DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
Figure 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, line 4, claim 14, line 4, and claim 15, line 4, it is unclear whether the term, “a precursor”, comprises one of the plurality of warheads referred to in line 3?
In claim 4, line 5, the limitation, “the precursor may include a powder jet formation liner”, is indefinite because the term, “may” renders the scope of the claim uncertain.
The preambles to claims 8-13 are inconsistent with the preamble to claim 1 because they make reference to a main warhead, whereas the preamble to claim 1 refers to a precursor?
In claim 8, the limitation, “wherein the main warhead may include a main warhead liner”, is indefinite because the term, “may” renders the scope of the claim uncertain.
In claim 9, line 2, the meaning of the term, “a certain cavity” is unclear. How is it different from a cavity?
In claim 12, line 3, the limitation, “further may include an explosive wave modulator”, is indefinite because the term, “may”, renders the scope or the claim uncertain.
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 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HELTE (WO 2009/126087 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8-15, discloses a tandem warhead (Fig. 1B- page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 6) comprising a precursor warhead having a liner 12 that forms a powder jet 13 that can penetrate reactive armor (ERA) without detonating the ERA; and a main warhead having a metal liner 15, the penetrates the armor. HELTE anticipates claims 12 and 13 because the explosive modulator is not required to meet the claim.
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 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over HELTE (WO 2009/126087 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, HELTE discloses a tandem warhead (see the abstract; Fig. 1B- page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 6; claim 3) comprising a precursor warhead having a liner 12 that forms a powder jet 13 that can penetrate reactive armor (ERA) without detonating the ERA; and a main warhead having a metal liner 15, the penetrates the armor.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, it is inherent to HELTE that the powder jet 13 produced from the line 12 would be capable of penetrating at least some light armor. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of the HELTE precursor liner 12 to enable the powder jet produced therefrom to penetrate main body armor and produce a hole therein. With this modification, the metal jet from the metal liner 15 could widen the hole and further damage the target.
Regarding claims 4-6, HELTE discloses a tandem warhead that reads on the limitations (see the abstract; Fig. 1B- page 5, line 32 – page 6, line 6; claim 3).
Regarding claim 7, HELTE reads on the claim because claim 7 is being interpreted as a product-by-process claim. HELTE discloses that the preferred material for producing a powder jet are compacted aluminum powder, brittle glass, and aluminum oxide in a polymer matrix (see at least page 4, lines 26-27; claims 4, 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-FORM 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S BERGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5am.
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.
/JAMES S BERGIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641