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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by La Bate (4121805).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, La Bate discloses a composition that includes thermite and a bonding agent such as sodium silicate formed into a rectangular portion (meets block limitation) (claim 3). The sodium silicate meets the melting point and structural integrity limitations since it is the same ingredient used by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 4, the sodium silicate can also function as a damping agent.
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, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carragher (WO2014096875).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 8, and 11, Carragher teaches a down-hole heat source that include thermite and a damping agent (sand) (abstract) and includes an oxidizer. The solid blocks are stacked and vary in composition from block to block (pg. 4, lines 5-20). The sand meets the melting point and structural integrity limitations since it is the same ingredient used by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 6, the block include an ignition conduit in the block.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the ignition material will inherently burn hotter than
the solid fuel since it is being used to ignite the solid fuel.
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 multiple stacked blocks with varying concentrations as taught by Carragher since Carragher suggests that this will result in more control over the heating patterns.
Regarding claim 9, it is also to vary the parameters to achieve a desired result. The compound is identified in the prior art as a binder and thus has a binding effect so one of skill would be able to determine the relative amounts to arrive at the desired binding amount in the composition. It is well-settled that optimizing a result effective variable is well within the expected ability of a person of ordinary skill in the subject art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 on Monday 9-5:30, Thursday 11-3, Friday 9-5:30.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AILEEN B FELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights