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 . This action is in response to Application #19/017,918 filed on 13 January 2025.
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 7-8 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.
Claims 7-8 recites the limitation "said rigid outer shell". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-4, 7-15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 8,434,411 issued to Daoud et al (Daoud).
Regarding Claims 1, 11-12, Daoud discloses a device for producing focused explosions in a fluid, comprising:
a rigid outer shell (30);
an explosive body (fig.3) / filling (26) comprising a plurality of hollows lined with a coating of copper or aluminum or alloys (at least column 1 lines 19-21), extending inwardly along respective axes towards an apex (at least column 7 lines 2-5);
at least one detonation point within said explosive body, each axis and corresponding apex being aligned with at least one said detonation point (22/54, see fig.4 center point 52 of each liner aligning with center point 54); and
wherein said fluid extends inwardly of said hollows (see fig.7 inside area opposite charge 26).
Regarding Claims 2, 13, Daoud discloses hollows are symmetrical along an axis extending into said explosive filling and/or cone shaped (see fig.7).
Regarding Claims 3, 14, Daoud discloses the hollows have bases at the surface of the explosive filling each base having a respective radius (see figs. 3, 7).
Regarding Claims 4, 15, Daoud discloses the explosive filling is covered with an outer coating extending into said hollows (at least column 6 lines 54-55 disclose the housing 30 is fabricated from aluminum; and the liners 36 into the hollows are coated with copper, aluminum, etc… see at least column 7 lines 27-35).
Regarding Claims 7, 18-19, Daoud discloses the rigid outer shell comprises one member of the group consisting of metal and comprises aluminum (at least column 6 lines 54-55).
Regarding Claim 8, Daoud discloses the rigid outer shell describes at least part of a sphere (see figure 3).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Daoud discloses the fluid is water and the device is configured for use in an underwater environment (at least column 3 lines 62-64).
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) 5-6, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,434,411 issued to Daoud et al (Daoud).
Regarding Claims 5, 16, Daoud discloses the explosive filling is covered with an outer coating but fails to disclose electroplating. However, the structural limitation is met, and the method of electroplating would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill as selecting one of a known number of options for applying the coating.
Regarding Claims 6, 17, Daoud discloses the outer coating comprises one member of the group consisting of copper and aluminum alloys (at least column 6 lines 54-55 disclose the housing 30 is fabricated from aluminum; and the liners 36 into the hollows are coated with copper, aluminum, etc… see at least column 7 lines 27-35).
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 1-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,196,532. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued patent contains all of the claimed limitations with the exception of claims 9-10. However, utilizing the patented invention in any environment would have been an obvious use and the intended use of an apparatus without a structural difference would have been rendered obvious by the patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for pertinent art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D COOPER whose telephone number is (571)270-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 - 4:30 MST.
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.
/JOHN COOPER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641