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 without traverse of Invention II (claims 6 and 11 – 14) in the reply filed on September 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Invention I), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 2, 2026.
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 6 and 11 – 14 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein a linear shaped charge is positioned within said central aperture and extends downward into said container where it is stabilized while a curing agent within said container hardens” in the last paragraph of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘linear shaped charge’ of the limitation to refer to the ‘linear shaped charge’ previously recited in the preamble of the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘linear shaped charge’ which is separate and independent from the ‘linear shaped charge’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation such that the ‘linear shaped charge’ of the limitation refers to the ‘linear shaped charge’ previously set forth in the preamble of the claim. Secondly, Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a holder for stabilizing a linear shaped charge ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘linear shaped charge,’ such that the preamble of the claim is directed towards the combination of the ‘holder’ and the ‘linear shaped charge,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to require that the ‘central aperture’ and ‘container’ are configured for use with the ‘linear shaped charge,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘holder’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to positively require the ‘linear shaped charge.’ Finally, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the steps of ‘stabilizing the linear shaped charge’ and ‘hardening a curing age within said container,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of stabilizing a linear shaped charge during epoxy curing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘linear shaped charge,’ ‘central aperture,’ and ‘container,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘holder’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to recite functional language of the ‘linear shaped charge,’ ‘central aperture,’ and ‘container.’
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a linear shaped charge” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. It is first unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the “linear shaped charge” previously recited in the preamble of the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘linear shaped charge’ which is separate and independent from the ‘linear shaped charge’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to refer to the ‘linear shaped charge’ previously set forth in the preamble of the claim. Examiner next notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a system for stabilizing a linear shaped charge ...” Therefore, the limitation is further indefinite because it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘linear shaped charge,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a system and a linear shaped charge,’ or whether Applicant intends the claimed ‘system’ to be configured for use with the ‘linear shaped charge,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘system for stabilizing the linear shaped charge.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to positively require the ‘linear shaped charge.’
Claim 11 further recites the limitation “wherein said linear shaped charge ... extends downward into said container where it is stabilized while a curing agent within said container hardens.” Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a system for stabilizing a linear shaped charge ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the steps of ‘stabilizing the linear shaped charge’ and ‘hardening a curing age within said container,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of stabilizing a linear shaped charge during epoxy curing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘linear shaped charge’ and ‘container,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘holder’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation so as to recite functional language of the ‘linear shaped charge’ and ‘container.’
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein said stair-step risers ... prevent wicking of said curing agent up said linear shaped charge.” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a holder for stabilizing a linear shaped charge.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘the stair-step risers preventing wicking of said curing agent,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of stabilizing a linear shaped charge during epoxy curing,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘stair-step risers,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘holder’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein said stair-step risers ... are configured to prevent wicking up said curing agent up said linear shaped charge.”
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As explained above, Examiner notes that claim 6 is being reasonably interpreted so as to positively require the ‘linear shaped charge.’
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 – 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 6 and 11, Obuhowich (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0063945) teaches a holder/system comprising: a container comprising: a lip, an open top, a bottom, and sidewalls (figures 8 – 10, element 230 being the ‘container,’ end portions of element 230 being the ‘lip,’ aperture though element 230 being the ‘open top,’ bottom surface of element 230 being the ‘bottom’ and sidewall surfaces of element 230 being the ‘sidewalls’; paragraphs 51 – 52); a support comprising: a midsection with a first and a second end (figures 1 – 4, see below), and a central aperture (figures 1 – 4, element 19 being the ‘central aperture’; paragraph 50); a pair of stair-step risers extending down from said first and said second end (figures 1 – 4, element 12 being the ‘stair step risers’; paragraph 50); and a pair of curved legs extending from said stair-step risers (figures 1 – 4, see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Obuhowich does not teach that the pair of legs match a round cross-section of the container to permit locking of said support onto said lip of said container; and a linear shaped charge being positioned within said central aperture and extending downward into said container which is configured to be stabilized when a curing agent within said container hardens, as required by the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hutter (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0217673) teaches a holder or system comprising: a container comprising: a lip, an open top, a bottom, and sidewalls; and a support comprising a midsection with a first and a second end, and a central aperture, a pair of stair-step risers extending down from said first and second end, and a pair of curved legs extending from said stair-step risers.
Rizzello (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0076577) teaches a holder or system comprising: a container comprising: a lip, an open top, a bottom, and sidewalls; and a support comprising a midsection with a first and a second end, a pair of stair-step risers extending down from said first and second end, and a pair of curved legs extending from said stair-step risers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
