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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 19, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cechanski (4525225).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, 23, Cechanski discloses a granulated explosive (abstract) that includes 60-90 % ammonium nitrate (col. 7, lines 12-20) with sodium nitrate, water at an amount less than 5-25 % (col. 2, lines 60-68 and col. 7, lines 3-12), fuel from 5-30 % (col. 6, lines 50-55), and an emulsifier from .1-2 % (col. 10, lines 60-65). Cechanski does not require hollow spheres as claimed and recites that the mixture can include “occluded free gas such as air, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or hydrogen” which are not hollow spheres (col. 5, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 4, Cechanski discloses the fuel material containg carboxylic acids (col. 8, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 10, Cechanski doses not require organic or glass hollow spheres ( col. 5, lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 19, the granulated product is disclosed by Cechanski and this claim is a product by process claim. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 26, the product as claimed is the same as described in the prior art. Since this is a product by process claim, the product can be made by a different process and the product claimed is the same as described by Cechanski. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cechanski (4525225) as applied above and further in view of Bachman (4736683).
Regarding claims 5-7, 9, 24, and 25, Bachman discloses a solid ANFO explosive that includes both stearic acid and paraffin as the fuel component from 3-10 % (col. 9, lines 40-62), an emulsifier such as polyisobutylene with succinic anhydride (PIBSA) (col. 11, lines 50-65 and col. 12, lines 20-30), and granules of size .4 mm-2.4 mm (col. 7, lines 40-50).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Bachman discloses the inclusion of 0-20 parts sodium nitrate as a sensitizer for ammonium nitrate (col. 15, lines 60-68 and col. 16, lines 1-7). Note that claims 11 and 12 require only 1 of the paraffin, stearate, and stearic acid.
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 ingredients as taught by Bachman with the similar composition of Cechanski since both relate to ammonium nitrate fuel oil explosives and include the same components, i.e. emulsifiers, fuels, etc. It is also obvious to use the amount of sodium nitrate as taught by Bachman since Bachman suggests that amount is used to sensitize the ammonium nitrate and since Cechannski notes the inclusion of sodium nitrate with ammonium nitrate.
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