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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma after “wherein” in line 2 is improper.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “including” in line 2 does not jibe with “wherein”. Applicant may remove “wherein” or change “including” to --includes--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein” and “including” in line 2 are improper. See above.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma after “wherein” in line 2 is improper; and, “wherein” and “including” in line 2 are improper. See above.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “/ explosives” in line 2 should have the space removed, i.e., --/explosives--.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the munition” in line 12 should include --/warhead/explosive-- thereafter to agree with line 11.
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to as reciting “/ explosives” in lines 8 and 15 of the third page thereof, respectively. See above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “and combinations thereof” in lines 10-11. Though similarly disclosed in the Abstract, the closest Applicant comes to defining this appears to be the disclosure of “the electrical and/or mechanical circuitry of the dual-safe fuze may include a nose-proximity fuze circuit, a body-proximity fuze circuit, a shear lanyard safety circuit, the like, and/or combinations thereof,” ¶¶ [0009] and [0036], the latter of which otherwise identical to the former but including reference characters. While this conveys two proximity fuze circuits and a safety circuit (the use of “the like” presumably meaning other circuits not described but similar), the “and/or combinations thereof” language appears vague. Does the dual-safe fuze include the circuits recited? It would seem so but what “combinations thereof” is intended to convey is unclear. It is noted that no embodiment is shown using fewer circuits. Thus, there would appear to be insufficient support to suggest a combination of the proximity fuze circuits without a safety circuit and vice versa. Perhaps Applicant intends multiples of the circuits? If so, suggested is replacing “combinations” with --multiples--.
Claim 6 recites “it” in line 4. Use of pronouns should be avoided and replaced with a positive recitation of the intended element/feature, for clarity.
Claim 11 recites “in a kamikaze style” in line 5. Though similarly disclosed, the phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how stylistically akin to a “kamikaze,” i.e., how must like a kamikaze, is required. Suggested is removing the phrase because the recitation of “into a target” preceding such is sufficiently clear of the intent.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the timer circuit” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 further recites “its” in line 11. See above.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the natural accelerative loads or forces” in lines 3-4, “the natural impacting forces and decelerative forces” in lines 4-5, and “the initiation process” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the use” in line 2 and “the mission” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 15 further recites “them” in lines 3-4 (2X). See above.
Claim 16 recites “such as” in line 4, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 16 further recites “grenade” in line 6, while comparing relative speeds of delivery. The issue is that grenades, i.e., a hand grenade as opposed to the recited “rocket-propelled grenade,” though often thrown or dropped, do not require any velocity or movement in order to be used effectively. Thus, clarification is required. Claim 16 further recites the limitations “the safe mounting and manipulation” in lines 8-9, “the munition/warhead/explosive charge” in line 9, “the range” in line 12, “the minimum effective range” in lines 13-14, “the typical munition” in line 14, and “the battlefield” in line 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 16 further recites “it” in line 15. See above.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the connection” in lines 12 and 25-26 (2X total), “the potential” in line 36, “the mission mode” in line 50, and “the option” in line 56. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 17 further recites “kamikaze style” in lines 16 and 53, “it” in line 23, and “its” in line 72. See above.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “the natural accelerative loads or forces” in lines 4-5, “the natural impacting forces and decelerative forces” in line 6, “the initiation process” in lines 6-7, “the safe fitment” in line 17, “the safe mounting and manipulation” in lines 17-18, “the munition/warhead/explosive charge” in line 18, “the range” in line 21, “the minimum effective range” and “the typical munition” in line 22, and “the battlefield” in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 18 further recites “them” in lines 10-11, “such as” in line 14, “grenade” in line 15, and “it” in line 23. See above.
Claim 19 recites identically to claim 1 at lines 11-12.
Claim 20 recites otherwise identically to the claims above though the issues will not be so carefully identified for the sake of brevity. Applicant is strongly encouraged to revisit and revise in accordance with the guidance offered above.
Any unspecified claim is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The claims will be further treated on the merits as best understood only.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 17, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Similarly, claims 2-16, 18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance provided in a future office action if necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern.
The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874.
/Bret Hayes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
15-Jun-26
Prosecution Insights