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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant provided arguments directed to the unity of invention which is not the basis of the restriction requirement.
Claims 1-7 and 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/21/2025.
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). 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, and 23 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).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights