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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “actuator for instructing the circuit to fire one or more squibs” as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 3 “a rigid, wheeled for enclosing and transporting” contains a typographical error and should read “a rigid, wheeled cabinet for enclosing and transporting” and will be interpreted as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 1 line 9 “[…] switch mechanically actuated by a handle projecting exteriorly of the cabinet for powering the circuit” should read “[…] switch mechanically actuated by a handle projecting exteriorly of the cabinet for powering the circuit on and off”, “[…] switch mechanically actuated by a handle projecting exteriorly of the cabinet for controlling power to the circuit”, or equivalent depending upon the applicant’s discretion. This correction better establishes that the switch is used to control the circuit’s powered on/powered off states and does not mechanically generate power on its own.
Claim 6 line 2 “clips for attachment to terminals of squibs” contains a minor typographical error and should read “clips for attachment to terminals of the squibs”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “an actuator” and firing “one or more squibs”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “an actuator for instructing the circuit to fire one or more squibs”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “an actuator for instructing the circuit to fire one or more squibs” recites that an actuator controls the electrical circuit and that the electrical circuit physically fires the squibs. There is an insufficient amount of direction provided by the inventor in the claims and specification as to how an actuator is able to ‘instruct’ a circuit or how an electrical circuit, as claimed, is mechanically able to “fire one or more squibs.”
Based on the nature of the invention, analogous inventions in the prior art, and the breadth of the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would anticipate that it is the electrical circuit that instructs the actuator (See line 5: the electrical circuit is in control of squib detonation) and that it is the actuator (a device typically used to convert electrical signals to mechanical action) that to fires one or more “squibs.” The limitation will be interpreted as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “clips for attachment of terminals of squibs held within said vise”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “sparks for shorting them to prevent inadvertent firing”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “clips for attachment to terminals of squibs held within said vise sparks for shorting them to prevent inadvertent firing” recites clips for wire terminals for electrically connecting the squibs. There is an insufficient amount of direction provided by the inventor in the claims and specification as to what “sparks for shorting them to prevent inadvertent firing” refers to within the scope of the claims, whether this action is accomplished by the vise or the clips, as claimed. For the purposes of examination, the scope of claim 6 is interpreted to encompass any and all electrical attachment mechanisms or elements that can reasonably connect the terminals of the squibs and help prevent inadvertent firing.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Yu (KR 102386252 B1)1 further in view of Stokes (GB 2564870 A)2.
Regarding Claim 1: Yu discloses (in at least figures 1-5, the description, and the claims) a device for concurrently repelling animals while detonating used explosives (fig. 1 and par. 34: bird collision prevention device 100), the device comprising:
a rigid, wheeled [cabinet] for enclosing and transporting components of the device, the cabinet comprising an interior (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 37: “support (110) protects the internal components from moisture penetration or foreign contamination and ensures that the device is maintained stably […] The support (110) may be equipped with wheels or casters for movement of the device”);
an electrical circuit for powering the device and controlling the detonation (fig. 1 and par.’s 39, 44, and 47: control box 180 houses circuit components for inputting commands and signals to control device 100);
at least one blast discharge tube for venting the cabinet interior and outputting noise in response to firing (fig. 1 and par. 46: gun barrel 133);
an externally actuated "on-off' switch mechanically actuated by a handle projecting exteriorly of the cabinet for powering the circuit (fig. 2 and par. 44: panel portion 182 of control box 180 includes “a plurality of buttons or switches and visual display elements (lamps or indicators) are installed to select and input the operating time and intensity of the noise generating assembly (130), rotation of the turntable (120), etc.” It is implicit that this includes an on-off switch as claimed);
a multi-explosive detonation fixture for holding multiple explosives for firing (fig. 2 and par. 40: explosion generating assembly); and,
an actuator for instructing the circuit to fire one or more explosives (fig. 2 and par. 40: ignition unit 132).
Yu does not explicitly disclose wherein the explosive devices are squibs.
Stokes discloses an analogous art (fig.’s 1-3 and page 2 par.’s 1-5: animal scaring apparatus 1000) wherein the explosive devices are squibs (abstract, fig. 1, and page 2 par.’s 1-4: “The devices may be arranged to each provide a single or plurality of channels or tubes for simultaneous receipt of plural rockets in the housing.” See also page 1 par. 3 “[…] bird scaring devices include rockets to make a loud overhead bang and scare away birds.”) further comprising a multi-explosive detonation fixture for holding multiple squibs for firing (fig. 1 and page 5 par. 4: “the apparatus 1000 comprising five launching devices 2 in a single housing 1”); and, an actuator for instructing the circuit to fire one or more squibs (fig. 1 and page 5 par.’s 7-9: electric ignition launch mechanism in housing 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include squibs, as taught by Stokes, in the invention of Yu to utilize compact ammunition that can be fired high into the air in rapid succession thereby increasing the range and efficacy of the device (Stokes page 1 par. 3 and page 5 par. 4) as well as minimize the risk of injury to individuals nearby (Stokes page 8 par. 8).
Regarding Claim 2: Yu and Stokes disclose the device as recited in claim 1, and Stokes discloses wherein the squib detonation fixture comprises a plurality of spaced apart mounting rings for receiving and mounting squibs to be fired (fig. 1 and page 5 par. 4: “the apparatus 1000 comprising five launching devices 2 in a single housing 1”).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7: Yu and Stokes disclose the device as recited in claim 1, and Yu discloses light indicators activated by the circuit (Yu par. 44: “The inside of the cover (185) may include a panel portion (182) on which a plurality of buttons or switches and visual display elements (lamps or indicators)”)
Stokes discloses the device comprising a warning that is activated by a circuit prior to squib firing (Stokes page 9 par. 2: “The apparatus further comprises a passers-by warning alert means wherein before a device fires an audible alarm sounds for 1 minute”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the light, as taught by Yu, to include the alert functionality of Stokes thereby improving the overall safety of the device (Stokes page 9 par. 2. See also page 8 par.8: “The apparatus is arranged with the devices arranged to launch rockets above standard head height so as to minimise risk of injury to any curious passers-by.”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Stokes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kenneth (US 2920600 A).
