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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's request for reconsideration, see Remarks filed 12/1/2025, of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12/1/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Lang (US 2024/0247921) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is entered in view of Genson (US 10,731,958).
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 32 recites “the casing material is produced by using brittle metals…”. It appears this should be “the casing material comprises brittle metals…”, as the casing material refers to the precursor material, not the spray coating. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 45 and 48 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 45 and 48 recite “metal-metal-oxide composite layer”. This should be “metal-metal oxide composite layer”, as the claims are clearly directed to a composite of metal and metal oxide, not a composite of metal, metal, and oxide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13-15, 18, 21, 24-36, 41-42 and 45-50 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 claims contain 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.
Claims 13 and 25 recite “tantalum-based body comprising a bulk density of at least 16.5 g/cm3 and a porosity not greater than 0.1%”. There is insufficient support for this limitation in the specification, as the specification does not specify the density or porosity of the cold-sprayed material formed on the preform/mandrel. At best, the specification at ¶ 37 of the PGPub describes the properties of cold sprayed tantalum as having a density of 16.6 g/cm3 and a porosity less than 0.1%. However, this is not a description of the cold sprayed-coated body as a whole.
Claims 21 and 31 recites: “a mixture of tungsten or an alloy thereof”. However, the specification is limited to mixtures of tungsten or an alloy thereof with tantalum or an alloy thereof (see Spec., ¶ 62 of PGPub), or a mixture of a ductile metal powder with a brittle metal powder (the latter being a stand-in for tungsten) (see Spec., ¶ 60 of PGPub). There is insufficient support for an open-ended mixture comprising tungsten or an alloy thereof.
Claims 45 and 48 recite: “further compris[es], in order from the interior surface…of the fragmentation casing: a fuse layer comprising zirconium, magnesium, aluminum, or titanium, wherein the fuse layer directly overlies the imprinted structure; and a reactive metal-metal-oxide composite layer…[comprising] tungsten oxide (WO)”.
This claim contains subject matter not described in the specification. First, there is no support for the fuse layer, as claimed. The specification provides support for a fuse layer comprising magnesium or zirconium (see Spec., ¶ 43 of PGPub). However, there is insufficient support for a fuse layer of aluminum or titanium. Second, the specification expressly states a fuse layer of magnesium ignites a metal-metal oxide composite of aluminum and iron oxide. However, the claimed invention contains a metal-metal oxide composite of tantalum and cupric oxide or tungsten oxide. There is insufficient support in the specification for any of the claimed metals being used to ignite a tantalum-copper oxide composite or a tantalum-tungsten oxide composite. Third, while the specification identifies a tantalum-tungsten oxide composite containing WO2 (see Spec., Table 1), there is no support for a tantalum-tungsten oxide composite containing WO, whether WO refers to tungsten monoxide or tungsten oxide of any stoichiometry.
Dependent claims not addressed contain new matter for the same reason(s) as a claim from which they depend.
Claims 14, 26, 30 and 45-50 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.
Claims 14 and 26 recite: “a dissimilar metal or dissimilar metal alloy dissimilar from the at least a metal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least a metal”. It is unknown what “the at least a metal” refers to in the context of the claimed invention, so one of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain what is a dissimilar metal or metal alloy. For purposes of examination, it is presumed “the at least a metal” is tantalum.
Claim 30 recites “the cold spray-coated tantalum-based body is a mechanical mixture with no chemical interaction before spraying”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what is actually being claimed. The claim, prior to the present amendment, described the precursor material for making the cold spray-coating. Now, the claim is describing the cold sprayed coating in terms of a precursor material. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted according to its unamended version.
Claims 45 and 48 recite: “further compris[es], in order from the interior surface…of the fragmentation casing: a fuse layer comprising zirconium, magnesium, aluminum, or titanium, wherein the fuse layer directly overlies the imprinted structure”. This limitation is indefinite. Claims 13 and 25 define “the interior surface” as the interior surface of the cold-spray-coated tantalum-based body. It is impossible for this interior surface to correspond to a fuse layer when it is already the interior surface of the tantalum-based body. In view of this, it is also unclear how the fuse layer can “directly overlie[] the imprinted structure” since the order of layers then requires the fuse layer to be on top of another layer while simultaneously being the innermost surface. Claims 45 and 48 also fail to describe where the tantalum-based body appears in the fragmentation casing, which prevents one of ordinary skill from being able to ascertain the actual structure being claimed. Does the tantalum-based body include the fuse layer and/or the reactive metal-metal oxide composite layer? Or are these three components all distinct layers? For purposes of examination, it is presumed that these are parts of the tantalum-based body.
Dependent claims are indefinite by virtue of depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13-15, 21, 24-27, 29-31, 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 2024/0247921) in view of Genson (US 10,731,958).
Regarding claims 13-15, 24-27, 29 and 34-36, Lang teaches a bomb casing, and a method of making a bomb casing (¶ 1). The bomb casing is produced by cold spraying metal particles onto a support member (¶ 13), corresponding to the claimed preform/mandrel. The support member may have geometric features thereon to provide a rupture mechanism or rupture seams (¶¶ 18, 75). The geometric features of the support member are presumed to be imparted to the cold sprayed coating, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112. A composition of metal particles is cold gas sprayed onto the support member (¶ 46), thus forming the claimed cold spray-coated casing material. Lang teaches the support member is removed (¶ 17), leaving behind the cold spray coating, thus the support member is sacrificial. Lang further teaches the density of the bomb casing is greater than 7.86 g/cm3 (¶ 53), which overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Lang also teaches that porosity in the bomb casing reduces strength (¶ 64) and mechanical integrity (¶ 66). Thus, Lang teaches keeping porosity as low as possible to increase strength and mechanical integrity. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to achieve a porosity to as close to 0% as possible.
Lang teaches the cold spray particles includes a first material which contains little to no high density refractory metals, and a second material comprising high density refractory metals (¶ 46). Lang also recognizes steel may be used as the cold spray material (¶ 38), suggesting this is the “little to no high density refractory metal” material. The second material includes at least one of tungsten metal or alloys, nickel metal or alloys, vanadium metal or alloys, and manganese metal or alloys (¶ 46). These account for more than two “dissimilar metal or dissimilar metal alloy”. The two materials thereby form a metal-metal composite. Steel is considered a ductile metal. The high density refractory metal includes tungsten (¶ 46), which is a brittle metal. However, Lang does not expressly teach the bomb casing is formed of a tantalum-based body. Genson teaches a fragmentation casing (col. 1, lines 14-16), the casing made of metals including tungsten, tantalum, steel, and alloys thereof (col. 3, lines 16-25). Since tantalum is a high density refractory metal, and the prior art recognizes tantalum as a suitable metal for fragmentation casings, it would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace at least some of the tungsten with tantalum because the prior art recognizes these metals as equivalents for making a fragmentation casing.
Regarding claim 30, the two materials are kept in different hoppers (¶ 46) and therefore there can be no chemical interaction before spraying.
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Lang teaches the high density refractory metal contains tungsten metal or alloys thereof (¶ 46).
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 2024/0247921) in view of Genson (US 10,731,958), as applied to claims 13 and 25 respectively, as evidenced by OQMD (“Fe2W” & “Fe2Ta” & “Ta-W”).
Regarding claims 18 and 28, the limitations of claims 13 and 25 have been addressed above. The prior art combination teaches the cold spray material includes a first material which contains little to no high density refractory metals, and a second material comprising high density refractory metals (Lang, ¶ 46), which includes steel (¶ 38). The high density refractory metal includes tungsten (Lang, ¶ 46) and tantalum (Genson, col. 1, lines 14-16). The two metals therefore form a metal-metal composite. As evidenced by OQMD, iron and tungsten form Fe2W and Fe7W6 intermetallic compounds, both of which have a negative enthalpy of formation. Fe2Ta, Fe6Ta7, and various Ta-W compounds are also intermetallic compounds with a negative enthalpy of formation (see OQMD). Thus, these metal elements release energy upon reaction with each other.
Claims 14, 26 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 2024/0247921) in view of Genson (US 10,731,958), as applied to claims 13 and 25 respectively, further in view of Deng et al. (CN 110257815).
Regarding claims 14 and 26, the limitations of claims 13 and 25 have been addressed above. Lang teaches the cold spray material includes steel material, and tungsten particles (¶ 46), but does not expressly teach a thin metal coating on either. Deng teaches a tungsten or tungsten alloy powder for cold spraying having an outer shell of a softer metal such as Cu, Ni, Ag, or Sn. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tungsten particles of Lang with an outer shell of a softer metal, as taught by Deng, because Deng teaches cold spraying of hard particles such as W collide with each other during cold spraying and cause peeling off in the resulting coating (p. 1, ¶ 3). The problem of peeling is solved by a layer of a softer metal on the hard particles that prevents collision between the hard particles (p. 1, ¶ 3).
Regarding claims 32-33, the limitations of claim 25 have been addressed above. Lang teaches the cold spray material includes tungsten particles (¶ 46), but does not expressly teach a thin metal coating on the tungsten particles. Deng teaches a tungsten or tungsten alloy powder for cold spraying having an outer shell of a softer metal such as Cu, Ni, Ag, or Sn, the shell having a thickness of 1 μm or less (p. 1, ¶¶ 5-6). Cu, Ni, Ag and Sn are all ductile metals. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tungsten particles of Lang with an outer shell of Cu, as taught by Deng, because Deng teaches cold spraying of hard particles such as W collide with each other during cold spraying and cause peeling off in the resulting coating (p. 1, ¶ 3). The problem of peeling is solved by a layer of a softer metal on the hard particles that prevents collision between the hard particles (p. 1, ¶ 3).
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 2024/0247921) in view of Genson (US 10,731,958), as applied to claims 13 and 25 respectively, further in view of Langan et al. (US 2005/0011395).
Regarding claims 41-42, the limitations of claims 13 and 25 have been addressed above. Lang in view of Genson does not expressly disclose the inclusion of pyrophoric material, or material configured to produce thermite reaction, secondary incendiary effect, or pyrophoric effect upon fragmentation, in the prior art warhead.
Langan teaches cold spraying to produce reactive materials (¶ 19), these reactive materials being materials that produce thermite reactions (¶ 20) which can be triggered under explosive, fragmenting conditions to produce self-propagating reactions (¶¶ 21-22). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the reactive materials of Langan in the warhead of Lang because Langan recognizes the usefulness of thermite reactions in shaped charges (¶ 3), including warheads (¶ 6), and there is an expectation of success in incorporating these materials in the Lang because Langan teaches using cold spray to produce these materials. Langan teaches the reactive materials include aluminum and magnesium (¶ 20).
Claims 45-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 2024/0247921) in view of Genson (US 10,731,958), as applied to claims 13 and 25, further in view of Langan et al. (US 2005/0011395) and Chua et al. (US 2015/0308802).
Regarding claims 45 and 48, the limitations of claims 13 and 25 have been addressed above. Lang in view of Genson does not expressly disclose a fuse layer or a reactive metal-metal oxide composite layer comprising tantalum and cupric oxide or tungsten oxide.
Langan teaches cold spraying to produce reactive materials (¶ 19), these reactive materials being materials that produce thermite reactions (¶ 20) which can be triggered under explosive, fragmenting conditions to produce self-propagating reactions (¶¶ 21-22). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the reactive materials of Langan in the warhead of the prior art combination because Langan recognizes the usefulness of thermite reactions in shaped charges (¶ 3), including warheads (¶ 6), and there is an expectation of success in incorporating these materials in the warhead of the prior art combination because Langan also teaches using cold spray to produce these materials. Langan identifies tantalum metal and copper oxide as suitable reactive components.
Chua teaches using an igniter material such as magnesium for igniting exothermic materials such as thermite materials (¶ 63). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a fuse material such as magnesium in the warhead of the prior art combination to ensure ignition of the thermite material, as taught by Chua.
Regarding claims 46-47 and 49-50, Lang teaches applying at least one additional layer of metal to the outer surface of the bomb casing so as to increase lethality or shelf life (¶ 71). Lang teaches higher hardness is associated with increased penetrative performance (¶ 5), which would increase lethality, while improved corrosion protection ostensibly increases shelf life.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784