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 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 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deppert (20160159708) in view of Hamermesh (3255059).
Regarding claims 10, 15, 16, Deppert discloses a propellant composition that includes HTPB (0044) from 5-90 % (0045), isocyanate curing agent (0050 and 0051) from .5-4 % (0051), aluminum powder (0046) from 2-20 % (0046), ammonium perchlorate (0028) from 10-90 % (0031), iron oxide catalyst (0047) up to 10 % (0047), and additives (0047). Deppert discloses that the ammonium perchlorate can range in size from 5-250 micron (0030) but does not disclose a trimodal distribution within that range.
Hamermesh discloses a propellant composition that includes ammonium perchlorate oxidizer and indicates that trimodal blends can be utilized to promote further fluidity in the propellant (col.8, lines 52-57).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the trimodal ammonium perchlorate as taught by Hamermesh with the propellant of Deppert since Hamermesh discloses that a trimodal blend can be utilized to promote further fluidity in the propellant and since both patents relate to similar ammonium perchlorate containing propellants. It is also obvious to vary the parameters such as specific sizes of the trimodal blend with the resultant ratios of sizes to achieve a desired result since Deppert discloses the claimed range of particles i.e. 5-250 microns and since Hamersmith identifies that these trimodal properties result in an improved fluidity of the propellant. 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).
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 17, the OH value, viscosity, weight ratio, and burn rate are the same as Deppert since the same claimed ingredients are used with amounts.
Regarding claim 14, Deppert discloses crosslinkers (0044).
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deppert (20160159708) in view of Hamermesh (3255059) as applied above and further in view of Helmy (20030037850).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Helmy teaches a similar ammonium perchlorate and HTPB propellant composition that includes toluene diisocyanate (0038) and a heat producing combustible igniter (0015) that ignites that main propellant (meets pyrogen by the definition).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the toluene diisocyanate as taught by Hemly since Hemlmy indicates that it is a known curing agent for use with HTPB proepllanst and since Deppert indicates that many different isocyanate curing agents can be used. It is also obvious to ignite the composition as taught by Deppert and Hamermesh using a heat producing combustible igniter (0015) that ignites that main propellant since that is how a propellant is used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the bonding agent but note that Deppert discloses the same bonding agent. Further the details regarding the surfaces between the binder and oxidizer are not recited in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the additional components in the Deppert composition but note that the claim scope is open ended and does not exclude additional components. Applicant argues the iron oxide component but note that Deppert discloses iron oxide catalyst (0047) up to 10 % (0047) which meets the claim limitations.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Applicant argues the teaching of Hamermesh but note that this reference is cited for teaching a propellant with ammonium perchlorate oxidizer and indicates that trimodal blends can be utilized to promote further fluidity in the propellant (col.8, lines 52-57). One of ordinary skill could clearly select a trimodal mix of ammonium perchlorate within the ranges of particles sizes to optimize the result identified in Hamermesh which is to promote further fluidity in the propellant.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The additional components in Hamermesh are not relied upon in the rejection. Further, the ACR is not claimed so it would not change the scope of the instant claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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