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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11-19 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hales (20030201041) in view Hattori (4410378).
Regarding claims 11, 12, 15-19, 21-31, Hales discloses that the emulsion explosive can be mixed with the fuel phase and oxidizer phase and then have the emulsifier (homogenizing agent) added as a third component (0016 and 0017). Paragraph 0017 recites “It is advantageous to predissolve the emulsifier in the liquid organic fuel prior to adding the organic fuel to the aqueous solution. This method allows the emulsion to form quickly and with minimum agitation. However, the emulsifier may be added separately as a third component if desired.”
Hattori discloses an apparatus used for the delivery of emulsion explosives that includes supplying an emulsion (meets emulsion matrix), mixing a homogenizing agent from a second tank with a static mixer that holds the emulsifier (sorbitan fatty acid ester) (meets homogenizing agent) (see fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 55-60). The figure shows the mixing of a sensitizer, i.e. hollow microspheres. The composition is used in a blasthole (meets convey step). The resulting composition has .1 to 5% of homogenizer.
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 mixing method discloses by Hales with the method of Hattori since both relate to emulsion explosives and Hale suggests that it is known to mix the components in that order. It is also obvious to use the method of Hattori in a blasthole since Hattori discloses emulsion compositions for blasting. It is also obvious to vary the viscosity since Hattori discloses that the time in the machine can be used to adjust the emulsion explosive to any desired state (col. 4).
Regarding claim 13, it is obvious to use the proper emulsion matrix to match the hardness of the rock to be blasted since that is the use of the emulsion explosive.
Regarding claim 14, the emulsion is in a tank prior to the addition of the homogenizing agent and thus is devoid of homogenizing agent (fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hale does not disclose the addition of the homogenizer (emulsifier) separately after the fuel and oxidizer have been mixed. This is incorrect. Paragraph 0017 recites “It is advantageous to predissolve the emulsifier in the liquid organic fuel prior to adding the organic fuel to the aqueous solution. This method allows the emulsion to form quickly and with minimum agitation. However, the emulsifier may be added separately as a third component if desired.”
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 on 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