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 1-3, 8-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher (3036940) in view of Wagaman (6849247).
Regarding claims 1-3, 16, Fletcher discloses a liquid or gel type composition for use as explosive or rocket motors. The composition includes 62 % of lithium perchlorate with 38 % methanol (col. 2, lines 25-35). The composition can include stabilizers, combustion catalysts or modifier (col. 2, lines 35-40). The lithium perchlorate will inherently have the same oxygen content since it is the same oxidizer used in the instant invention. 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.
Regarding claim 9, Fletcher does not require the use of water.
Regarding claim 15, the density and/or oxygen balance are inherent to the composition of Fletcher 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.
Wagaman discloses a liquid or gel type composition for use as explosive or rocket motors that includes oxidizer and fuels such as alcohols and additives to improve the explosive such as ethylamine nitrate (meets ionic liquid since it is the same claimed component), metal powder such as aluminum or magnesium or hydrides at 10 % (col. 3, lines 35-60).
Regarding claim 14, Wagaman discloses the use of combinations of oxidizers including ammonium nitrate and perchlorate oxidizers. (col. 7, lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 19, Fletcher discloses the oxidizer at 15 % (col. 2, lines 25-35).
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 additives to a liquid or gel type explosive as taught by Wagaman with the composition of Fletcher since both are similar liquid or gel explosives that are used with rockets and since Fletcher suggests that it is known to include stabilizers, combustion catalysts or modifier (col. 2, lines 35-40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wagaman does not disclose rocket propulsion but instead focuses on underwater vehicles. The broadest disclosure Wagaman does indicate that the compositions are used for propulsion. The reference is not restricted to particular specific applications. Clearly both patents relate to energetic materials used for propulsion thus the teaching would be obvious. Applicant argues that Fletcher does not use water and indicates the suggestion that this teaches away from the combination. Fletcher has no recitation in the patent that water causes the composition to fail to work or that only nonaqueous compositions can be used. There is no evidence in Fletcher that the inclusion of water amounts to the teaching away as alleged by applicant. It appears clear that the combination is obvious in light of the teachings of the two prior art references.
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