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 .
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, 6-12, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendenhall (20100116384) in view of Lundstrom (5756929).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 14, 21, and 22, 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 a minimum of 10 % of the total fuel component that ranges from 5-85 % (claim 2) to be used in a gas generating composition with primary fuel such as guanidine nitrate (col. 2, lines 20-58). Thus, the amount of secondary fuel at the minimum amount is 10 % of the total fuel at 5 % which equals .5 % and the amount at 10 % of the total fuel at 85 % which equals 8.5 %. This range of .5-8.5 % covers the claimed range.
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. Alternatively, these properties are considered to be inherent to the composition as taught since the same ingredients and amounts are disclosed. As to limitations which are considered to be inherent in a reference, note the case law of In re Ludke, 169 USPQ 563; In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594; In re Best et al, 195 USPQ 430; and In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688.
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 fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the claimed amount of secondary fuel. Note that this is incorrect as Lundstrom discloses the addition of a secondary fuel such as melamine nitrate at a minimum of 10 % of the total fuel component that ranges from 5-85 % (claim 2) to be used in a gas generating composition with primary fuel such as guanidine nitrate (col. 2, lines 20-58). Thus, the amount of secondary fuel at the minimum amount is 10 % of the total fuel at 5 % which equals .5 % and the amount at 10 % of the total fuel at 85 % which equals 8.5 %. This range of .5-8.5 % covers the claimed range.
Applicant argues that the burn rate and slope. First, the composition as taught has the same ingredients with amounts, thus would have the same burn rate and slope. Second, the claim is drawn to a composition. The ignition of such a composition is a method step that is not included in a composition claim.
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 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
Prosecution Insights