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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/18/26. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-3 and 5-7 are 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.
Claim 1 recites maintaining a constant thickness from “an end of an upward sloping area extending from the lowermost surface to the plate portion to the bottom surface of the ring portion, and the outermost perimeter of the ring portion.” It is unclear if the thicknesses or the sloping area that is extending. Also, it is unclear as to what is happening with the “the outermost perimeter of the ring portion”. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as maintaining a constant thickness from “an upward sloping area to the outermost perimeter of the ring portion, wherein the upward sloping area extends from the lowermost surface to the plate portion to the bottom surface of the ring portion.”
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, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman (US 4,585,155) in view of Robinson et al. (GB 1,179,107).
Regarding claim 1, Berman teaches:
An anchor element [flat steel patch (10); 4:63-5:15 and annotated figure 6A below], comprising:
an energetic material [explosive material (16); 3:36-47];
a plate portion [plate (12)]; and
a ring portion [thin outer edge (13);i.e. flyer] extending from the plate portion, the ring portion comprising:
a bottom surface [bottom surface (13b)], recessed away from a lowermost surface [bottom side (12b)] of the plate portion, extending toward an outermost perimeter of the ring portion, and positioned to form a gap between the ring portion and a landing surface when the lowermost surface of the plate portion is on the landing surface; and
wherein a thickness of the ring portion maintains a constant respective thickness from an area and (to) the outermost perimeter of the ring portion [the thin outer edge has a constant thickness and gap between the bottom side and the bottom surface and these are maintained constant in zone (14)],
wherein the energetic material is positioned on the ring portion [It is inherent that the explosive is placed on top surface (13a) in order direct the explosion during explosive welding; note figure 1 shows the explosive being placed on plate (12) directly above recess (14) in order to perform explosive welding], the ring portion is configured to deform in response to activation of the energetic material [the “β” impact angle shows how the thin outer edge is configured to deform], and
wherein activating the energetic material welds the ring portion [4:63-5:15] to the landing surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Berman does not teach:
wherein each of a thickness of the gap and a thickness of the ring portion maintain a constant respective thickness radially outward from an end of an upward sloping area, extending from the lowermost surface to the plate portion to the bottom surface of the ring portion, and (to) the outermost perimeter of the ring portion.
Robinson teaches explosive welding tube (3) to plate (1) wherein the tube has tapered portion (4) that is an upward sloping area, which extends from the lowermost surface of the larger portion of tube to the bottom surface the smaller portion of the tube, and the smaller tube portion has a constant thickness and gap from the end of the tapered portion; figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any known flyer design including that of Robinson, minus any unexpected results. Note that in doing so the tapered portion would also have the same thickness and extend from the bottom side.
Should the applicant prove it is not inherent that the explosive is placed on top surface (13a) then the following applies.
Berman Figure 1 shows explosive material (16) is placed on upper side (12a) in order to produce a weld.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the explosive material on top surface of the Robinson flyer in order to produce a weld.
Concerning any claimed results, materials, and/or functions:
Note the underlined portions of the claims indicate functional language and/or material worked upon.
Since the prior art apparatus, i.e. the apparatus based on the prior art reference above, is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art apparatus is capable of achieving any claimed function with any claimed material to achieve any claimed result; such as welding to a landing surface. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Berman teaches:
further comprising: an opening [opening for bolt (32); 4:33-43 and figure 5] in the plate portion configured to receive a fastener to couple the anchor element to a launch vehicle portion.
Regarding claim 3, this claim is solely drawn to functional language and/or material worked upon and thus addressed above.
Regarding claim 5, Berman teaches:
wherein the ring portion includes one or more layers of metallic material [steel; 2:63-65].
Regarding claim 6, Berman teaches:
wherein one or both of the ring portion or the plate portion are arcuate or polygonal [the cross section show in figure 6A is a polygon].
Regarding claim 8, Berman discloses:
An anchor element [flat steel patch (10); 4:63-5:15 and annotated figure 6A], comprising:
an energetic material [explosive material (16); 3:36-47];
a plate portion [plate 12]; and
a ring portion [thin outer edge (13)] comprising a layer of metal material [steel; 2:63-65] and extending radially outward from a transition [transition (11)] of the plate portion,
wherein the energetic material is positioned on the ring portion [It is inherent that the explosive is placed on top surface (13a) in order direct the explosion during explosive welding; note figure 1 shows the explosive being placed on plate (12) directly above recess (14) in order to perform explosive welding] in an area [area (20)] that includes a gap [area/open space (15)] between the lowermost surface [bottom side (12b)] of the plate portion and the bottom surface [bottom surface (13b)] of the ring portion, and
the energetic material is positioned at the outermost perimeter [note that “β” is the impact angle which allows the impact blast to jet out as the explosive detonates, which means the explosive is at least placed on top surface (13a) of the thin outer edge that forms the impact angle].
Berman does not teach:
an end of an upward sloping area that extends from a lowermost surface of the plate portion to a bottom surface of the ring portion,
wherein the thickness of the gap is constant and continuously extends from the end of the upward sloping area that extends from the lowermost surface of the plate portion to the bottom surface of the ring portion to an outermost perimeter of the ring portion, and the energetic material is positioned at the outermost perimeter.
Robinson teaches explosive welding tube (3) to plate (1) wherein the tube has tapered portion (4) that is an upward sloping area, which extends from the lowermost surface of the larger portion of tube to the bottom surface the smaller portion of the tube, and the smaller tube portion has a constant thickness and gap from the end of the tapered portion; figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any known flyer design including that of Robinson, minus any unexpected results. Note that in doing so the tapered portion would also have the same thickness and extend from the bottom side.
Should the applicant prove it is not inherent that the explosive is placed on top surface (13a) then the following applies.
Berman Figure 1 shows explosive material (16) is placed on upper side (12a) in order to produce a weld.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the explosive material on top surface at the outer most perimeter of the Robinson flyer in order to produce a weld and ensure the entire flyer is welded.
Regarding claims 9, 11, 12, and 15, these are solely drawn to functional language and/or material worked upon and thus addressed above.
Regarding claim 13, Berman teaches:
wherein the energetic material is configured to activate responsive to a control signal to weld the layer of metal material [3:48-55] to a landing surface.
Regarding claim 14, Berman teaches:
wherein the energetic material is arranged on a top surface [top surface (13a)] of the layer of metal material opposite a bottom surface [this is addressed in the rejection of claim 8].
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berman (US 4,585,155) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Castelijns et al. (US 2008/0277452 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Berman does not teach:
wherein the thickness of the ring portion is greater than the thickness of the gap;
wherein the thickness of the gap is less than or equal to a thickness of the ring portion.
Castelijns teaches “The standoff distance is an independent variable, the value of which may be selected to ensure that cladding material from the cladding layer 15 collides with the base layer 20 at a particular collision point velocity vc. Where the cladding layer 15 has a thickness t, the standoff distance may be selected to range from, at the low end, from about 0.3t to about 0.5t to, at the high end, from about 4t to about 5t, but any distance may be selected to achieve the desired vc”; 0036.
Since the standoff distance is result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the size of the standoff/gap and flyer thickness as taught by Castelijns to that claimed in order to achieve a desired collision point velocity, minus any unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
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 CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
