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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 31 March 2026 have been considered. It is acknowledged that claims 1-10, 13, and 15-20 have been amended, and claim 14 has been cancelled by Applicant. Accordingly, claims 1-10, 13 and 15-20 are under full consideration
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added limitations attack each reference individually, wherein one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not disclose an arrangement of structures that enables certain actions, Examiner reminds Applicant that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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, 8-10, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US-6562292-B2), hereinafter “Ito”, in view of Fujiwara (JP-S5895546-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito discloses a double-tube connection structure (sample tube is placed in an explosive tube; see Abstract) for detonation synthesis (shock-compressed by the detonation of the explosive to yield diamond; see Abstract), comprising a drive tube (driver tube 5; see Col. 4 Line 61), a sample tube (sample tube 6; see Col. 4 Line 62) completely within and coaxially surrounded by the drive tube (see Fig. 1, Parts 5 and 6), first fixing components (fixing rings 7; see Col. 4 Line 54), comprising a first fixing ring at a first end of the drive tube (see Fig. 1, Parts 5 and 7, second fixing components comprising a second fixing ring at a second end of the drive tube (see Fig. 1, Parts 5 and 7), a first end plug provided at the first end of the sample tube (the bottom opening of the sample tube 6 is sealed by the lower plug 9; see Col. 4 Lines 65-67), and a second end plug at the second end of the sample tube (and the top opening of the sample tube 6 is sealed by the upper plug 11; see Col. 4 Lines 65-67), and a cavity between the drive tube and the sample tube (a cavity 8 is defined between the driver tube 5 and the sample tube 6; see Col. 4 Lines 64-65), the drive tube and the end plugs (see Fig. 1, parts 9, 11, and 5),the fixing components are configured to fix the drive tube and the sample tube (sample tube 6 is secured to the inside of the driver tube 5 through two fixing rings; see Col. 4 Lines 62-64), wherein after detonation at a top portion (detonation of the explosive 13 in the upper portion; see Col. 5 Lines 6-7), a detonation wave is transferred from top to bottom (shock wave also propagates from the upper portion to the lower portion; see Col. 5 Lines 17-19), and under an action of the detonation wave, the drive tube performs sliding motion towards an axis of the sample tube from top to bottom (shock wave due to the explosion of the explosive 13 is exerted on the sample tube 6 through the driver tube 5 (a high-speed flyer; see Col. 5 Lines 28-30; and “shock wave directly traveling into the center of the sample tube 6”; see Col. 5 Lines 5-6).
Ito does not explicitly disclose fixing blocks. However, Fujiwara discloses a first fixing block at a first end of the sample tube, a second fixing block at a second end of the sample tube, wherein a first end plug and second end plug are disposed between the sample tube and the first and second fixing blocks, respectively (disk-shaped explosive layer 21 and 22… sandwiched… between methacrylic plates 23, 24, 25, 26… was fixed to the upper and lower parts of the vessel… and a glass tic plate 27 was attached to the lower part; see Pg. 6 Lines 7-13 and Fig. 2). Specifically, Figure 2 shows 3 layers (26, 22, 25) between the top plug (3) and the cover or holding plate (part 7 shown in Fig. 1) and 3 layers (23,24,21) between the bottom plug (4) and the bottom plate (27 or part 8 shown in Fig. 1). Fujiwara discloses fixing these layers, which are depicted as blocks, to the vessel (see Pg. 6 Lines 7-13 and Fig. 2), thereby effectively including them as fixing blocks. Further, see Fig. 2 which shows end plugs (3-4) between the fixing blocks (21-26) and the sample tube (2).
Ito and Fujiwara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of detonation synthesis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include fixing blocks in the specified positions. Doing so would prevent breakage of the container (see Fujiwara Pg. 5 Lines 13-17).
Regarding the limitation claiming that the cavity is also between “the first fixing ring and the first fixing block, and the second fixing ring and the second fixing block” the specification does not attribute any particular function or unexpected result to this specific location of the cavity. The originally filed disclosure instead attributes the described effects to the cavity between the sample tube and the drive tube, and between the drive tube and end plugs. Accordingly, the additionally recited cavity location is interpreted as mere rearrangement of parts because continuing the cavity to extend between fixing blocks and fixing rings would not have modified operation of the device and is therefore an obvious matter of design choice. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding the limitations claiming, “under an action of the detonation wave, the drive tube performs convergent sliding motion towards an axis of the sample tube from top to bottom the fixing components are separated from the drive tube and the sample tube and fly outwards under an action of a tensioning wave, and the drive tube is sequentially wrapped from top to bottom around a top end plug of the sample tube, the sample tube, and a bottom end plug of the sample tube, to form a composite tube with two ends closed, becoming a complete recovery container”, this is a series of functional limitations. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Hence, the limitation of what occurs in the device under an action of the detonation wave does not further define the actual structure of the detonation synthesis device, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the detonation synthesis device as structural limitations, beyond what is set forth in claim 1, that may further enable said functions have not been claimed. It is therefore understood that because the structure of the prior art meets the claimed structural limitations, then it is capable of carrying out the same functions. Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2, Ito discloses the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 1, wherein the cavity comprises an annular gap between an inner wall of the drive tube and an outer wall of the sample tube serves as a cavity (a cavity 8 is defined between the driver tube 5 and the sample tube 6; see Col. 4 Lines 64-65 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ito discloses the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 1, wherein of each of the first and second end plugs have a part that has an outer diameter smaller than an outer diameter of the sample tube (Plugs 9 and 11 made of a mild steel were forced into both ends of the sample tube; see Col. 6 Lines 21-23). It is understood that the outer diameter of the plugs must be smaller than the outer diameter of the sample tube because they fit inside the sample tube. Regarding the limitation requiring that the first and second end plugs have a part that is wrapped by the drive tube, this is a consequential structure that occurs as a result of the operation of the device, and is therefore a consequence of a function of the device. Because the claimed structure does not make any new contributions over the structure of the prior art, then the prior art is understood to have the same functional capabilities of the claimed invention, and would therefore be subject to the same consequences of operation.
Regarding Claim 4, Ito discloses the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 3. Ito further discloses a cap that has a tapered structure (a conical cap 12; see Col. 5 Line 3), and a large diameter end of the tapered structure is connected to the sample tube (see Fig. 1 parts 12 and 6, and “a conical cap 12 is placed on the top end of the driver tube 5 and the sample tube 6”; see Col. 5 Lines 3-4).
Ito does not explicitly teach the plug being tapered. However, Fujiwara discloses each of the first and second plugs being tapered, with the larger diameter end being connected to the sample tube (see Fig. 1 Parts 3 and 4, and 2).
Ito and Fujiwara are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of detonation synthesis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include tapered plugs. Doing so would prevent the shock wave directly traveling into the center of the sample tube (see Ito Col. 5 Lines 4-6).
Regarding Claim 5, Ito discloses the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 1, wherein the second fixing component further comprises a base (bottom plate 2; see Col. 4 Line 52), and the second fixing ring has one end connected to the bottom portion of the drive tube (secured to the inside of the driver tube 5 through two fixing rings 7; see Col. 4 Lines 63-64). As mentioned in the claim 4 rejection, Ito discloses a cap (see Fig. 1 part 12) which is disposed over the sample tube and the driver tube (see Fig. 1 parts 12, 5, and 6). It is understood that the purpose of a cap is to seal a cavity, and given the relative placement of the cap 12 disclosed by Ito, it would be reasonably understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the cap 12 is effectively sealing the cavity 8.
Ito does not explicitly teach a cover plate at a top portion of the drive tube, or the drive tube being fixedly connected to the cover plate and base plate. However, Fujiwara discloses a cover plate at the top portion of the drive tube (7 and 8 denote disk-shaped holding members; see Pg. 3 Lines 5-6, and Fig. 1) and fixed to the drive tube (see Fig. 1 Parts 7, 8, and 5; it is understood that a holding member is designed to hold or secure, aka fix, a structure in place.) and a base plate fixed to and supporting the driving tube (a glass tic plate 27 was attached to the lower part; see Pg. 6 Line 13, and/or 7 and 8 denote disk-shaped holding members; see Pg. 3 Lines 5-6, and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the drive tube to a top disk and a bottom disk because they act as holding members (see Pg. 3 Lines 5-6, and Fig. 1). When modifying Ito by the teachings of Fujiwara, it would naturally follow that the fixing rings attached to the drive tube could be used to attach the drive tube to the holding members of Fujiwara.
Regarding Claim 8, Ito and Fujiwara together disclose the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 5. Fujiwara further discloses a first fixing block that has one end connected to the end plug and the other end connected to the cover plate or the base (disk-shaped explosive layer 21 and 22… sandwiched… between methacrylic plates 23, 24, 25, 26… was fixed to the upper and lower parts of the vessel… and a glass tic plate 27 was attached to the lower part; see Pg. 6 Lines 7-13 and Fig. 2). Specifically, Figure 2 shows 3 layers (26, 22, 25) between the top plug (3) and the cover or holding plate (part 7 shown in Fig. 1) and 3 layers (23,24,21) between the bottom plug (4) and the bottom plate (27 or part 8 shown in Fig. 1). Fujiwara discloses fixing these layers, which are depicted as blocks, to the vessel (see Pg. 6 Lines 7-13 and Fig. 2), thereby effectively including them as fixing blocks. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include these fixing blocks because it would prevent breakage of the container (see Fujiwara Pg. 5 Lines 13-17). When modifying Ito with this teaching of Fujiwara, it would have naturally followed that the fixing blocks would be inside the fixing rings because the fixing rings are outside of the sample tube, as seen in Fig. 1 of Ito, while the fixing blocks are within the outer limits of the sample tube of Fujiwara.
Regarding Claim 9, Ito discloses the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 1 provided in a housing (explosive tube 1; see Col. 4 Line 56 and Fig. 1), wherein the housing comprises an inner wall, a chamber between the inner wall of the housing and an outer wall of the drive tube into which a main explosive is placed (explosive 13 is loaded into the explosive tube 1; see Col. 5 Lines 7-8, and Fig. 1 Parts 1, 5, and 13), a tray onto which the drive tube and the sample tube are mounted (driver tube 5 is provided in the upright position in the center of the top face of the bottom plate 2; see Col. 4 Lines 61-62, and Fig. 1 Parts 5, 6, and 2) and a top end of the housing is provided with a detonation component (sheet-shape booster explosive 3 disposed at the top end of the explosive tube 1, and a detonator stuck in the center of the top face of the booster explosive 3; see Col. 4 Lines 58-60).
Ito does not explicitly teach the drive and sample tubes being fixed to the bottom plate through the fixing component, however, as explained in the rejections of claims 5 and 8, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Modified Ito does not explicitly teach the tray being configured to seal a bottom end of the housing. However, this is integral to the design of a detonation chamber and is necessary for its operation, as is well known by those of ordinary skill in the art. A sealed detonation chamber is necessary in order for detonation synthesis to occur.
Regarding Claim 10, Ito and Fujiwara together disclose the detonation synthesis device according to claim 9. Ito further discloses the detonation component comprising a primer (sheet-shape booster explosive 3; see Col. 4 Line 58), a detonator fixing plate (a detonator 4 stuck in the center of the top face; see Col. 4 Lines 59-60), and a detonator (detonator 4; see Col. 4 Line 59), the primer is on the main explosive (Booster explosive 3… was placed on the explosive 13; see Col. 6 Lines 34-35 and Fig. 1), the detonator fixing plate is fixed on the primer with the detonator (center of the top face of the booster explosive; see Col. 4 Lines 59-60) (a detonator 4 stuck in the center of the top face of the booster explosive; see Col. 4 Lines 59-60).
Regarding Claim 13, Ito discloses the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 2. The remaining limitations claimed in claim 13 do not exceed those of claim 3. Please refer to the claim 3 rejection for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 16, Ito and Fujiwara together disclose the detonation synthesis device according to claim 9. The remaining limitations claimed in claim 16 do not exceed those of claim 2. Please refer to the claim 2 rejection for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, Ito and Fujiwara together disclose the detonation synthesis device according to claim 9. The remaining limitations claimed in claim 17 do not exceed those of claim 3. Please refer to the claim 3 rejection for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, Ito and Fujiwara together disclose the detonation synthesis device according to claim 17. The remaining limitations claimed in claim 18 do not exceed those of claim 4. Please refer to the claim 4 rejection for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, Ito and Fujiwara together disclose the detonation synthesis device according to claim 9. The remaining limitations claimed in claim 18 do not exceed those of claim 5. Please refer to the claim 5 rejection for the associated rationale.
Claims 6-7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US-6562292-B2), hereinafter “Ito”, in view of Fujiwara (JP-S5895546-A) and Trivett et al. (US-12072044-B2), hereinafter “Trivett” or Olsen (US-5645463-A).
Regarding Claim 6, Ito and Fujiwara together disclose the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 5. Ito further discloses the drive tube and the fixing ring together forming a coaxial barrel structure (see Fig. 1, Parts 5 and 7). Ito does not explicitly refer to the structure as a coaxial barrel structure. However, the figure clearly represents a coaxial barrel structure because the fixing ring’s annular body is fitted concentrically within the cylindrical wall of the outer tube, forcing the two members to share a common longitudinal axis.
Modified Ito does not explicitly teach the drive tube and the fixing ring being spliced together in order to achieve this structure. It is noted that Examiner’s interpretation of “spliced”, as claimed in claim 6, is based on the instant specification because the Applicant’s description of a spliced connection structure is not how splicing is understood in the traditional engineering sense. Rather, what is described is more of a press fit connection. This is a very well-known connecting ring, or press fit ferrule, design, and is exemplified in Fig. 5 of Trivett, particulary parts 408 and 410. KSR Rationale C (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to use a “known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the known technique of press-fitting a ferrule from Trivett to the fixing ring of modified Ito in order to improve it by griping and sealing the conduit (see Trivett Col. 18 Lines 15-16). Further exemplifying the popularity and wide-spread knowledge of this kind of fixing ring connection, Lego cylinders/tubes employ the same connection method, as disclosed by Olsen (see Fig. 3, parts 118, 120, and 183).
Regarding Claim 7, Ito, Fujiwara, and Trivett or Olsen, together disclose the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 6. Olsen further discloses an end surface of the bottom portion and/or an end surface of the top portion of the drive tube is provided with a limiting ring (cylinder tube 118… formed with a locking bead 187…cylinder tubes 118 as well as an additional cylinder tube 120. The cylinder tube 120 likewise has a locking ring at the end; see Col. 6 Lines 2-12, and Fig. 3 parts 118 and 120), an end surface of the corresponding fixing rings is provided with a second limiting ring sleeving the second limiting ring over the first limiting ring connects the drive tube to the first and second fixing rings (locking bead provided on the cylinder tube 120 is received in the hole 192 and is retained; see Col. 6 Lines 15-16, and Fig. 3 Parts 120 and 192, and Fig. 2 Part 120).
Trivett also discloses an end surface of the bottom portion and/or an end surface of the top portion of the drive tube is provided with a limiting ring I (see annotated Fig. 5 below) extending outwards in an axial direction (see annotated Fig. 5 below), an end surface of the corresponding fixing ring is provided with a limiting ring II extending outwards in an axial direction (see annotated Fig. 5 below), and connection between the drive tube and the fixing ring is realized through the limiting ring I and the limiting ring II with one sleeved over the other (the conduit gripping devices 408, 410 are axially assembled; see Col. 17 Lines 2-3; and see annotated Fig. 5 below where it is very clear and well understood that 408 is sleeved over 410). KSR Rationale C (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to use a “known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply the known technique of press-fitting a ferrule from Trivett, or the structure from Olsen, to the fixing ring of modified Ito in order to improve it by griping and sealing the conduit (see Trivett Col. 18 Lines 15-16).
PNG
media_image1.png
662
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Ito, Fujiwara, and Trivett or Olsen together disclose the double-tube connection structure for detonation synthesis according to claim 7. The remaining limitations claimed in claim 15 do not exceed those of claim 8. Please refer to the claim 8 rejection for the associated rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, Ito and Fujiwara together disclose the detonation synthesis device according to claim 19. The remaining limitations claimed in claim 20 do not exceed those of claim 6. Please refer to the claim 6 rejection for the associated rationale.
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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights