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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 February 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 4, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 20150198427, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”).
As to Claim 1: Huang teaches a biodegradeable BB pellet comprising polybutylene succinate and zinc powder (Abstract, [0010]).
As to Claim 2: Huang teaches the ball of claim 1 (supra). Huang further teaches an example where the organic material (i.e., the polybutylene succinate) is present in an amount of 32% (Table 1).
As to Claim 4: Huang teaches the ball of claim 1 (supra). Huang further teaches that the ball can comprise zinc powder (i.e., a metal powder) (Abstract, [0010]).
As to Claim 6: Huang teaches the ball of claim 1 (supra). Huang further teaches that the ball con comprise a compatibilizer such as polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, or glycerol [0023].
As to Claim 8: Huang teaches the ball of claim 1 (supra). The instant claim is drawn to an intended use which is considered for structure and not the actual use. As Huang teaches the ball meeting all of the limitations cited in claim 1 it is considered to be capable for use as an airsoft ammunition.
As o Claim 9: Huang teaches the ball of claim 1 (supra). Huang further teaches that the ball can have a diameter of 5.95 mm [0030].
As to Claim 10: Huang teaches the ball of claim 1 (supra). The instant claim is drawn to an intended use which is considered for structure and not the actual use. As Huang teaches the ball meeting all of the limitations cited in claim 1 it is considered to be capable for use in bearing applications.
As to Claim 11: Huang teaches the ball of claim 1 (supra). The instant claim is drawn to an intended use which is considered for structure and not the actual use. As Huang teaches the ball meeting all of the limitations cited in claim 1 it is considered to be capable for use in valves.
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) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20150198427, hereinafter referred to as “Huang”) in view of Valeri et al. (US Patent #7,109,258, hereinafter referred to as “Valeri”).
As to Claim 5: Huang teaches the ball of claim 1 (see above).
Huang does not teach doping the polymer with a permanent electrostatic charge eliminating additive.
However, Valeri teaches that antistatic materials can be incorporated with a base polymer to prevent the polymer becoming charged with static electricity (Col. 1, Lines 5-15). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the charge eliminating additive of Valeri to the ball of Huang because these materials dissipate electric charge almost instantly (Col. 1, Lines 24-26).
As to Claim 7: Huang teaches the ball of claim 1 (see above).
Huang does not teach the ball is coated with a permanent electrostatic charge eliminating additive.
However, Valeri teaches that antistatic materials can be incorporated with a base polymer to prevent the polymer becoming charged with static electricity (Col. 1, Lines 5-15) and that such a material can be applied as a coating (Col. 2, Line 54-60). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the charge eliminating additive of Valeri to the ball of Huang because these materials dissipate electric charge almost instantly (Col. 1, Lines 24-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights