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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
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 1-4, 10-12, 16, 19-26, 29, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippini (WO 0152976)..
Regarding claims 1-4, 10, 21-23, Filippini discloses an emulsion explosive that includes ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, and additives such as potassium carbonate (meets pH agent as described in Applicant’s specification) (pg. 27), molybdenum disulfide (pg. 37), alkali and alkaline earth phosphates (meets metal ion binding agent as described in Applicant’s specification) (pg. 31).
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 emulsion additives as discloses by Filippini with the explosive emulsion disclosed by Filippini since the full disclosure relates to improvements of emulsions. Further, Filippini indicates that these components are additives that can be used to improve emulsions and the section in Filippini on emulsion explosives indicates that it is known to incorporate additives to improve the emulsion explosive.
Regarding claim 11, potassium carbonate is a base.
Regarding claim 12, the pH of the pH agent will be inherent to the compound since the same claimed compounds are used.
Regarding claim 16, the stability will be inherent since the same claimed compounds are used.
Regarding claims 19, 20, and 29, the additives are present at 1 % of the composition (pg. 35).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Filippini discloses the use of urea (meets nitrous acid neutralizing agent). This compound will inherently be stable at the claimed temperature since the same compound is used.
Regarding claim 32, the emulsion is used as an explosive for blasting
Regarding claim 33, the use in reactive ground is s statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 34, the prior art discloses alkali and alkaline earth which include the claimed cations of sodium and potassium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments that the prior art discloses a fertilizer composition are not well taken. The background of the prior art and multiple sections in the prior art refer to the use of the composition as an explosive emulsion. It is very clear that the prior art is indicating that the composition can be used for multiple things one of which is an explosive. There is an entire section of the disclosure which refers to explosive emulsions from page 25-30 of the prior art.
It is obvious to use the emulsion additives as discloses by Filippini with the explosive emulsion disclosed by Filippini since the full disclosure relates to improvements of emulsions. Further, Filippini indicates that these components are additives that can be used to improve emulsions and the section in Filippini on emulsion explosives indicates that it is known to incorporate additives to improve the emulsion explosive.
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