DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 47-66 are directed to an invention or inventions that is/are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: as noted in the Restriction Requirement of 01 SEP 23, a liner and shaped charge having such a liner, a shaped charge, and an explosive ordnance neutralization system lack unity of invention for the reasons set forth therein.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 47-66 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
In the response to the Restriction Requirement noted above, Applicant elected a liner and shaped charge having such a liner. See Remarks, 01 DEC 23. As noted in the Office Action of 25 JAN 24, such was treated as an election without traverse. Applicant cannot now submit claims drawn to non-elected inventions and expect full and proper examination thereof. Thus, such have been withdrawn. There are no other claims to examine. However, this does not resolve the rejections of the previous listing of claims, which must stand and are included below as a courtesy to Applicant. See previous office actions for relevant disclosures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 13-14, 29, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,434,411 to Daoud et al. (“Daoud”).
Re: claim 1, Daoud discloses the claimed invention including a liner 36, e.g., Fig. 7, for a low-order explosive shaped charge (see below), the liner being a generally conical liner, col. 7, lines 23-24, in which the liner is formed from metal or metal magnesium or a magnesium alloy, id., at lines 30-34, particularly, lines 33-34, and in which the liner has an internal apex angle in the range of 107-109 degrees, id., at lines 25-27.
Regarding “for a low-order explosive shaped charge,” such is in the preamble and directed solely to an intended use of the claimed invention.
With respect to the first, such has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Here, there is nothing in the body of the claim dependent for completeness on the introductory clause.
With respect to the second, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Furthermore, the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2131.
Thus, whether Daoud discloses the liner being “for a low-order explosive shaped charge” is immaterial.
Re: claim 13, Daoud further discloses wherein the material of the liner has a generally uniform thickness (shown: and, absent a disclosure of non-uniform thickness, such must be presumed to be sufficiently uniform to meet the claim).
Re: claim 14, Daoud further discloses a shaped charge, col. 7, line 23.
Re: claim 29, the disclosure of “about 15 to about 125 degrees” suffices to meet any particular angle within such a range.
Re: claim 40, such is being further treated on the merits as product-by-process type claims. See MPEP § 2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966. Here, whether made by a different process (Daoud is apparently silent in this regard), such meets the claim because the product does not depend on its method of production. Because die-casting is ubiquitous, whether in the art of shaped charges, it is a known means for manufacturing any of various metallic parts and would result in the same product in this case. Thus, claim 40 is unpatentable.
Claims 1, 13-14, 29, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alford in view of Winter.
Re: claims 1 and 29, Alford discloses the claimed invention including a liner 120, e.g., Fig. 3, for a low-order explosive shaped charge, the liner being a generally conical liner, page 3, line 9, in which the liner is formed from metal or metal alloy, id., at lines 13-15, and in which the liner has an internal apex angle in the range of approximately 107-109 degrees, id., at line 9, except for the metal or metal alloy being magnesium or a magnesium alloy.
Winter teaches a shaped charge 10, e.g., Fig. 1, including a liner 32, wherein the liner is made from magnesium or a magnesium alloy, col. 5, lines 10-15, for the purpose of “provid[ing] dimensional control and permit[ing] optimization of the liner configurational shape,” col. 3, lines 39-41. Because magnesium is a relatively low-density metal and capable of burning, such meets these limitations as well, absent evidence to the contrary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Alford as taught by Winter in order to “provide dimensional control and permits optimization of the liner configurational shape,” id., with a reasonable expectation of success because Winter further discloses “the composite shaped charge liner of the present invention yields improved jet penetration,” col. 3, lines 31-32. Further rationale: All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Re: claim 13, Alford further discloses in which the material of the liner has a generally uniform thickness (shown).
Re: claim 14, Alford further discloses a shaped charge 110 having such a liner (shown).
Re: claim 40, see explanation, above.
Claim 40 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daoud or Alford in view of Winter, further in view of US 10,274,292 to Lillo et al. (“Lillo”).
Should the basis for rejection above fail, Daoud or Alford and Winter discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for the metal liner being formed by die casting.
Lillo discloses alloys for shaped charges, Title, and particularly that “[l]iner material is chosen for specific ranges of applications,” col. 2, lines 21-22, that “[l]iners have been made from many materials,” id., line 30, and that magnesium is among known materials, id., line 33. Lastly, Lillo teaches that shaped charge liners can be “produced by metal casting methods,” col. 4, line 49.
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify either Daoud or Alford as taught by Lillo to form the liner by die casting with a reasonable expectation of success because Lillo further discloses that “[a] feature of one embodiment of the invention is that the resulting liners exhibit increased density and penetration due to their constituent alloys being produced by metal casting and not by powder metallurgy,” id., lines 46-50, which jibes with Alford’s disclosure of “[v]ery deep penetrations can be achieved with a dense, ductile metal,” page 3, line 14. See also further rationale provided above and/or previously.
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 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
25-Sep-25