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 action is in response to Application #18/681,893 filed on 07 February 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2006/0086279 to Lloyd.
Regarding Claim 1, Lloyd discloses a warhead having a circumference, a radial and a longitudinal direction and comprising radially extending trapezoid like shapes, each having a length into said longitudinal direction and a plurality of said trapezoid like shapes extending around said circumference (see figs.12, 38).
Lloyd does not specifically show a “trapezoid”, but rather elements (202/210/212…, 608/610/614…) that are very similarly shaped to trapezoids. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to shape the elements as trapezoids as an obvious change in shape without departing from the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Lloyd discloses each trapezoid is separately detonatable (at least paragraphs 109, 128).
Regarding Claim 3, Lloyd discloses a controller configured to select ones of trapezoids for detonation for a directed explosion (see at least figs. 13-15, paragraphs 109, 128).
Regarding Claim 4, Lloyd discloses the trapezoids divided into segments along an axial direction and provided with a detonation point at a midpoint of said segment along a central axis (see at least fig.28, and each divided segment 400/402/404).
Regarding Claim 5, Lloyd discloses the radially outer surface detonators (see at least fig.31, 450 and fig.38, 622.
Regarding Claim 9, Lloyd discloses high explosive and fragmentation material (fig.15, 216, fig.38, 604).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 1,241,095 issued to Courtesy.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Courtesy appears to meet these size ratio limitations as claimed, but is silent as to the exact dimensional ratios. However, where the prior art and invention differ only in size of the components, it has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to select a size or size ratio appropriate for the selected intention of the munition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 6-8, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 1,241,095 issued to Courtesy.
Regarding Claims 6-8, Courtesy discloses a warhead having a circumference, a radial and longitudinal direction and comprising radially extending explosive discs, a plurality of said explosive discs extending as a stack along said longitudinal direction (see fig.1);
wherein each explosive disc is contained in a separate segment, defined by a segment wall (see fig.1);
wherein each explosive disc is separately detonatable (page 2 lines 5-23), provided with a detonation point at a center of said segment along a central axis of said warhead (13).
Regarding Claim 13, Courtesy discloses said radially extending segments are filled with explosive (11), separated by divider walls and comprises detonators at points half way along said segments along a central axis of said warhead (see figs.1-2, at least page 2 lines 4-11).
Regarding Claim 14, Courtesy discloses a guide along said central axis hollow or filled with explosive and wherein said detonators are distributed along said guide at respective points (figs. 1-2, detonating devices 15).
Regarding Claim 15, Courtesy discloses the individual detonators are controllable to be detonated in sequence (at least page 2 lines 32-40).
Claim(s) 10-12, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 3,960,085 issued to Abernathy et al (Abernathy).
Regarding Claims 10-12, Abernathy discloses a warhead having a circumference (fig.3), a radial and longitudinal direction and comprising segments extending radially to a peripheral edge, each segment having a length into said longitudinal direction (see fig. 3, 2 segments);
a plurality of said segments along said longitudinal direction, at least some of said segments having individual detonators at said peripheral edge, the detonators being separately controllable to initiate an explosion in a given direction (15/16, see at least column 1 lines 9-11);
a controller to select among said plurality of individual detonators for detonation in accordance with a detected direction of a target from said warhead (at least column 3 lines 5-15);
comprising a solid cylinder of explosive (see fig.3, 12).
Regarding Claims 18-20, Abernathy discloses a method of manufacture of a warhead comprising:
providing a mold defining a predetermined shape (fig.2), the shape selected for producing the Munroe effect when used with a high explosive (via the shaped charge shape as shown);
filling the mold with high explosive to form the high explosive into said predetermined shape (fig.2);
inserting a detonator (16);
fitting within a housing to form the warhead (at least the Abstract);
comprising lining the explosive/mold on the outside with a metallic liner (11, at least column 4 lines 11-13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for pertinent art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D COOPER whose telephone number is (571)270-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 - 4:30 MST.
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, TROY CHAMBERS can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
/JOHN COOPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
