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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment / Request for Reconsideration-After Non-
Final Rejection filed on December 1, 2025 wherein claim(s) 1-2, 7, 11 were amended, claim(s) 6 canceled, and claim(s) 17 previously objected (i.e., Allowable Subject Matter). Examiner notes amendments in claims are directed to overcome rejections under 35 USC § 112 / 35 USC § 103. Examiner further notes in aforementioned reply amendments in DRAWINGS directed to overcome their objections. Therefore, claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 18-19 are pending and will be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 18-19 is/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-Al A 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites --one or more interposing stacking layers each having a first thickness and a first circumferential dimension,
wherein the first circumferential dimension is substantially the same as a second circumferential dimension of the upper portion and the lower portion-- [lines 7-8] wherein -- circumferentially-- is vague and indefinite. For purposes of examination, --circumferentially-- will be interpreted to mean --perimetral--.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-16, 18-19 rejected by dependency of claim 1.
Claim 11, recites --a plurality of groups of securing indents disposed circumferentially around the munitions packaging system-- [lines 3-4] wherein --circumferentially -- is vague and indefinite. For purposes of examination, --circumferentially-- will be interpreted to mean --perimetral--.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (China Patent CN106342166B) hereinafter YU, in view of Gardner (U. S. Patent US5499716A) hereinafter GARDNER, in further view of Debois et al. (Switzerland Patent Application Publication CH717243A2) hereinafter DEBOIS.
Regarding claim 1, YU teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 below) a munitions packaging system Y1-01, comprising:
an upper portion 4 having
a first inner surface Y8-01,
a first outer surface Y8-02, and
a plurality of upper portion side surfaces Y8-03; and
a lower portion 5 having
a second inner surface Y8-04,
a second outer surface Y8-05, and
a plurality of lower portion side surfaces Y8-06;
one or more interposing stacking layers 8 each having a first thickness and a first circumferential dimension Y8-07,
wherein the first circumferential dimension Y8-07 is substantially the same as a second circumferential dimension Y8-08, Y8-09 of the upper portion 4 and the lower portion 5
wherein the first inner surface Y8-01 of the upper portion 4 and the second inner surface Y8-04 of the lower portion 5 include a plurality of mating indents Y2-01, Y2-02 complementary to fit together in interlocking manner (FIG. 2);
wherein the first Y8-01 and second Y8-04 inner surfaces include one or more first indents 503 to form one or more cavities Y8-10 for storage and protection of one or more munitions within the munitions packaging system Y1-01 when the upper portion 4 and lower portion 5 are mated;
wherein an entire munitions packaging system Y1-01 consists of a first single polymer material,
wherein each of the one or more interposing stacking layers 8 includes one or more second indents 403 to form the one or more cavities Y8-10 for storage and protection of the one or more munitions within the munitions packaging system Y1-01 when the upper portion 4, the lower portion 5, and the one or more interposing stacking layers 8 are mated,
wherein each cavity Y8-10 of the one or more cavities Y8-10 has a first section and a second section:
wherein the munitions packaging system Y1-01 includes a plurality of groups of securing indents Y2-03 disposed perimetral around the munitions packaging system Y1-01 symmetrically placed on opposite sides of the munitions packaging system Y1-01;
wherein the one or more munitions is selected from the group consisting of a warhead, a propellant section, a fixed-type munition, a propellant charge, an explosive charge, a sub munition, a guidance kit, and an armed mortar round;
wherein each cavity Y8-10 of the one or more cavities Y8-10 has the shape configured to fit each one or more munitions.
YU fail to teach wherein the first section and the second section are separated with one or more separators consisting of the first single polymer material.
YU fail to teach wherein each separator of the one or more separators has a second thickness substantially same as the first thickness.
YU fail to teach wherein the upper portion 4 further includes a first RFID device of a plurality of RFID devices.
YU fail to teach wherein the lower portion 5 further includes a second RFID device of the plurality of RFID devices.
YU fail to teach wherein the first and second RFID devices are configured to provide a packaging information about the munitions packaging system Y1-01.
YU fail to teach wherein the packaging information includes an open-closed status, a tracking information, a munition information, and a specification of the munition packaging system Y1-01.
However, GARDNER teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 7, FIG. 12 below) a tray-like base or element 10, wherein the first section 24 and the second section 24 are separated with one or more separators 18 consisting of a first single polymer material; wherein each separator 18 of the one or more separators 18 has a second thickness substantially same as the first thickness for support of items (page 9, col. 4, lines 1-5, “… serves to support …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified first section / second section in the munitions packaging system Y1-01 of YU with first section 24 / second section 24 as taught in the tray-like base or element 10 of GARDNER for purposes of support.
However, and DEBOIS teaches (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6 - Fig. 7 below) a stack of trays 10, wherein the upper portion 10 further includes a first RFID device 30 of a plurality of RFID devices 30.
wherein the lower portion 10 further includes a second RFID device 30 of the plurality of RFID devices 30.
wherein the first 30 and second 30 RFID devices are capable to be configured to provide a packaging information about the stack of trays 10.
wherein the packaging information includes an open-closed status, a tracking information, a munition information, and a specification of the stack of trays 10 for monitoring status.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified upper portion 4 / lower portion 5 in the munitions packaging system Y1-01 of YU, and GARDNER with upper portion 10 / lower portion 10 as taught in the stack of trays 10 of DEBOIS for monitoring status.
PNG
media_image1.png
604
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
640
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
494
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
719
995
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
763
736
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
860
811
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
698
987
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
512
946
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
425
820
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
166
744
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the first Y8-02 and second Y8-05 outer surfaces include a plurality of nesting depressions Y2-05 and protrusions Y2-04 indents.
Regarding claim 3, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of YU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above), GARDNER (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 7, FIG. 12 above), and DEBOIS (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6 - Fig. 7 above) further teaches munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the plurality of nesting Y2-05 / Y2-04 indents includes alternating convexes and concaves complimentary to each other to stack a plurality of the munitions packaging systems Y1-01.
Regarding claim 4, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 3 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of YU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above), GARDNER (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 7, FIG. 12 above), and DEBOIS (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6 - Fig. 7 above) further teaches munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the plurality of nesting Y2-05 / Y2-04 indents is cylindrical and located at regular intervals.
Regarding claim 5, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the first single polymer material is an expanded polystyrene having a first average molecular weight between 150,000 g/mol and 400,000 g/mol.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified first single polymer material with an expanded polystyrene (having first average molecular weight between 150,000 g/mol and 400,000 g/mol) in the munitions packaging system L1-01 of YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the one or more interposing stacking layers 8 consist of the first single polymer material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified interposing stacking layers 8 (with the first single polymer material) in the munitions packaging system Y1-01 of YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 7 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the one or more interposing stacking layers 8 consist of a second single polymer material (page 5, Embodiment 3, lines 3-4, “… foam plastics …”).
Regarding claim 9, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 8 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the second single polymer material is an expanded polystyrene having a second average molecular weight between 150,000 g/mol and 400,000 g/mol different from the first average molecular weight.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified second single polymer material (with an expanded polystyrene having a second average molecular weight between 150,000 g/mol and 400,000 g/mol) in the munitions packaging system Y1-01 of YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of YU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above), GARDNER (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 7, FIG. 12 above), and DEBOIS (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6 - Fig. 7 above) further teaches munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein each cavity Y8-10 of the one or more cavities Y8-10 has a first section and a second section and wherein the first section and the second sections are separated with one or more separators 18.
The combination of YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS fail to teach separators 18 consisting of the first single polymer material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified one or more separators 18 (with the first single polymer material ) in the munitions packaging system Y1-01 of YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) further teaches munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the munitions packaging system Y1-01 includes a plurality of groups of securing indents Y2-03 disposed perimetral circumferentially around the munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the plurality of groups of securing indents Y2-03 is symmetrically placed on opposite sides of the munitions packaging system Y1-01.
Regarding claim 12, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) further teaches munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the one or more munitions is selected from the group consisting of a warhead, a propellant section, a fixed-type munition, a propellant charge, an explosive charge, a sub munition, a guidance kit, and an armed mortar round, wherein each cavity Y8-10 of the one or more cavities Y8-10 has a shape dimensionally configured to the one or more munitions.
Regarding claim 13, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of YU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above), GARDNER (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 7, FIG. 12 above), and DEBOIS (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6 - Fig. 7 above) further teaches munitions packaging system Y1-01, further comprising an electronic tracking device 30.
Regarding claim 14, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 13 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of YU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above), GARDNER (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 7, FIG. 12 above), and DEBOIS (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6 - Fig. 7 above) further teaches munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the electronic tracking device 30 is a plurality of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) devices.
Regarding claim 15, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 14 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. The combination of YU (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above), GARDNER (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 2, FIG. 7, FIG. 12 above), and DEBOIS (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6 - Fig. 7 above) further teaches munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the upper portion 4 further includes a first RFID device 30 of the plurality of RFID devices 30;
wherein the lower portion 5 further includes a second RFID device 30 of the plurality of RFID devices 30;
wherein the first 30 and second 30 RFID devices are capable to be configured to provide a packaging information about the munitions packaging system Y1-01; and
wherein the packaging information includes an open-close status, a tracking information, a munition information, and a specification of the munition packaging system Y1-01.
Claim(s) 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU, in view of GARDNER, in further view of DEBOIS, further in view of Choi (South Korea Patent Application Publication KR20140111838A) hereinafter CHOI.
Regarding claim 16, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the upper portion 4 and the lower portion 5 further comprise a one or more hinges consisting of the first single polymer material disposed on at least one edge.
However, CHOI teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 below) shell box 100, wherein the upper portion 110 and the lower portion 150 further comprise a one or more hinges 115 disposed on at least one edge (Fig. 6) for ease of access.
Furthermore, CHOI fails to teach hinges 115 consisting of the first single polymer material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified upper portion 4 / lower portion 5 in the munitions packaging system Y1-01 of YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS with upper portion 110 / lower portion 150 as taught in the shell box 100 of CHOI for ease of access.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified hinges 115 (with first single polymer material) in the munitions packaging system Y1-01 of YU, GARDNER, DEBOIS, and CHOI to meet design requirements. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image12.png
890
1028
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
800
1201
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
827
1113
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
712
1476
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
645
667
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
871
689
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the upper portion 4 and the lower portion 5 further comprise a plurality of handle indentations.
However, CHOI teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) shell box 100, wherein the upper portion 110 and the lower portion 150 further comprise a plurality of handle indentations 119, 170 for ease of handling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified upper portion 4 / lower portion 5 in the munitions packaging system Y1-01 of YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS with upper portion 110 / lower portion 150 as taught in the shell box 100 of CHOI for ease of handling.
Regarding claim 19, YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. YU fails to teach (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 3, FIG. 8 above) munitions packaging system Y1-01, wherein the upper portion 4 and the lower portion 5 further comprise a plurality of hand grips.
However, CHOI teaches (see Fig. 1 - Fig. 6 above) shell box 100, wherein the upper portion 110 and the lower portion 150 further comprise a plurality of hand grips 156 for ease of handling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified upper portion 4 / lower portion 5 in the munitions packaging system Y1-01 of YU, GARDNER, and DEBOIS with upper portion 110 / lower portion 150 as taught in the shell box 100 of CHOI for ease of handling.
Response To Arguments
Applicant's arguments / amendments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) of claim(s) 2-4, 11, 17 / objection of DRAWINGS in the reply filed December 1, 2025 have been considered and found
persuasive. However, upon further examination, rejection of claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 18-19 under 35 USC § 112(b) stand.
Applicant's arguments / amendments regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103 of claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 18-19 (moot for claim(s) 6, 17 upon their cancellation) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on exactly all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
Furthermore, upon further review, the allowable claim(s) 17 (currently canceled and structures present in claim(s) 1) has been found to not be allowable based only newly located reference(s).
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the
claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Han et al. (China Patent CN212870935U): Teaches a “packaging” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Edwards et al. (U. S. Patent US8079465B2): Teaches a “packaging” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Kelly et al. (U. S. Patent US6026958A): Teaches a “rack” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Johnson. (U. S. Patent US4666035A): Teaches a “magazine” with similar characteristics as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735