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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention and species in the reply 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)).
Claims 3-5 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/27/2026.
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, 6-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ataka (JP 2001278690) in view of Luo (WO 2020133956).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, 11, Ataka discloses the same claimed shape with a coated pellet that has a core with the coating and core made of two different materials. Ataka shows several embodiments with an edge portion that touches the radius of the pellet and extends through the coating (fig. 22(c) and 34). The figures also show a t-shape which is similar to that shown in the specification.
Luo discloses multiple compositions that are known for gas generating devices. These include fuel of NTO from 35-60 %. Oxidant such as perchlorate from 25-58 % and additives such as oxide or silica. Plus other combinations that include fuel of guanidine nitrate from 35-60 %, oxidant such as BCN or perchlorate from 25-58 %, and additives such as oxide or silica. Note that the additive is indicated at 0 %.
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 different compositions of gas generants as taught by Luo with the coated pellet of Ataka since Ataka suggests that it is known to use coated pellets with two different pyrotechnic compositions. Luo does not suggest any particular compositions so one of skill in the art would look to known mixtures that can be used for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 6, Figure 12 (b) shows the edge portion that goes continuously along the circumference.
Regarding claim 7, figure 34 shows the axial extension at less than 80 % of the edge.
Regarding claim 8, one of the compositions disclosed by Luo will inherently have a different burning rate than the other.
Regarding claim 9, it is obvious to vary the parameters of the such as burn rate to achieve a desired result. Burn rate is a result effective variable because the composition effects the rate of burning. 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 13, Ataka teaches the use of additional coating on the pellets (0003).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as applied above and further in view of Redecker (DE 19505568).
Regarding claim 12, Redecker suggests that adjustments in burn rate can be made by change in grain size (pg. 5, last full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the grain size to adjust the burn rate to achieve a desired result. Redecker identifies grain size as capable to being adjusted to result in different burn rate in an air bag 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 7, 10, 11, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claims recites the broad recitation followed by “preferably” and then a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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