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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS documents submitted 1/16/2025, 3/26/2025, 9/5/2025, 12/24/2025 and 5/7/2026 are acknowledged and have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 10/17/2024 are acknowledged and acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I including claims 1, 7-9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28 and 31 in the reply filed on 2/5/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "total length of shear edge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 20, 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Halander et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0233347).
In regards to claim 1, Halander et al (henceforth referred to as Halander) disclose an explosives delivery system, comprising:
a flow path configured to receive a stream of an energetic material. Figure 2 of Halander illustrates the disclosed energetic material flow path.
Comprising:
one or more injection ports configured to deliver a stream of a gas from a gas source
into the flow path. Halander describes injecting gas into the emulsion to from gas bubbles (par. 8);
a plurality of modules configured to combine the gas with the energetic material
and to produce a sensitized explosive. Halander teaches multiple components of a system that produces and delivers a sensitized, homogenized emulsion to a borehole (par. 28);
a homogenizer fluidically connected to the plurality of modules and configured to
homogenize the sensitized explosive to produce a homogenized explosive, wherein the homogenizer comprises at least one homogenizing stage. Halander shows the homogenizer as item 230 in figure 2 where the emulsion is subjected to shear stress; and
a delivery conduit comprising a hose fluidically connected to the homogenizer and
configured to convey the homogenized explosive to a borehole. Halander teaches delivery of a homogenized emulsion to a borehole via a hose (par. 27).
In regards to claim 20, Halander discloses that the at least one homogenizing stage comprises a shear set comprising a first shear member and a second shear member. Halander teaches a shear stress inducing component that includes at least two components that induce a shear on the emulsion (par. 25), Halander also inherently teaches each including at least one shear edge, wherein the at least one shear edge of the first shear member is opposite at least one shear edge of the second shear member across a gap. Note that Halander teaches a valve or the like to induce shear stress on the emulsion and includes two opposing “shear edges” to constrict flow and induce shear (par. 25); and
wherein the homogenizer is configured to direct the stream through the gap. Halander teaches that the emulsion enters a homogenizer and then is directed through a shear inducing valve (par. 25).
In regards to claim 21, Halander discloses that the first shear member and the second shear member each include a plurality of shear edges thus opposed across the gap. The disclosed valve of Halander includes two opposed members with edges constituting a first and second shear edge.
In regards to claim 25, Halander discloses that a width of the gap in the shear set is adjustable. Note that the gap of the valve of Halander is adjustable.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halander et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0233347).
In regards to claim 15, Halander discloses, in its multiple “modules” of the system, a valve constituting a “pre-shear” valve that includes an aperture that induces shear into the emulsion and is situated across the flow path so that the stream is divided and directed through the hole, and wherein the hole is configured to impart shear on the stream, but fails to teach that the valve includes a plurality of holes. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide multiple of the disclosed shear inducing apertures of Halander, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to claim 26, Halander fails to disclose that the homogenizer comprises 2 to 5 homogenizing stages, and wherein a total length of shear edge in the homogenizer is about 1 cm to about 810 cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide any number of stages to the homogenizer of Halander and configure any of various sizes to the shear edges of the valve (various valve sizes) of Halander to accommodate different amounts of emulsion flow and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halander et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0233347) in view of Smith, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 6,125,761).
In regards to claim 28, Halander does not explicitly disclose that the homogenizer further comprises at least one mixer, and wherein the at least one mixer comprises a plurality of holes arranged in a series, wherein each hole in the series is unaligned with an adjacent hole in the series. However, Smith, Jr. et al (henceforth referred to as Smith) teaches an emulsion device that may utilize a shear inducing homogenizer including a mixing component (col. 5, lines 3-32) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide any of various mixing configurations in/on the homogenizer of Halander, including a mixing component with a series of apertures as taught by Smith, to further mix and induce shear.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halander et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0233347) in view of Cruywagen et al. (Great Britain Patent Document GB 2,204,343).
In regards to claim 31, Halander does not explicitly disclose that the delivery conduit further comprises a nozzle fluidically connected to the hose and configured to eject the homogenized explosive into the borehole. However, Cruywagen et al (henceforth referred to as Cruywagen) teaches an emulsion device including a nozzle that injects emulsion into a bore hole (see item 16 of figures 1-3) and it would have been obvious t to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a nozzle as disclosed by Cruywagen in/on the emulsion device of Halander, to inject emulsion into bore hole, As modified, the the nozzle includes a homogenizer comprising a first shear member and a second shear member, each including at least one shear edge,
wherein at least one shear edge of the first shear member is opposite at least one
shear edge of the second shear member across a gap. Cruywagen teaches that the nozzle includes a homogenizer inducing shear via at least two opposed narrowing surfaces (pg. 15, lines 26-31 and pg. 16, lines 1-2); and
The configuration of Cruywagen teaches that said homogenizer is configured to direct the stream through the gap. The emulsion is directed through the “gap” in the nozzle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 9, 13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 7, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 7, an injector assembly disposed coaxially within the flow path and comprising: an axial channel configured to receive the stream of gas from an injection port; and one or more radial channels in fluid communication with the axial channel and configured to direct the stream of gas outward to converge with the flow path. With respect to claim 9, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 9, a gas injection cassette comprising a plurality of channels configured to divide the stream into fractions.
With respect to claim 18, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 18, a valve that is rotatable so as to reverse an orientation of the holes relative to the flow path.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1,15, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28 and 31 are rejected and claims 7, 8, 9, 13 and 18 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights