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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
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, 3-7, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blau (20110168305)
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, Blau discloses an igniter composition that includes combinations of metals and metalloids which include zirconium and titanium boride with oxidizers which include alkali metal perchlorates (potassium perchlorate) (0037).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, the tank test includes method steps that do not limit the composition claim. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the ignition composition will have the claimed sensitivity which is an inherent property to the composition since the same ingredients are used. As to limitations which are considered to be inherent in a reference, note the case law of In re Ludke, 169 USPQ 563; In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594; In re Best et al, 195 USPQ 430; and In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chinese patent (CN 2808662) in view of Blau (20110168305).
Regarding claims, 1, 2, 9, the Chinese patent recites an ignition mixture of zirconium from 8-35 % and potassium perchlorate from 40-65 % and includes additional additives which range from 0-18 % and 0-15 % (0013).
Blau discloses an igniter composition that includes combinations of metals and metalloids which include zirconium and titanium boride with oxidizers which include alkali metal perchlorates (potassium perchlorate) (0037). Blau recites that “combinations of these metalloids, reactive metals, reactive metal alloys, hydrides, borides, nitrides or carbides will produce a high temperature igniter/activator when combined with an oxidizer including alkali metal nitrates and perchlorates, alkaline earth metal nitrates and perchlorates and related oxidizers as well as combinations thereof”.
Regarding claims 5, 7, and 8, Porter discloses the use of conventional inorganic perchlorates (col. 3, lines 30-40)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the titanium boride as an additive to the composition disclosed in the Chinese patent since both are igniting compositions and the Chinese patent indicates that additives can be used at amounts up to 33 % (combination of additions from 0-15 % and 0-18 %). Further Blau indicates that such a combination yields a high temperature igniter when combined with oxidizers. It is also obvious to vary the amounts of the titanium boride since Blau identifies it as a result effective variable to increase reactivity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the parameters of the propellant to achieve a desired result. It is well-settled that optimizing a result effective variable is well within the expected ability of a person of ordinary skill in the subject art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
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 10 and 16 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. Claims 10 and 16 are indefinite because they begin with a closed scope language that recites “consisting of” and then subsequently add multiple optional components. The scope of the claim cannot be ascertained because of this inconsistency. Claim 10 depends on claim 1 which has an open scope claim terminology of “comprising”. The claim scope in claim 10 is inconsistent with this terminology. Claim 16 requires many optional ingredients which render the claim indefinite since the bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Regarding the section 112 rejection, the arguments are not persuasive. Clain 10 recites the terminology that recite “consisting of” are dependent on a claim that recites the terminology “comprising”. Claim 10 depends on claim 1 which has an open scope claim terminology of “comprising”. The claim scope in claim 10 is inconsistent with this terminology. Claim 16 requires many optional ingredients which render the claim indefinite since the bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
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