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 § 102
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 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 48-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maxwell (2018/0356188).
In reference to claim 48, Maxwell discloses a fuzing system for an aerial munition configured for mounting on an underwing region of an aircraft, the fuzing system comprises a remotely controllable fuze setter (paragraphs 64-67, fuze setter 144) configured for association to an underwing pylon tail solenoid through a lanyard and operable for rendering the aerial munition operable in a proximity fuze mode or an impact fuze mode during flight and prior to munition release (paragraphs 65-66, underwing pylon tail solenoid 146).
In reference to claim 49, Maxwell discloses the claimed invention (paragraph 66).
In reference to claim 50, Maxwell discloses the claimed invention (paragraph 66 discloses proximity sensor activation; paragraph 68 discloses fuze 48 detecting impact, and, thus, impact senor activation).
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.
Claims 51-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell in view of Collier (4031827).
In reference to claim 51, Maxwell discloses the system comprising a proximity sensor (25), a fuze arrangement (48) comprising an impact sensor (paragraph 68, first sentence) and a controllable fuze setter (element 144). Thus, Maxwell fails to disclose a turbine alternator unit (TAU), wherein both the proximity sensor and the fuze arrangement are electrically associated through a corresponding set of electric wires with the TAU provided between the proximity sensor and the fuze arrangement.
However, Collier teaches it is known to provide an aerial munition, similar to that of Maxwell, with a turbine alternator unit (TAU), wherein both the proximity sensor and the fuze arrangement are electrically associated through a corresponding set of electric wires with the TAU provided between the proximity sensor and the fuze arrangement, in order to provide power thereto (turbine alternator 35; figure 7, wires 81 and 85).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the munition of Maxwell with a turbine alternator unit (TAU), wherein both the proximity sensor and the fuze arrangement are electrically associated through a corresponding set of electric wires with the TAU provided between the proximity sensor and the fuze arrangement, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide power thereto.
In reference to claim 52, Maxwell in view of Collier makes obvious the claimed invention (Maxwell: figures 4 and 5, proximity sensor 25 is mounted on nose plug element 80 via at least threads 84, adapter 13’, and clamp ring 92).
In reference to claim 53, Maxwell in view of Collier makes obvious the claimed invention (Maxwell: paragraphs 66 and 68 disclose the fuze arrangement detonates the warhead 11; paragraphs 38 and 39 make clear the warhead includes a main explosive 50 that is detonated by the fuze arrangement).
In reference to claims 54-55, Maxwell in view of Collier makes obvious the claimed invention, as set forth above in the reference to claim 1 (also see Maxwell, paragraph 66).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Maxwell fails to disclose “a remotely controllable fuze setter configured for association to an underwing pylon tail solenoid through a lanyard,” as claimed. Further, Applicant argues that Maxwell fails to teach or suggest an arrangement in which the fuze setter remains operable during flight and prior to munition release to selectively configure the munition into either a proximity fuze mode or an impact fuze mode. The examiner respectfully disagrees with both arguments.
Maxwell clearly discloses a remotely controllable fuze setter in the form of a safety enable switch (144) configured for association to an underwing pylon tail solenoid (146) through a lanyard (142). More specifically, Maxwell disclose the safety enable switch (144) as having a default state of OFF, corresponding to an impact fuze mode (paragraph 66; paragraph 68, last 11 lines). Further, Maxwell discloses the safety enable switch (144) of having a remotely selectable ON state, corresponding to a proximity fuze mode (paragraph 66; paragraph 68, first 23 lines).
Further, Maxwell clearly discloses that the ON and OFF states are remotely selectable, in flight, by a crewmember in the cockpit of the aircraft (paragraphs 66 and 67). Specifically, Maxwell discloses the safety enable switch (144) as connected to an underwing pylon tail solenoid (146) through a lanyard (142), wherein said crewmember can remotely control the ON/OFF state of said switch via said solenoid, and said switch sets the fuze mode (paragraphs 66-68). Thus, it is clear the safety enable switch (144) is a remotely controllable fuze setter, operable during flight and prior to munition release to selectively configure the munition into either a proximity fuze mode or an impact fuze mode, as claimed.
Regarding the argument directed to the rejection of claim 51, the examiner notes the argument is based upon the arguments noted above. Thus, the argument pertaining to claim 51 is addressed in the preceding two paragraphs. Applicant’s arguments relative to claim 51 fail to go beyond what is previously argued in any substantive manner. The statement that Maxwell nor Collier, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the specific electrical and operational architecture of claim 51 is considered mere allegation. Applicant does not present any further evidence in opposition to the proposed combination beyond that which was applied in the previous arguments. Thus, the examiner asserts that the proposed combination of Maxwell in view of Collier renders obvious the claimed invention (claims 51-55).
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 GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights