Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/886,536

COOL BURNING GAS GENERANT FORMULATION FOR AN AIRBAG WITH LOW BURN RATE SLOPE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 12, 2022
Examiner
FELTON, AILEEN BAKER
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Autoliv ASP, Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 6m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
223 granted / 435 resolved
-13.7% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 6m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
486
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
63.7%
+23.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 435 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
D DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered. 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, 2, 4-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendenhall (20100116384) in view of Lundstrom (5756929). Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, Mendenhall discloses a gas generant composition that includes a primary fuels such as guanidine nitrate from 5-60 % (0036), a primary oxidizer such as basic copper nitrate from 5-95 % (0036), a secondary oxidizer such a potassium perchlorate from 1-20 % (0039 and 0040). Mendenhall discloses that mixtures of fuels may be used but does not disclose the claimed secondary fuel. Lundstrom discloses the addition of a secondary fuel such as melamine nitrate at 10 % to be used in a gas generating composition with primary fuel such as guanidine nitrate (col. 2, lines 20-58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the teachings of Lundstrom since Lundstrom suggests that the use of the amounts of secondary fuel such as melamine nitrate with a similar gas generating composition. Lundstrom further recites that the “high gas volume/low combustion solids ratios of the guanidine compounds can be combined with other fuels having advantageous properties, such as lower ignition threshold temperatures, easier ignitability and improved burning rate tailoring capability without sacrificing the desirable properties of the individual components to provide synergistically improved superior fuels.” (col. 2, lines 62-68). The burn rate and burn rate slope are considered to be method of intended use limitations. 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. Regarding claims 6, 7, 9-11, 15, 16, and 18-20, Mendenhall discloses additives from 0-20 % which include coolants as well as lubricants such as graphite, molybdenum sulfide, and magnesium and calcium stearates (0046). Regarding claims 8 and 17, Mendenhall discloses the addition of both metal oxides and hydroxide to the gas generant composition (0036). Lundstrom also discloses the addition of metal oxides as an additive to improve ignition (col. 4, lines 6-17). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2022
Application Filed
May 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 24, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 15, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600688
SENSITIZING COMPOSITION FOR ENERGETIC HYDROGEN PEROXIDE EMULSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595217
THERMITE BLOCK FOR STORED-DATA DESTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595174
METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE PENTAZOLATE ANION USING A HYPERVALENT IODINE OXIDANT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12559443
ENERGY-RELEASING COMPOSITE MATERIAL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552729
MECHANICALLY-GASSED EMULSION EXPLOSIVES AND METHODS RELATED THERETO
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+15.5%)
4y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 435 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month