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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln.13: the clause “a position closer to the projecting direction side than” should be amended to recite “a position closer to a projecting direction side than” for antecedent reasons (i.e., this is the first instance in which the “projecting direction side” is recited).
Claim 1 Ln.14: the clause “the first electric circuit” should be amended to recite “the predetermined first electric circuit” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 1 Ln.16: the clause “the projecting direction” should be amended to recite “the predetermined projecting direction” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claim 2: all instances of “the second electric circuit” (e.g., see lines 6 and 9) should be amended to recite “the predetermined second electric circuit” for consistent claim nomenclature.
Claims 2, 7, and 10-16: every instance of “the projecting direction” should be amended to recite “the predetermined projecting direction” for consistent claim nomenclature.
See next page→
Claims 4 and 8-9: every instance of “the first electric circuit” should be amended to recite “the predetermined first electric circuit” for consistent claim nomenclature.
The Office notes that the above objections are a non-exhaustive list, and thus requests Applicant’s cooperation with reviewing the claims and correcting ALL remaining informalities present in the claims, but not made of record above. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 8-9 of co-pending Application No. 18/839,729 (Referred to as Reference Application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Reference Application anticipate the claims of the Instant Application. Please see the table below in which bolded limitations indicate the corresponding limitations between the Instant Application and the Reference Application
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application: 18/839,747
Reference Application: 18/839,729
1) An electric circuit switching device configured to switch a predetermined first electric circuit from an interrupted state to a conductive state upon actuation, the electric circuit switching device comprising: a housing; an igniter provided in the housing and configured to release a combustion gas upon actuation; a tubular space formed in the housing and extending in one direction; a projectile having conductivity, including a base body positioned at a first position in the tubular space in an initial state before actuation of the igniter, and configured to be projected in a predetermined projecting direction along the tubular space by energy of the combustion gas; and a pair of first conductor pieces provided inserted, in a spaced apart state, into the tubular space at a position closer to the projecting direction side than the first position, and forming part of the first electric circuit in cooperation with each other, wherein the projectile further includes a pair of protrusions protruding from the base body in the projecting direction, and the pair of protrusions of the projectile projected upon actuation of the igniter respectively come into contact with the pair of first conductor pieces, switching the first electric circuit from the interrupted state to the conductive state (scope encompassed within claim 4).
1) An electric circuit switching device configured to switch a predetermined first electric circuit from an interrupted state to a conductive state upon actuation, the electric circuit switching device comprising: a housing; an igniter provided in the housing and configured to release a combustion gas upon actuation; a tubular space formed in the housing and extending in one direction; a projectile having conductivity and positioned at a predetermined first position in the tubular space in an initial state before actuation of the igniter; a piston fixed to the projectile and disposed in the tubular space interposedly between the igniter and the projectile, and configured to be projected in a predetermined projecting direction along the tubular space by energy of the combustion gas; and a pair of first conductor pieces provided inserted, in a spaced apart state, into the tubular space at a position closer to the projecting direction side than the first position, and forming part of the first electric circuit in cooperation with each other, wherein the projectile projected integrally with the piston upon actuation of the igniter comes into contact with each of the pair of first conductor pieces, switching the first electric circuit from the interrupted state to the conductive state.
4) The electric circuit switching device according to claim 1, wherein the projectile includes a base body positioned in the first position in the initial state, and a pair of protrusions protruding from the base body in the projecting direction, each of the pair of first conductor pieces is provided with an insertion hole into which a corresponding one of the pair of protrusions of the projectile projected is insertable, and each of the pair of protrusions comes into contact with an edge portion of the insertion hole, switching the first electric circuit from the interrupted state to the conductive state.
Claim 2 of the Instant Application is encompassed by Claim 2 of the Reference Application.
Claim 3 of the Instant Application is encompassed by Claim 3 of the Reference Application.
Claim 4 of the Instant Application is encompassed by Claim 4 of the Reference Application.
Claim 5 of the Instant Application is encompassed by Claim 5 of the Reference Application.
Claim 6 of the Instant Application is encompassed by Claim 6 of the Reference Application.
Claim 7 of the Instant Application is encompassed by Claim 1 of the Reference Application.
Claims 8-9 of the Instant Application are encompassed by Claims 8-9 of the Reference Application.
Claims 10-16 of the Instant Application are encompassed by Claims 1-6 and 8-9 of the Reference Application (e.g., claim 10 of the Instant Application is encompassed by Claims 1-2 of the Reference Application, claim 11 of the Instant Application is encompassed by Claims 1 and 3 of the Reference Application, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern (WO 9741582) in view of Suzuki (US 20100328014) (of record, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kern discloses (Figs.5-6):
An electric circuit switching device (40) configured to switch a predetermined first electric circuit (Fig.5: the circuit created from 49) from an interrupted state (See Fig.5) to a conductive state (See Fig.6) upon actuation (See Fig.6), the electric circuit switching device (40) comprising: a housing (42); an igniter (56) provided in the housing (42) and configured to release a combustion gas ([0045] and [0049]) upon actuation; a tubular space (44 and 70) formed in the housing (42) and extending in one direction (See Figure Below); a projectile (54) having conductivity ([0049]: 54 is a "bridging element" that allow current to flow), including a base body (the body of 54 itself will define the base body) positioned at a first position (See Fig.5: the position of 54) in the tubular space (44 and 70) in an initial state (See Fig.5) before actuation of the igniter (56), and configured to be projected in a predetermined projecting direction (68) along the tubular space (44 and 70) by energy of the combustion gas ([0045] and [0049]); and a pair of first conductor pieces (49) provided inserted, in a spaced apart state (Fig.5: ends of 49 are separated from each other), into the tubular space (44 and 70) at a position closer to the projecting direction side than the first position (See Fig.5: the position of 54) (Fig.5: 49 is placed closer to the bottom side of 42, which will define a "projecting direction side", than the first position of the projectile 54), and forming part of the first electric circuit (Fig.5: the circuit created from 49) in cooperation with each other (Fig.6 and [0049]: once actuated, 54 cooperates with 49 to complete the "first electric circuit").
See next page→
PNG
media_image1.png
818
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kern does not disclose:
Wherein the projectile further includes a pair of protrusions protruding from the base body in the projecting direction, and the pair of protrusions of the projectile projected upon actuation of the igniter respectively come into contact with the pair of first conductor pieces, switching the first electric circuit from the interrupted state to the conductive state.
Suzuki however teaches (Figs.3a-b):
See next page→
Wherein the projectile (57) further includes a pair of protrusions (See Figure Below) protruding from the base body (See Figure Below), and the pair of protrusions of the projectile (57) projected upon actuation of the igniter (56) respectively come into contact (See Fig.3b) with the pair of first conductor pieces (55 and 54), switching the first electric circuit (Fig.3b: the circuit created by 57 being connected to 55 and 54) from the interrupted state (See Fig.3a) to the conductive state (See Fig.3b).
PNG
media_image2.png
439
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Suzuki to modify the device of Kern such that the projectile includes a pair of protrusions that protrude from the base body so that the pair of protrusions extend in the predetermined projecting direction so that the pair of protrusions come into contact with the pair of first conductor pieces to switch the first electric circuit from the interrupted state to the conductive state when the igniter actuates the projectile, as claimed, in order to further optimize the movement of the projectile from the interrupted state to the conductive state (i.e., making the projectile have the pair of protrusions will reduce the thickness of the central area, and thus make it easier for 52 to break through and move 54 into the conductive state).
Regarding claim 2, Kern further discloses:
The electric circuit switching device (40) being configured to further switch a predetermined second electric circuit (Fig.5: circuit created by 46) from a conductive state (See Fig.5) to an interrupted state (See Fig.6) upon actuation, the electric circuit switching device (40) further comprising: a pair of second conductor pieces (See Figure of Claim 1) provided inserted, in a spaced apart state (See Figure of Claim 1: the pair of second conductor pieces are spaced apart from each other via 54 and 60, similar to figure 5 of Applicant’s figures), into the tubular space (44 and 70), and forming part of the second electric circuit (Fig.5: circuit created by 46) in cooperation with each other (Fig.5: the second conductor pieces cooperate with each other to form at least a part of the second electric circuit), wherein in the initial state (See Fig.5), the pair of second conductor pieces (See Fig.5) are electrically connected to each other via the projectile (54) (Fig.5: 54 electrically connects the pair of second conductor pieces), causing the second electric circuit (Fig.5: circuit created by 46) to be in the conductive state (See Fig.5), and an electrical connection between the pair of second conductor pieces via the projectile (54) is disconnected when the projectile (54) is projected in the projecting direction (68) (Figs.5-6: once 56 actuates 52, an electrical connection between the pair of second conductor pieces is broken via 54 moving and projecting in the predetermined projecting direction), switching the second electric circuit (Fig.5: circuit created by 46) from the conductive state (See Fig.5) to the interrupted state (See Fig.6).
Regarding claim 3, Kern further discloses:
See next page→
Wherein in the initial state (See Fig.5), the base body (the body of 54 itself will define the base body) is interposed between (See Figure of Claim 1: the body of 54 that defines the base body is between the pair of second conductor pieces) the pair of second conductor pieces (See Figure of Claim 1), the base body (the body of 54 itself will define the base body) being integrally connected (See Fig.5 and Figure of Claim 1: 54, and thus the base body, is integrally formed/connected with the pair of second conductor pieces to be a single piece that is then broken when 56 is actuated) with the pair of second conductor pieces (See Figure of Claim 1), and the base body (the body of 54 itself will define the base body) is separated (See Fig.6) from each of the pair of second conductor pieces (See Figure of Claim 1) by the energy of the combustion gas ([0045] and [0049]).
Regarding claims 7 and 10-11, Kern further discloses:
A piston (52) disposed in the tubular space (44 and 70), interposedly between (See Fig.5) the igniter (56) and the base body (the body of 54 itself will define the base body), and configured to be projected in the projecting direction (68) by the energy of the combustion gas ([0045] and [0049]) (Figs.5-6: 54 has a projection that projects in the predetermined projecting direction 68 by the energy of the combustion gas created by 56).
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern (WO 9741582) and Suzuki (US 20100328014) (of record, cited in the IDS) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Marlin (US 20210082645).
Regarding claims 4 and 8-9, modified Kern does not teach:
Wherein each of the pair of first conductor pieces is provided with an insertion hole into which a corresponding one of the pair of protrusions of the projectile projected is insertable, and each of the pair of protrusions comes into contact with an edge portion of the insertion hole, switching the first electric circuit from the interrupted state to the conductive state.
Marlin however teaches (Figs.1A-B and 3A-C):
Wherein the first conductor (50) is provided with an insertion hole (52a and b) into which a corresponding one of the pair of protrusions (44a and 44b) of the projectile (40) projected is insertable (See Fig.3C, [0043], and [0052]), and each of the pair of protrusions (44a and b) comes into contact with an edge portion (Figs.1A-B: the outer edges of 52a and 52b) of the insertion hole (52a and b) (Fig.3C: 44a and 44b will come into contact with the outer edges, and thus the edge portion, of their corresponding 52a and 52b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Marlin to further modify the device of modified Kern such that each of the pair of conductor pieces has an insertion hole into which a corresponding one of the pair of protrusions of the projectile projected is insertable so that each of the pair of protrusions come into contact with an edge portion of the insertion hole to switch the first electric circuit from the interrupted state to the conductive state, as respectively claimed in claim 4 and 8-9, in order to further improve the electrical and mechanical connection between the projectile and the pair of first conductor pieces (i.e., by forming each of the pair of first conductor pieces with the insertion hole, the pair of protrusions can be “locked” to the pair first conductor pieces to form a mechanical-like lock between the components to create a secure connection due to the greater contact area between the projectile and the pair of first conductor pieces, and thus better ensure that the projectile is electrically secured to the pair of first conductor pieces).
Regarding claim 5 Marlin further teaches:
Wherein a wedge portion having a wedge shape is formed at a distal end side of each of the pair of protrusions (44a and 44b) ([0046]: the “chamfered edges” will define the “wedge portion” and will have a wedge shape, and the wedge portions are each provided at a distal end side of their respective 44a and 44b that faces 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the above teaching of Marlin to further modify the device of modified Kern such that each of the pair of protrusions has a wedge portion that has a wedge shape that is formed at a distal end side of each of the pair of protrusions, as claimed, in order to achieve the improved connection as outlined in claim 4 above.