Regarding Claim 3: Yu and Stokes disclose the device as recited in claim 2, and Stokes discloses wherein said rings comprise means for tightly securing squibs (fig. 1 and page 5 par. 4: “the apparatus 1000 comprising five launching devices 2 in a single housing 1” See also claim 2: plurality of channels or tubes for receipt of rockets in the housing).
Yu and Stokes does not explicitly disclose wherein said rings comprise at least one wing nut. Kenneth discloses an analogous device (fig.’s 1-3: intermittent exploding device “A” ) wherein mounting means comprises at least wing nut for tightly securing a canister of detonating material (fig. 3 and col. 3 lines 57-66: tank 23 secured to supporting structure 34 via wing nuts 36).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the wing nuts, as taught by Kenneth, to be included in the device of Yu and Stokes thereby providing an effective means for securing explosive units such that they are still able to be removed and replaced manually thereby increasing the longevity of the device (Kenneth col. 2 lines 6-22).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Stokes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jarno (FI 13202 Y1)3.
Regarding Claim 4: Yu and Stokes disclose the device as recited in claim 1, and Yu discloses wherein the cabinet comprises at least one external handle for cabinet locomotion (fig. 1 handles on sides of support 110).
Yu and Stokes do not explicitly disclose wherein the handle is adjustable.
Jarno discloses an analogous art (fig.’s 1-7 and “Brief Summary of Invention”: manually operated cart transporting explosives) wherein a cabinet (fig. 1 trolley 11) comprises at least one adjustable and external handle for cabinet locomotion (fig.’s 1-7 and page 5 par. 5: the trolley “may have an adjustable handle for adjusting the height and / or position of the handle. This feature can affect the usability and maneuverability of the explosive cart when it is moved. This is important to make it as easy as possible to move the cart with due care.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yu and Stokes’s handle, to be adjustable, as taught by Jarno thereby allowing the user to more carefully transport explosive material and improving the safety of the overall device (Jarno page 5 par. 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Stokes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 112293401 A)2.
Regarding Claim 5: Yu and Stokes disclose the device as recited in claim 1 wherein live squibs are temporarily captivated to be prepared for subsequent firing (Yu par. 40, Stokes page 5 par. 4).
Yu and Stokes do not explicitly disclose the device further comprising a squib vise with a pair of compressible jaws.
Wang discloses an analogous art (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 11: anti-bird device using detonatable cartridges) further comprising a squib vise with a pair of compressible jaws for temporarily captivating live squibs to be prepared for subsequent firing (fig. 2 and par.’s 48-49: clamping member comprising first and second members hinged by a pin used to fixedly attach gas cylinder. See also par.’s 59-63).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the vise, as taught by Wang, to be included in the device of Yu and Stokes thereby providing an effective means for securing explosive units such that they are able to be easily removed and replaced manually thereby increasing the longevity of the device (Wang par.’s 59-63: clamping member allows installation manually or via machine).
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Stokes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abouav (US 4869171 A).
Regarding Claim 6: Yu and Stokes disclose the device as recited in claim 5 further comprising clips for attachment to terminals of squibs (Stokes page 5 par.’s 7-9: electric ignition launch mechanism in housing 1 formed by five glow plugs. It is inherent that the glow plugs as discloses are electrically connected to the terminals of squibs via clips as is standard in the art).
Yu and Stokes do not explicitly disclose that the terminals of the squibs are shorted to prevent inadvertent firing.
Abouav discloses an analogous art (fig.’s 3-4 and col. 6 line 56 – col. 7 line 3: detonator assembly 6 utilizing fusehead conductors. It is implicit that clips are used to connected fusehead conductors as is standard in the art) terminals of the squibs are shorted to prevent inadvertent firing (fig. 2 and col. 7 line 51- col. 8 line 2: “The circuit 106 includes a relay 110 having a driving coil 112, normally closed contacts 114 and normally open contacts 116 which are connected to conductors 113 and 115 which are connected to the lines 94 and 96 via connector 108. The normally closed contacts 114 are connected by means of conductors 117 to the aluminium housing 44 so that both sides of the fusible elements 62 are shorted directly to the housing. This is an important safety factor because the detonator unit 22 cannot be activated unless the relay 110 is operated This protects the unit 22 from unwanted operation caused by stray currents or radio frequency electromagnetic radiation.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the clips and terminal-shorting arrangement, as taught by Abouav, to be included in the device of Yu and Stokes thereby reducing the likelihood of inadvertent squib firing and improving the overall safety and efficacy of the device (Abouav col. 7 line 51- col. 8 line 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Zheng (CN 210406842 U) discloses the device according to claims 1-2.
(JP 6531123 B2) discloses the device according to claim 1 apart from the cabinet being wheeled.
(JP H0543880 U) discloses the device according to claim 1 apart from the cabinet being wheeled.
Lehmann (US 10938138 B2) discloses “clips for attachment to terminals of squibs held within said vise sparks for shorting them to prevent inadvertent firing.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN MANCINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, KRISTINA DEHERRERA can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/EVAN MANCINI/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/5/25
1 Citations made to attached translation of description.
2 Citations made to attached copy.
3 Citations made to attached translation