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 10-12, 15, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pittet et al (20240351361).
Regarding claim 10, Pittet discloses an ink composition that includes polymer vehicle (meets polymer resin) (0110 and 0108), one or more fillers such as carbon fiber and silica (meets thixotropic agent as shown by Applicant’s specification para. 0066) from .1-20 % (0110), and aluminum particles (meets additive configured to enhance energy release as shown by Applicant’s claim 12) from 5-20 % (0118 and 0124). Pettit discloses a metal oxide (0119).
Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation (i.e. “adapted for”, “configured to”, etc.). These clauses are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use and do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Pittet discloses one or more fillers such as carbon fiber from .1-20 % (0110) and aluminum particles (meets additive configured to enhance energy release as shown by Applicant’s claim 12) from 5-20 % (0118 and 0124).
Regarding claims 15, 22, and 23, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation (i.e. “adapted for”, “configured to”, etc.). These clauses are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use and do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Claim 23 recites a structure that is formed but the instant claims are drawn to an ink composition which would not have this structure. Alternatively, the polymer and carbon fibers as disclosed by Pettit will inherently have this structure since the same claimed ingredients are used. 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.
Claims 10, 13-15, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manning (11149108).
Regarding claims 10, 13, and 14, Manning discloses an ink composition that includes cyanate ester resin (meets polymer resin), and includes carbon fiber and silica(meets thixotropic agent as shown by Applicant’s specification para. 0066) (col. 42, lines 50-67). Manning further discloses perchlorate (meets additive configured to enhance energy release as shown by Applicant’s claim 14 and oxidizer limitation in claim 13) as an additive (col. 35, lines 55-60). Manning discloses the use of metal powders (col. 36, lines 55-65).
Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation (i.e. “adapted for”, “configured to”, etc.). These clauses are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use and do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Regarding claims 15, 22, and 23, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation (i.e. “adapted for”, “configured to”, etc.). These clauses are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use and do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Claim 23 recites a structure that is formed but the instant claims are drawn to an ink composition which would not have this structure. Alternatively, the polymer and carbon fibers as disclosed by Manning will inherently have this structure since the same claimed ingredients are used. 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.
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 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Pettit or Manning as applied above and further in view of McDaniel (CA 2270518).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, McDaniel discloses polymer encapsulated metal oxides for use in ink compositions (abstract). McDaniel indicates that this protects the metal oxide from degradation.
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 polymer coated metal oxide as disclosed by McDaniel since McDaniel suggests that the encapsulation helps to prevent degradation. Both Pettit and Manning are ink compositions and McDaniel indicates that the encapsulated metal oxide is used in ink compositions.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Pettit or Manning as applied above and further in view of Ganapathiappan (2015036868).
Regarding claim 24, Ganapathiappan discloses that any relevant form of aluminum can be used in ink compositions including flake, bead, and spherical (claim 2).
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 spherical aluminum as disclosed by Ganapathiappan since Ganapathiappan suggests that any relevant form of aluminum can be used in ink compositions including flake, bead, and spherical. Both Pettit and Manning are ink compositions and Ganapathiappan indicates that the spherical aluminum cam be used in ink compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Pettit does not disclose an oxidizer. This is incorrect. Pettit discloses a metal oxide at para. (0119). Applicant argues that Manning does not disclose a metal. This is also incorrect. Manning discloses the use of metal powders (col. 36, lines 55-65).
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