under centrifugal actuation (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi discloses the switch according to claim 1, wherein the actuator is further configured to act on the contact assembly of the first type under the influence of the centrifugal force caused by rotation of the switch at a rotational frequency greater than a predetermined frequency. Hayashi discloses a firing detection switch for a rotating projectile fuze wherein rotation after shell firing generates centrifugal force sufficient to rotate centrifuges 12 and 13 against toggle springs 20 and 21 and actuate the switch. The force required to overcome the spring bias corresponds to a predetermined rotational firing condition.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi discloses the switch according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of contact assemblies of the first type and actuators associated therewith configured so as to act on the respective contact assembly of the first type. Hayashi discloses left and right switch contact piece groups A and B, each corresponding to a respective centrifuge 12, 13, wherein each centrifuge acts on its respective switch contact pieces to change the switch state (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses the switch according to claim 1, wherein in the first arrangement the contact assembly of the first type is closed and in the second arrangement the contact assembly of the first type is open. Hayashi discloses third switch contact pieces 24 and 27 that are in contact with each other before firing and are deformed apart after firing to release contact with each other (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi discloses an electronic safe and arm unit (ESAU), comprising the switch according to claim 1. Hayashi discloses a firing detection switch applied to a fuze for a rotating artillery shell, including an electronic timed fuze, wherein the switch detects firing based on projectile rotation and provides a detection signal for fuze operation.
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi discloses a fuze system comprising the ESAU according to claim 11. Hayashi discloses that the firing detection switch is built into and applied to a fuze for a rotating artillery shell, including an electronic timed fuze.
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi discloses a munition comprising the fuze system according to claim 12. Hayashi discloses the firing detection switch for use in a rotating projectile/shell fuze, wherein the shell is fired and rotates to actuate the switch.
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi discloses a method of using a switch, the method comprising:
providing the ESAU according to claim 11 (Hayashi discloses providing the firing detection switch in an electronic timed fuze for a rotating projectile); and
controlling electrical power supplied by a power source to the ESAU using the switch (Hayashi discloses that, upon projectile firing and rotation, the switch changes state from OFF to ON and transmits a firing detection signal to initiate timed/fuze operation).
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi discloses the switch according to claim 1, wherein in the first arrangement the contact assembly of the first type is open and in the second arrangement the contact assembly of the first type is closed. Hayashi discloses first and second switch contact pieces 22/23 and 25/26 that are separated before firing and are brought into contact after firing due to rotation of centrifuges 12 and 13 (Figs. 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
In the alternative, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayashi and further in view of US 2013/0284044 to Rastegar et al. (hereinafter "Rastegar").
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi discloses the switch according to claim 4, comprising a pair of contact assemblies of the first type and actuators associated therewith configured so as to act on the respective contact assembly of the first type. Hayashi discloses left and right switch contact piece groups A and B and centrifuges 12 and 13 corresponding thereto, wherein the switch contact piece groups are connected in series and/or parallel and operate to provide a firing detection switching signal.
Hayashi does not specifically teach that a first one of the pair of contact assemblies is connected to a positive electrical power rail and a second one of the pair of contact assemblies is connected to a negative electrical power rail.
However, connecting switch contacts to positive and negative electrical power rails is a well-known and routine way of implementing electrical switching circuitry. It would have been obvious to connect the first and second contact assemblies of Hayashi to positive and negative electrical power rails because doing so merely provides the ordinary electrical connections necessary to use the switch to control power in an electronic fuze circuit, and would have yielded the predictable result of allowing the switch to selectively complete or interrupt a power circuit.
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi discloses the switch according to claim 1, including a centrifugal-force-actuated contact assembly for detecting firing of a rotating projectile.
Hayashi does not specifically teach the switch further comprising a contact assembly of a second type movable from a first arrangement defining a first switch state to a second arrangement defining a second switch state, wherein forces due to linear acceleration of the switch cause said movement of the contact assembly of the second type.
However, Rastegar teaches inertially actuated munition switches and G-switches activated by linear acceleration/setback acceleration. Rastegar teaches an inertial igniter/G-switch embodiment including a striker link 301, rotating or translating release member, and contact elements configured to close or open an electrical circuit when the device undergoes an all-fire setback acceleration. Rastegar further teaches that the pyrotechnic elements of the inertial igniter may be replaced by electrical contact elements to form an electrical G-switch that closes or opens a circuit under linear acceleration.
It would have been obvious to modify Hayashi to further include the linear acceleration responsive contact assembly taught by Rastegar because both references are directed to munition/fuze switching devices that detect firing conditions using inertial forces, and the combination would provide redundant or multi-condition firing detection using both spin/centrifugal force and setback/linear acceleration. The modification merely combines known inertial switching mechanisms according to known methods to obtain the predictable result of detecting firing based on both rotational and linear acceleration conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi and Rastegar disclose the switch according to claim 6, wherein in the first arrangement the contact assembly of the first type and/or second type is open and in the second arrangement the contact assembly of the first type and/or second type is closed. Hayashi discloses first and second switch contact pieces 22/23 and 25/26 that are separated before firing and contact after firing. Rastegar similarly teaches electrical G-switch embodiments in which contacts close upon inertial activation. Therefore, the combined switch teaches the claimed open-to-closed switching arrangement.
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi discloses the switch according to claim 6, including contact assemblies actuated by centrifugal force and, as modified by Rastegar, by linear acceleration.
Hayashi does not specifically teach that the contact assembly of the first type and/or second type is provided on a printed circuit board (PCB).
However, Rastegar teaches that G-switch contact wires may be connected to an underlying printed circuit board and that the contact element may be mounted relative to a PCB through an opening in the structure. Rastegar therefore teaches providing the electrical switch/contact assembly in association with a PCB for connection to switching circuitry.
It would have been obvious to provide the contact assembly of Hayashi/Rastegar on a printed circuit board because PCBs are conventional structures for mounting and electrically connecting switching components in electronic fuze circuits, and the use of a PCB would provide predictable benefits including compact packaging, reliable electrical interconnection, and ease of assembly.
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi and Rastegar disclose the switch according to claim 9, wherein a body comprises the actuator, and the PCB is mounted on the body. Hayashi discloses a switch case/body 10 containing the actuator/centrifuges 12, 13 and associated contact pieces. Rastegar teaches mounting contact wiring/elements to a printed circuit board in an inertial G-switch structure. It would have been obvious to mount the PCB on the body of the Hayashi/Rastegar switch because doing so would provide a compact and mechanically supported arrangement for the switch actuator and associated electrical circuitry, which is a predictable implementation of known PCB-mounted switch structures.
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi discloses the fuze system according to claim 12, including an electronic timed fuze having a firing detection switch.
Hayashi does not specifically teach that the power source includes a battery.
However, Rastegar teaches batteries, including thermal batteries, used in munitions and fuze systems to provide power during munition flight. It would have been obvious to provide the electronic timed fuze system of Hayashi with a power source including a battery because electronic fuze systems require electrical power to operate, and batteries are conventional power sources for munitions and fuze systems. The modification would have yielded the predictable result of powering the electronic fuze circuit using a conventional battery power source.
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi discloses the switch according to claim 3, wherein the switch actuates only when projectile rotation produces sufficient centrifugal force to overcome the biasing force of toggle springs 20 and 21 and move centrifuges 12 and 13 to actuate the contacts.
Hayashi does not specifically teach that the predetermined frequency is 20 Hz or 40 Hz.
However, Hayashi recognizes that the switch is responsive to projectile rotation and that actuation occurs when the centrifugal force generated by rotation is sufficient to overcome the spring bias. Rastegar similarly teaches that the spin rate required to activate an inertial G-switch may be varied by changing the inertia and geometry of the inertial element, the relevant angles/contact surfaces, and the spring preloading. Therefore, the predetermined rotational frequency is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to select a predetermined frequency, including 20 Hz or 40 Hz, through routine optimization based on the expected firing/spin profile of the munition because selecting an actuation threshold for a spin-actuated munition switch is a predictable design choice that involves balancing safety/no-fire conditions against all-fire activation requirements.
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17, Hayashi/Rastegar disclose the claimed invention except they may not explicitly disclose the exact recited arrangement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the same invention, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D DAVID whose telephone number is (571)270-3737 and whose email address is michael.david@uspto.gov*. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
*Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Applicant is welcome to file an electronic communication authorization (sb439) form at any time if he/she would like to communicate via e-mail:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdfWithout a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights