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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahnenfuhrer (4922823) in view of Bley (20110041968).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Rahnenfuhrer discloses an igniter tube made with nitrocellulose (col. 4, lines 10-25) with an ignition charge deposited in a geometric pattern along the tube (see fig 1 and 4). The amounts of the ignition charge are not disclosed.
Bley teaches an ignition charge which includes 2-45 % of an auxiliary substance (0046-0047) such as nitrocellulose and the balance being the ignition powder (0035-0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed to use the ignition charge taught by Bley in place of the ignition charge of Rahnenfuhrer since both are compositions used for igniting and will have the same function or effect.
Regarding claim 2, both patents disclose the use of additives to the ignition charge.
Regarding claim 3, Rahnenfuhrer discloses that it is known to use potassium nitrate in ignition charges (col. 1, lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 4, both patents disclose the use of the ignition charge in guns and thus meets the limitation gunpowder.
Regarding claims 7-9, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the pattern from that disclosed by Rahnenfuhrer since Applicant has not disclosed that this shape solves any stated problem or is for a particular purpose and it appears that the inventions would perform equally well with the shape disclosed by Rahnenfuhrer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahnenfuhrer (4922823) in view of Bley (20110041968) and Brasquies (4649827).
Regarding claim 6, Brasquies disclose a combustible case that comprises 5 % resin, a ratio by weight of nitrocellulose with respect to cellulose may vary between 80:10 and 10:80 (col. 5, lines 5-20), and a stabilizer at 1 % (see examples).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed to use the combustible taught by Brasquies in place of the combustible case of Rahnenfuhrer since both casings used for combustible munitions and will have the same function or effect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the ignition material and the prior art is distributed uniformly. The prior art reference does not recite this. Further in the figures it is clear that there are ridges or nodules of igniter material. Thus, these would represent geometric shapes and have spaces between them as shown in the figures. The reference discloses that uniform ignition is assured but does not indicate that the material itself is uniform. The reference also indicates that the adhesive is applied uniformly in dots or lines. These dots or lines would inherently have spaces in between them and thus meets the claim limitation. Further, spaces can be seen in the figures. There is no evidence that the ignition material taught by Bley will function any differently than other ignition materials used in the primary reference. One of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success for substituting in known ignition material for another.
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 at 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