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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention I in the reply is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant did not point out the lack of unity in the original claims.
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/24/2026.
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, 2, 4-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scavuzzo (10562873) in view of Vrolyk (3822251).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, Scavuzzo discloses combining a solution A (nitric acid) with solution B (an explosive precursor) that react to form an explosive (col. 1, lines 55-65). The reactor is a microfluidic flow reactor which meets the claimed reactor details. Scavuzzo discloses the claimed diameter of less than 500 micron which were inherently selected for the process by indicating a size (col. 9, lines 5-40). Solution A and B pass through the microfluidic reactor to form an explosive. Scavuzzo discloses that using a microfluid reactor for exothermic reactions provides good heat transfer to reduce the potential for run-away reactions and safety of manufacturing since it can be monitored remotely (col. 10, lines 40-50).
Vrolyk teaches that it is known to prepare nitramine explosives using a continuous process which includes the reaction of hexamine with nitric acid (col. 6, lines 38-70). Vrolyk also indicates that a goal of the process is to control highly exothermic and dangerous reactions that occur in the proparation of explosive by nitration (col. 2, lines 65-68).
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 the microfluidic method and apparatus as shown by Scavuzzo with the explosive reagents taught by Vrolyk since Scavuzzo indicates that it is known to use microfluidic reactors with the nitration of energetic precursors with nitric acid. Scavuzzo also indicates that this method reactions provides good heat transfer to reduce the potential for run-away reactions and safety of manufacturing since it can be monitored remotely. Vrolyk indicates that a goal of the process is to control highly exothermic and dangerous reactions that occur in the preparation of explosive by nitration and thus one of skill in the art would be motivated based on the improvements in safety as well as the similarities in the preparation method that includes combining nitric acid with an explosive precursor.
Regarding claim 6, Vrolyk discloses the addition of cold water to precipitate the product (col. 1,
lines 65-72 and col. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Scavuzzo discloses a temperature control system (col. 9, lines 50-65).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 19, Vrolyk discloses the addition of cold water to create the precipitate (col. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 20, Scavuzzo discloses that the reactor may be conducted remotely to reduce the potential for run-away reactions and safety of manufacturing. It is obvious to one of skill in the art that this remote work would be conducted behind a blast wall to protect from explosions since the goal is to reduce the potential for run-away reactions and improve the safety of manufacturing.
Regarding claim 18, Vrolyk discloses the addition of acetic acid (col. 1, lines 60-70).
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 11, 12, and 20 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 claims 11 and 20, 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).
The term “remotely” in claims 11, 12, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “remotely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 Monday 9-5:30, Thursday 11-3, Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 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 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.
/AILEEN B FELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights