ETAILED 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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as applied to Hahmna (EP 2698359) above and further in view of Nicolich (20120024437).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7-13, Hahma discloses a propellant with an ionic liquid such as butylmethyl-imidazolium perchlorate (electrolyte source) (claim 6) with a polymeric binder (claim 8). The composition is free of water. The ionic liquid will melt in the same way as claimed since it is the same compound.
Nicolich discloses the addition of perchlorate oxidizer and metal compound (fuel) to an ionic liquid propellant containing imidazolium salts and indicates that these can be added to “provide desired performance properties to the explosive composition or may aid in processing”. (0034)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed to includes additional oxidizers such as perchlorates and metals to the ionic liquid propellant of Hahma since Nicolich suggests that the addition of the compounds can “provide desired performance properties to the explosive composition or may aid in processing”. (0034) One of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success based on the addition of these compounds to the similar composition of Hahma which contains the same ionic liquid since Nicolich teaches that the compounds will improve the propellant properties. Further, Nicolich recites in para. 0016: “The ionic liquid reduces the sensitivity of the explosive composition to stimuli, such as electrostatic discharge ("ESD"), accidental detonation, impact, friction, or slow or fast cook-off. The ionic liquid may reduce the sensitivity of the explosive composition without substantially affecting the overall energy or performance characteristics of the explosive composition”. Thus it would be obvious to use the combination since it is well known in the explosive art to provide safety features to avoid accidental detonation as explicitly taught by Nicolich.
Regarding claim 7, Nicolich teaches the addition of a metal compound which would result in a metal containing ionic liquid (0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Hahma contains water. Hahma does not indicate the use of any water in the composition. No evidence has been provided to show that water was used. Applicant indicates that the composition “quite likely” had water. This is merely is providing an opinion and does not change the reference disclosure.
Applicant argues that the combination is not obvious since Applicant alleges that the Nicolich discloses elements that would slow and explosion. This is incorrect as Nicolich recites in para. 0016: “The ionic liquid reduces the sensitivity of the explosive composition to stimuli, such as electrostatic discharge ("ESD"), accidental detonation, impact, friction, or slow or fast cook-off. The ionic liquid may reduce the sensitivity of the explosive composition without substantially affecting the overall energy or performance characteristics of the explosive composition” (emphasis added). Thus, the characteristics of the explosive are maintained while making the explosive safer to use while avoiding accidental detonation.
Applicant argues that the composition of Hahma is not a propellant. First, the composition as claimed is met by the prior art. The term “propellant” is a statement of intended use and indicates how the composition will operate. Since there is no difference between the claimed composition and that disclosed by Hahma, the prior art will perform in the same manner as that which is claimed. Applicant also argues the amount of water in the composition. Note that the prior art does not require any water to be added and does not indicate that the binder has any water in it.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AILEEN BAKER FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday 9-5:30, Thursday 11-3, Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/AILEEN B FELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734