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 .
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 18-21, 24-28, 30, 33-35, 37, 40-43, 45 and 48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,173,996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to substantially the same structure of claims 1-27 with the omission of limitations like fragmenting rings which is an obvious matter of omission.
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.
Claim(s) 18-20, 24-25, 33-34, 37, 40 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al., hereafter Wilson, US Patent Publication No. 2012/0291654 in view of Treadway et al., hereafter Treadway, US Patent No. 8,904,936.
Regarding claim 18, Wilson discloses a modular warhead comprising: an outer warhead subassembly (assembly of 100, 300 inter alia) defining a core slot (cavity of 300 filled by 400), the outer warhead subassembly including: a warhead body (100); and a warhead high explosive (300) operative, when detonated, to drive fragments from the warhead body ([0026]); and a core subassembly (400, 200 inter alia) mounted in the core slot and including: a forward effector (200) in or on the core tube; and a core high explosive (400) disposed in the core slot and operative, when detonated, to drive the forward effector ([0027]); however, Wilson does not specifically disclose the core slot having a core tube formed of a non-explosive material. Nonetheless, Treadway teaches a barrier (shown in figures 4C and 4D for example) positioned in a core slot between a core explosive and an outer explosive and the barrier being non-explosive material.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Wilson to have a barrier similar to that as taught by Treadway with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a warhead with selectable effects with multiple explosive sections like Wilson and also prevent unintentional sympathetic detonation of the section which is not intended to be detonated similar to that as taught by Treadway in 9:39-12:10 for example.
Regarding claim 19, Wilson as modified by Treadway further discloses the warhead high explosive is tubular and radially surrounds the core slot (Wilson, figure 1 for example)
Regarding claim 20, Wilson as modified by Treadway further discloses an array of fragments or at least one preferentially fragmenting member radially surrounding the warhead high explosive (Wilson 100 as in [0026])
Regarding claim 24, Wilson as modified by Treadway further discloses the warhead is configured to detonate the core high explosive; the detonated core high explosive generates a detonation shock wave in the core tube to drive the forward effector; and the core tube shapes the detonation shock wave (Wilson discloses the core charge driving the forward effector in [0027] and, as modified by Treadway, the core charge is surrounded by a barrier which shapes or attenuates the detonation wave as taught in Treadway 10:39-60)
Regarding claim 25, Wilson as modified by Treadway further discloses the forward effector includes at least one of an explosively formed projectile, an anti-armor flyer, and a shaped charge jet (Wilson and Treadway, figure 4C-4D, both disclose a forward projecting fragmentation configuration; however, Treadway also considers a shaped charge configuration in figure 4E. Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Wilson to utilize a shaped charge forward end similar to that as taught by Treadway with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate penetration of a target as an obvious design choice based on desired effect as taught by Treadway in 11:46-58)
Regarding claim 33, Wilson discloses a munition (Abstract) comprising: a munition platform (figure 1 for example is broadly, yet reasonably a munition platform); and a modular warhead on the munition platform for flight therewith, the modular warhead including: an outer warhead (100 and 300 inter alia) subassembly defining a core slot (cavity inside of 300 containing 400), the outer warhead subassembly including: a warhead body (100); and a warhead high explosive (300) operative, when detonated, to drive fragments from the warhead body ([0026]); and a core subassembly (400 and 200 inter alia) mounted in the core slot and including: a forward effector (200) in or on the core tube; and a core high explosive (400) disposed in the core slot and operative, when detonated, to drive the forward effector ([0027]); however, Wilson does not specifically disclose the core slot having a core tube formed of a non-explosive material. Nonetheless, Treadway teaches a barrier (shown in figures 4C and 4D for example) positioned in a core slot between a core explosive and an outer explosive and the barrier being non-explosive material.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Wilson to have a barrier similar to that as taught by Treadway with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a warhead with selectable effects with multiple explosive sections like Wilson and also prevent unintentional sympathetic detonation of the section which is not intended to be detonated similar to that as taught by Treadway in 9:39-12:10 for example.
Regarding claim 34, Wilson discloses a modular warhead (figure 1 for example) comprising: a warhead body (100); a warhead high explosive (300) in the warhead body and operative, when detonated, to drive fragments from the warhead body ([0026]); a core slot interior of 300 containing 400 for example) in the warhead high explosive; and a forward effector system including: a core high explosive (400) in the core slot; and a forward effector located (200) at or proximate a front end of the detonation wave shaping wall; wherein the core high explosive is operative, when detonated, to generate a detonation shock wave that drives the forward effector ([0027]); however, Wilson does not specifically disclose the core slot having a tubular detonation wave shaping wall surrounding the core explosive and formed of a non-explosive material. Nonetheless, Treadway teaches a barrier (shown in figures 4C and 4D for example) positioned in a core slot between a core explosive and an outer explosive and the barrier being non-explosive material.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Wilson to have a barrier similar to that as taught by Treadway with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a warhead with selectable effects with multiple explosive sections like Wilson and also prevent unintentional sympathetic detonation of the section which is not intended to be detonated similar to that as taught by Treadway in 9:39-12:10 for example.
Wilson therefore discloses the core charge driving the forward effector in [0027] and, as modified by Treadway, the core charge is surrounded by a barrier which shapes or attenuates the detonation wave as taught in Treadway 10:39-60 and is operative to shape the detonation shock wave.
Regarding claim 37, Wilson as modified by Treadway further discloses an array of fragments or at least one preferentially fragmenting member radially surrounding the warhead high explosive. (Wilson 100 as in [0026])
Regarding claim 40, Wilson as modified by Treadway further discloses the forward effector includes at least one of an explosively formed projectile, an anti-armor flyer, and a shaped charge jet (Wilson and Treadway, figure 4C-4D, both disclose a forward projecting fragmentation configuration; however, Treadway also considers a shaped charge configuration in figure 4E. Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Wilson to utilize a shaped charge forward end similar to that as taught by Treadway with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate penetration of a target as an obvious design choice based on desired effect as taught by Treadway in 11:46-58)
Regarding claim 48, Wilson discloses a munition (Abstract) comprising: a munition platform (figure 1 for example is broadly, yet reasonably a munition platform); and a modular warhead on the munition platform for flight therewith, the modular warhead including: a warhead body (100); a warhead high explosive (300) in the warhead body and operative, when detonated, to drive fragments from the warhead body ([0026]); a core slot (interior of 300 containing 400) in the warhead high explosive; and a forward effector system including: a core high explosive (400) in the core slot; and a forward effector located (200) at or proximate a front end of the detonation wave shaping wall; wherein the core high explosive is operative, when detonated, to generate a detonation shock wave that drives the forward effector ([0027]); however, Wilson does not specifically disclose the core slot having a tubular detonation wave shaping wall surrounding the core explosive and formed of a non-explosive material. Nonetheless, Treadway teaches a barrier (shown in figures 4C and 4D for example) positioned in a core slot between a core explosive and an outer explosive and the barrier being non-explosive material.
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Wilson to have a barrier similar to that as taught by Treadway with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a warhead with selectable effects with multiple explosive sections like Wilson and also prevent unintentional sympathetic detonation of the section which is not intended to be detonated similar to that as taught by Treadway in 9:39-12:10 for example.
Wilson therefore discloses the core charge driving the forward effector in [0027] and, as modified by Treadway, the core charge is surrounded by a barrier which shapes or attenuates the detonation wave as taught in Treadway 10:39-60 and is operative to shape the detonation shock wave.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 26-28, 30, 35, 41-43 and 45 are only rejected under the double patenting rejection above but would otherwise be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and approval of a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DERRICK R MORGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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 5712726874. 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.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641