Furthermore, modifying the shape of the protrusions such that it has a desired shape, including as claimed (i.e., the ends being tapered to form a wedge portion with a wedge shape at a distal end side of each of the pair portions), would have been an obvious modification that one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would do in order to achieve the improved connection as outlined in claim 4 above, since a change in shape is generally recognizing as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Finally, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined/modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15-16, Kern further discloses:
See next page→
A piston (52) disposed in the tubular space (44 and 70), interposedly between (See Fig.5) the igniter (56) and the base body (the body of 54 itself will define the base body), and configured to be projected in the projecting direction (68) by the energy of the combustion gas ([0045] and [0049]) (Figs.5-6: 54 has a projection that projects in the predetermined projecting direction 68 by the energy of the combustion gas created by 56).
Allowable Subject Matter
The Office notes that claim 6 can be allowed if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or if Applicant amends independent claim 1 such that it further includes the subject matter of claims 4-6 (i.e., add the limitations of claims 4-6 to independent claim 1), subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above and subject to Applicant overcoming the double patenting rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the allowability resides in the overall structure and functionality of the device as recited in the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 4-6, and at least in part, because claim 6 recites the limitations: “wherein when the pair of protrusions are inserted into the insertion holes, respectively, a leg portion of each of the pair of protrusions, the leg portion being positioned closer to the base body side than the wedge portion, is configured to push and widen the insertion hole”.
The aforementioned limitations, in combination with all remaining limitations of respective claim 6, are believed to render the combined subject matter of claims 1 and 4-6, and all claims depending therefrom allowable over the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above and subject to Applicant overcoming the double patenting rejection.
The Office notes that while there are prior art references that teach a pair of protrusions that fit into corresponding slots and each of the pair of protrusions having a leg portion and a wedge portion (e.g., Marlin (US 20210082645)), none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, teach a leg portion that widens or is capable of widening an insertion hole. In other words, while the structure of the protrusions is known in the art, the function of a leg portion of a protrusion widening an insertion hole is not taught or suggested in any of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination. Furthermore, even if one were to find a prior art reference that teaches a projection with a leg protrusion that can widen an insertion hole, the Office notes absent impermissible hindsight, there is no reason for one of ordinary skill in the pertinent arts to modify the device of Kern such that it has the structure as respectively claimed in claim 6. For all of the reasons outlined above, none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to render the claimed invention unpatentable as claimed in claim 6.
Furthermore, none of the Office actions provided in the Global Dossier have a rejection for claim 6 since they all state that claim 4 is in condition for allowance. In other words, all of the Office actions provided in the Global Dossier have indicated claim 4 as allowable and thus provide no rejection for claim 6. The Office has also fully considered all of the references provided in the Global Dossier, and none of the prior art references, taken alone or in combination, are believed to teach and/or suggest the limitations of claim 6.
For all of the reasons outlined above, claim 6 is believed to be allowable, subject to the obviation of the objections outlined above and subject to Applicant overcoming the double patenting rejection. The Office recommends that Applicant submit a terminal disclaimer (TD) to overcome the double patenting rejection, amend the claims to address the claim objections, and to amend independent claim 1 such that it incorporates the subject matter of claims 4-6 in order to best advance prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220189723: teaches a projectile with a pair of protrusions that extend from a base body in a predetermined projecting direction.
DE 212019000419: teaches a projectile with a pair of protrusions that extend from a base body in a predetermined projecting direction.
WO 2019224469: teaches a projectile with a plurality of protrusions that can exemplify what the modified projectile outlined in the rejection of claim 1 can look like.
US 20170076890: teaches a projectile with a pair of protrusions that extend from a base body in a predetermined projecting direction.
US 20130126326: teaches a pyrotechnic switch that utilizes a plurality of conductors/busbars.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at (571)272-3740. 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.
/STEPHEN S SUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights