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 information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 18 March 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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 2-8, 10, 12, and 14-15 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.
The term “about” in claim 2-8, 10, 12, and 14-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The values following the term "about" in the claims listed above are rendered indefinite by the use of the term "about" because there is nothing in the specification, claims, or prior art that provides any indication as to what range is covered by the term "about".
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0373745 by Carlson et al (Carlson) in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0079722 by Parish (Parish).
Regarding claim 1, Carlson discloses a marking projectile (See at least Figures, Title, and Abstract) comprising: a frangible polymeric shell (See at least Paragraph 0014) comprising a cylindrical portion and having an interior cavity (See Figures, clearly illustrated), wherein the frangible shell is configured to engage rifling in a barrel so that the marking projectile spins when fired through the barrel (See at least Paragraph 0011); and a marking composition within the interior cavity, the marking composition being a non-aqueous shear-thinning fluid and comprising: an organic solvent, and optionally, a colorant (See Entire Disclosure, details mentioned throughout).
Carlson does not disclose the use of a thickener or a surfactant.
Parish, a related prior art reference, discloses a thickener and a surfactant (See at least Paragraphs 0103-0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted teachings of Carlson with the noted teachings of Parish. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would have been reduce movement of the liquid in the body of the projectile to prevent deleterious flight impacts and improve overall accuracy of the projectile.
Regarding claim 4, Parish further discloses wherein: (i) the thickener of the marking composition comprises a fumed silica; (ii) the thickener is present in the marking composition in an amount of from about 10 to about 19 wt.%, based on the total weight of the marking composition; or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (See at least Paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 7, Parish further discloses wherein: (i) the surfactant of the marking composition comprises at least one anionic surfactant; (ii) the surfactant is present in the marking composition in an amount of from about 5 to about 15 wt.%, based on the total weight of the marking composition; or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (See at least Paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 10, Carlson further discloses wherein marking composition comprises the colorant, and wherein the colorant is present in an amount of from about 1 to about 10, alternatively from about 2 to about 6 wt.%, based on the total weight of the marking composition (See at least Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 13, Carlson further discloses wherein the marking composition: (i) is substantially free from water; (ii) is substantially free from volatile organic compounds (VOCs); or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (See at least Claim 5).
Regarding claim 16, Carlson further discloses a combination with a casing and a propelling system comprising an energetic material the projectile disposed in the mouth of the casing (See at least Paragraph 0054 and Figures, clearly illustrated).
Regarding claim 17, Carlson further discloses wherein the energetic material comprises: (i) a primer; (ii) a propellant; or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (See at least Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 18, Carlson further discloses a non-lethal marking projectile used in place of a cartridge having a bullet (See at least Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Carlson further discloses wherein the cartridge is further defined as a 5.56 mm cartridge or a 9 mm cartridge (See at least Claims 20 and 21).
Regarding claim 20, Carlson further discloses in combination with a reduced energy cartridge adapted to propel the marking projectile with gases generated only by at least one primer (See at least Paragraph 0054).
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-15, Carlson as modified by Parish discloses the claimed invention except for the specific values and elements listed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have [claim 2] wherein: (i) the organic solvent of the marking composition comprises a polyethylene glycol having a weight average molecular weight (MW) of from about 150 to about 600, alternatively of from about 200 to about 300; (ii) the organic solvent is present in the marking composition in an amount of from about 55 to about 85 wt.%, based on the total weight of the marking composition; or (iii) both (i) and (ii); [claim 3] wherein the marking composition comprises from about 60 to about 80 wt.%, alternatively from about 65 to about 80 wt.% of the organic solvent, and wherein the organic solvent consists essentially of polyethylene glycol 200; [claim 5] wherein the marking composition comprises from about 12 to about 17 wt.% of the thickener, and wherein the thickener consists essentially of a polydimethylsiloxane-functionalized fumed silica; [claim 6] wherein the marking composition comprises the organic solvent and the thickener in a wt./wt. ratio of from about 3.5 to about 4.5 or from about 5.6 to about 6.3, alternatively from about 4 to about 4.2 or from about 5.76 to about 6.25; [claim 8] wherein the marking composition comprises from about 8 to about 12 wt.% of the surfactant, and wherein the surfactant comprises at least one organic sodium sulfonate; [claim 9] wherein the surfactant: (i) comprises sodium C14-C16 alpha olefin sulfonate, sodium xylenesulfonate, or combinations thereof; (ii) is utilized in the marking composition in the form of a spray-dried powder or bead; or (iii) both (i) and (ii); [claim 11] wherein the colorant is further defined as a dye, and where the dye comprises a thermoset, fluorescent pigment; [claim 12] wherein the marking composition comprises: from about 70 to about 80 wt.% of polyethylene glycol 200; from about 10 to about 16 wt.% of a polydimethylsiloxane-functionalized fumed silica; from about 8 to about 12 wt.% of a mixture of sodium C14-C16 alpha olefin sulfonate and sodium xylenesulfonate; and from about 2 to about 5 wt.% of a thermoset fluorescent dye, each based on the total weight of the marking composition; [claim 14] wherein the marking composition exhibits: (i) a 3 Hz viscosity of from about 280 to about 520 Pa·s throughout a temperature range of from about -15 °C to about 80 °C, alternatively of from about -8 °C to about 65 °C; (ii) a 50 Hz viscosity of from about 3 to about 5 Pa·s throughout a temperature range of from about -15 °C to about 80 °C, alternatively of from about -8 °C to about 65 °C; or (iii) both (i) and (ii); and [claim 15] wherein the marking composition has a spin-stabilizing viscosity that is greater than an impact dispersing viscosity, such that the impact dispersing viscosity of the marking composition decreases with the rate of shear at impact with a target, where the impact dispersing viscosity of the marking composition is less than about 30 Pa·s at a shear rate of about 20 Hz or greater at about 25 °C., and the spin-stabilizing viscosity of the marking composition is greater than about 500 Pa·s at shear rates less than about 3 Hz at about 25 °C, since applicant has not disclosed that such features solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a wide variety of other ranges and/or elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 Form for a listing of applicable prior art references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C WEBER whose telephone number is (571)270-5377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM 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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 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 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.
/Jonathan C Weber/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3641
JONATHAN C. WEBER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3641