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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/11/26 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/11/26. These drawings are not acceptable; see paragraph 4 below.
Specification
The amendment filed 3/11/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: in amended figure 5 the arrow of transition “590” indicates an area that includes plate portion (540), ring portion (550), an unlabeled chamfer, and possibly the bevel opposite the chamfer. The original and amended specification provide no further clarification as to what the transition is exactly. Note that the boundaries of the transition are critical since the applicant is attempting to claim the thickness of the ring portion and gap with respect to the transition.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “a bottom surface, recessed away from a lowermost surface of the plate portion, and extending toward an outermost perimeter of the ring portion, the bottom surface 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” which is grammatically awkward. The examiner suggests:
“a bottom surface recessed away from a lowermost surface 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;”
Claim 8 sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). The examiner suggests:
“a ring portion comprising a layer of metal material and extending radially outward from a transition of the plate portion,
wherein the energetic material is positioned on the ring portion in an area that includes a gap between a lowermost surface of the plate portion and a bottom surface of the ring portion, and
wherein the area has a constant thickness and continuously extends from the transition area to an outermost perimeter of the ring portion, and the energetic material is positioned at the outermost perimeter.”
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.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “a transition of the plate area”. While figure 5 does show a chamfer/transition between the plate portion and the ring portion there is no support stating that the transition is part of any portion let alone the plate portion.
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, “each of a gap thickness and a ring portion thickness maintain a constant respective thickness radially outward from a transition between the plate portion and the outermost perimeter of the ring portion”. It is unclear if it is the thicknesses or transition that is between the plate portion and the outermost perimeter of the ring portion. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the transition is between the plate portion and the outermost perimeter of the ring portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Berman (US 4,585,155).
Regarding claim 1, Berman discloses:
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)] 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, and extending toward an outermost perimeter of the ring portion, the bottom surface 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 each of a gap thickness and a ring portion thickness maintain a constant respective thickness radially outward from a transition [transition (11)] between the plate portion and 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
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 (13a) 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 discloses:
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 discloses:
wherein the ring portion includes one or more layers of metallic material [steel; 2:63-65].
Regarding claim 6, Berman discloses:
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 7, Berman discloses:
wherein the ring portion thickness is greater than the gap thickness [see figure 6A; note the claim does not require the gap/ring thickness is maintained constant from the transition to the outermost perimeter].
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 a lowermost surface [bottom side (12b)] of the plate portion and a bottom surface [bottom surface (13b)] of the ring portion,
wherein the area has a constant thickness and continuously extends from the transition area to an outermost perimeter of the ring portion [selected area (20) in annotated figure 6A is a rectangle that extends as claimed], 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].
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 (13a) in order to produce a weld.
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 10, Berman discloses:
wherein the ring portion thickness is greater than the gap thickness [see figure 6A; note the claim does not require the gap/ring thickness is maintained constant from the transition to the outermost perimeter].
Regarding claim 13, Berman discloses:
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 discloses:
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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“The Office Action contends the features of claim 1 are disclosed in FIGS. 6 and 6A of Berman. See Office Action, 4-6. Applicant respectfully disagrees at least because the cited portions of Berman cannot reasonably be interpreted as including a gap thickness that is "a constant respective thickness ... from a transition between the plate portion and the outermost perimeter of the ring portion," as recited in claim 1. Indeed, the alleged "area/open space" identified in the Office Action includes slanted areas that cannot reasonably be interpreted as having a "constant respective thickness," as recited in claim 1. For at least this reason, among others, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1.”
While the examiner appreciates that the applicant is attempting to claim “a constant respective thickness ... that extends along an entire length from a transition to the outermost perimeter of the ring portion”, this is not what is being claimed as noted in the rejections above. The examiner suggests amending the claim to positively claim and define the transition, and to better define the length of the thicknesses.
The applicant argues,
“Applicant respectfully submits that claim 8 is allowable at least for reasons including some of those discussed above in connection with claim 1. For example, claim 8 recites, in part, the features of "an energetic material;" "a plate portion;" and "a ring portion comprising a layer of metal material and extending radially outward from a transition of the plate portion, wherein the energetic material is positioned on the ring portion in an area that includes a gap between a lowermost surface of the plate portion and a bottom surface of the ring portion, wherein the area has a constant thickness and continuously extends from the transition to an outermost perimeter of the ring portion, and the energetic material is positioned at the outermost perimeter."
For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that Berman does not teach such subject matter as recited in claim 8. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 8 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Berman. Withdrawal of the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is, therefore, respectfully requested.
While the examiner appreciates that the applicant is attempting to claim “the gap has a constant thickness and continuously extends from the transition to an outermost perimeter of the ring portion”, this is not what is being claimed. The claimed “area” is overly broad and inclusive and may include those things claimed and others and noted in the rejection above.
Conclusion
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