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 § 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 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van (EP 2070870).
Regarding claims 1-4, 9-12, 19, Van discloses a nitrogen gas generator with a tubular housing with two ends, an igniter at one end and a gas opening at the other. The device includes a filter (see figure). The solid propellant includes 60-90 % sodium azide, .1-20 % coolant such as LiF, 3-15 % binder such as alkali silicates and .1-20 % iron oxide (abstract and 0050). The propellant is located between the igniter and the filter. Van does not expressly disclose a second layer but indicates that “[t]he main gas generating charge may be of different shapes or may consist of stacks of charges of suitable shapes. Each stack may also be of a different composition as to modify the burning rate or the composition of the gas, and/or the composition may vary over the length and or the width of the charge”(0043 and 0044). Van further suggests that the addition of iron oxide can be used to modify the burn rate and is included in the claimed range of .1-20 %(0050).
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 multiple layers with different amounts of iron oxide since Van suggests that “[t]he main gas generating charge may be of different shapes or may consist of stacks of charges of suitable shapes. Each stack may also be of a different composition as to modify the burning rate or the composition of the gas, and/or the composition may vary over the length and or the width of the charge”. Van further contemplates using different compositions amongst the layers and indicates that the iron oxide is used as a burning rate modifier. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in using different amounts of the burning rate modifier as suggested by Van
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 8, the igniter can include known combinations of pyrotechnic igniters (meets squib and enhancer packet) and can include electrical initiator (meets glow plug) or laser igniter (0042).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Van discloses the use of tablets of gas generating charge and also a single charge that changes composition throughout. The volume of gas generating charge needed can be varied to suit the size of the device that is used.
Regarding claims 15-18 and 21, it is also obvious to vary the amounts, volume, and size of each layer since Van suggests that the amounts can be varied throughout the device. It is well-settled that optimizing a result effective variable is well within the expected ability of a person of ordinary skill in the subject art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Van teaches that the charge may be perforated (meets claimed channel) (0041).
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