Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35
U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Claim Status
Amended patent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0102030 to Coffey et al. (hereinafter Coffey) in view of US 2020/0400415 to Mohler et al. (hereinafter Mohler) and US 4,963,203 to Halcomb et al. (hereinafter Halcomb).
Coffey teaches a primer comprising a substrate 12 having a deposition surface 18 and a rear surface opposite the deposition surface. The primer additionally includes alternating layers of metal oxide 26,28 and reducing metal 30,32 deposited upon the substrate, the alternating layers of metal oxide and reducing metal being structured to react with each other in response to an impact applied to the rear surface of the
PNG
media_image1.png
418
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
substrate. See Abstract.
In use the primer 58 is secured within the back end of a casing 74 and in communication with a propellant 48. The casing 74 has a front end, a back end and a hollow interior, a bullet 50 secured within the front end of the casing. See Fig.6 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
264
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Coffey is silent to a carbide-containing ceramic layer within the alternating layers of metal oxide and reducing metal, the carbide-containing ceramic layer being titanium carbide, aluminum carbide, silicon carbide, or a combination thereof.
Mohler teaches a primer similar to that disclosed by Coffey wherein “one or more layers of…zirconium carbide may be included within the layers of reducing metal and metal oxide,” whereby when the alternating layers of metal oxide and reducing metal react with each other, the carbide-containing ceramic layer is ignited by the reaction between the reducing metal and metal oxide. The carbide assists to project the ignition products into the propellant through gas production. See para [0023].
It would have been obvious to add a carbide layer within the thermite layers of Coffey, as Mohler discloses that the addition of a metal carbide projects the ignition products into the propellant thereby “enhancing the reliability with which that propellant can be ignited.” See para [0023]. Note that as the carbide layer will intrinsically ignite in the manner used by the combination, it will form burning reaction products and be projected from the primer as disclosed by Mohler. Coffey as modified by Mohler discloses zirconium carbide only.
Halcomb discloses that it was known in the art to use various carbides, such as titanium carbide and silicon carbide, as a gas-producing additive in a thermite composition. Halcomb teaches that these compounds produce “high-pressure and high-velocity gases upon ignition.” See col.1, lines 33-35 and 42-45; col.2, lines 19-26 and 39-42.
A POSITA would have found it obvious to substitute other known metal carbides, capable of producing a high-velocity gas and compatible with a thermite composition, in the primer of Coffey with Mohler as one would have had an expectation of success when making the substitution. Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the Response, Patent Owner states that claims 2 and 7 have been amended to “now recite that ignition of the carbide-containing ceramic layer forms burning carbide-containing ceramic reaction product particles which are projected from the primer” which is “different from the process disclosed by Halcomb.”
The projection of carbide-containing reaction product particles is an intrinsic result of reacting/igniting the carbide with the thermite layers, as disclosed by Mohler. As noted in the rejection above, as the carbide layer will necessarily ignite it is also an ignition product and will be projected from the primer as disclosed by Mohler.1 Thus, the combination of Coffey with Mohler will produce a primer composition that will react in the manner claimed.
The tertiary reference to Halcomb discloses that the claimed carbides have known uses in enhancing gas production from thermite compositions. Halcomb notes that carbides produce compositions that may behave “like an explosive” due to the production of high-pressure and high-velocity gas. See col.3, lines 6-15. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this is the same function of the carbide in Mohler. Thus, a POSITA would have had an expectation of success when substituting the carbides of Halcomb for zirconium carbide in the primer composition of Coffey with Mohler. The resulting primer composition would have had the claimed effect of projecting the ignition products from the primer due to the presence of the carbide. Patent Owner has failed to provide any argument or evidence that the carbides of Halcomb would not function in the same manner as the zirconium carbide of Mohler in the primer composition of the combination.
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,650,037 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH MCKANE whose telephone number is
(571) 272-1275. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs; 6:30 am -
4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor Patricia Engle can be reached on 571-272-6660. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of any application may be obtained from the
Patent Center at https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions, 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.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/LEONARDO ANDUJAR/ /Patricia L Engle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991 SPRS, Art Unit 3991
1 The inherency of the zirconium carbide ignition process is confirmed by the underlying ‘037 patent. See col.4, lines 58-67.