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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and species A(a), B(d), and C(k), in the reply filed on 08 May 2026, is acknowledged. The claims readable upon the elected invention/species are claims 1-4, 12, 15, 16, and 20. Claims 5-11, 13, 14, 17-19, and 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The remainder of the instant Office Action is directed to claims 1-4, 12, 15, 16, and 20.
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 3, 4, and 20 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the adhesive substance of the different elastic materials" in lines 3-4. Further, claim 3 recites the limitation “the other one or more elastic materials” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider claim 3, lines 3-5, as reading: “least the adhesive substance, which is one of the different elastic materials, is formed, and another one or more of the different elastic materials forms a cushioning structure.” Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the attachment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the examiner will considers said limitation as reading “the attachment portion.” Correction and/or clarification are required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma (CN 101788249 A).
In reference to claim 1, Ma discloses a location-tracking projectile attachment comprising:
a head having predetermined viscosity to be able to be attached to an attachment target (head 200; see provided translation, page 4, lines 28-31), and
a body coupled to the head and accommodating electric parts therein (body 300; electric parts 500 + RFID chip and antenna; see translation, page 1, lines 38-50, page 2, lines 1-3, and page 5, lines 9-11).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Sun et al. (CN 107091594 A; “Sun”).
Ma discloses the claimed invention, including wherein the head includes an adhesive substance and is composed of at least one elastic material (see above-citations), but fails to explicitly disclose the head as composed of different elastic materials, at least one forming the adhesive substance and another forming a cushioning structure. However, Ma clearly implies the head (200) can be formed by a plurality of elastic materials such as synthetic resin and synthetic rubber (translation, page 4, lines 28-31, “at least one of”).
Further, Sun teaches it is known to form the head of a location-tracking projectile with a cushioning structure formed from an elastic material, in addition to an adhesive attachment portion formed from an elastic material, in order to prevent damage to a target upon impact while allowing adhesion of the projectile to said target (page 3, lines 20-33: cushioning structure 3, adhesive attachment portion 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the head of Ma with an adhesive attachment portion formed from at least one elastic material and a cushioning structure formed from a different elastic material, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent damage to a target upon impact while allowing for adhesion of the projectile to said target, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Paul, Jr. (4065753; “Paul”), and further in view of Plew et al. (7207274; “Plew”).
Ma discloses the claimed invention, except for the honeycomb structure, as claimed. However, Ma discloses that the electric parts are surrounded by a buffer layer (510), i.e., a reinforcing portion, that is disposed within the internal cavity (400) defined by the body (translation, page 5, lines 13-17; page 6, lines 15-22). Ma does not explicitly disclose the buffer layer as formed in at least a section of the inner circumferential surface of the cavity, e.g., lining said surface.
Paul teaches it is known provide at buffer layer of a projectile, similar to that of Ma, as formed in at least a section of the inner circumferential surface of a cavity of said projectile, in order to provide robust shock resistance for electric parts contained within the buffer layer (figure 1, buffer layer 26; column 5, lines 26-29). Further, Plew teaches it is known to form the buffer layer of a projectile, similar to that of Ma, as a honeycomb structure to provide a lightweight buffer layer that is also strong in compression for damping the force the impact (column 13, lines 10-20).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the buffer layer, i.e., reinforcing portion, of Ma as a honeycomb structure formed in at least a section of the inner circumferential surface of a cavity of said projectile, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a lightweight, robust buffer layer that is also strong in compression for damping the force of impact.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Bass (2010/0093270).
Ma discloses the location-tracking projectile attachment of claim 1, but fails to disclose a case in which said location-tracking projectile attachment of claim 1 is seated and charged, the case comprising: an accommodation hole corresponding to the body; a sensor sensing whether the body is seated; and a power connector connected to a power supply. However, it is noted that Ma discloses the electric parts as an RFID chip and firmware with a long distance, high-frequency transmitting device (page 3, lines 30-32), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage that such disclosure encompasses battery-powered RFIDs.
Bass teaches it is known to provide a projectile having electric parts and a battery with a case in which the projectile is seated and charged, the case comprising: an accommodation hole corresponding to the body; a sensor sensing whether the body is seated; and a power connector connected to a power supply, in order to provide a means for charging and communicating projectile before launch or after retrieval (figure 6 and paragraph 48: case 124 shown with a hole into which projectile 12 can be seated, two of elements 126 can be considered sensors, as claimed, and another two of elements 126 can be considered power connectors as claimed; alternatively circuit board 130 can be considered the power connector or the sensor).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the projectile attachment of Ma with a case in which the projectile is seated and charged, the case comprising: an accommodation hole corresponding to the body; a sensor sensing whether the body is seated; and a power connector connected to a power supply, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means for charging and communicating projectile before launch or after retrieval.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Bass, and further in view of Donahoe et al. (2011/0172039).
Ma in view of Bass (the modified Ma) makes obvious the claimed invention, except for a guide protrusion corresponding to a spiral guide groove formed on an outer circumferential surface of the body is formed on an inner circumferential surface of the accommodating hole.
Donahoe teaches it is known to provide a projectile charging case with a guide protrusion corresponding to a spiral guide groove formed on an outer circumferential surface of a body of a projectile attachment is formed on an inner circumferential surface of a projectile attachment accommodating hole, in order to provide positive retention of the projectile attachment in the accommodating hole (figure 12 and paragraph 91: accommodating hole 192 includes a guide protrusion, i.e., threading, corresponding to a spiral groove, i.e., threading, formed on the projectile attachment 20).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the projectile attachment and case of the modified Ma with a guide protrusion corresponding to a spiral guide groove formed on an outer circumferential surface of the body of the projectile attachment is formed on an inner circumferential surface of the accommodating hole, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide positive retention of the projectile attachment in the accommodating hole.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Song (KR 20150074616 A).
Ma discloses the claimed invention, except for wherein the attachment portion is provided such that an identification substance is exposed on an area facing the attachment target, and the identification substance is a fluorescent substance.
Song teaches it is known to form a projectile attachment, like that of Ma, wherein an attachment portion is provided such that an identification substance is exposed on an area facing an attachment target (e.g., after impact with the target), and the identification substance is a fluorescent substance, in order to mark a target with a clearly visible cue (page 3, third to last paragraph, “display means 31” can be a “fluorescent dye”; figures, element 31).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the attachment portion of Ma such that the attachment portion is provided with an identification substance that is exposed on an area facing the attachment target (e.g., after impact with the target), and the identification substance is a fluorescent substance, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to mark a target with a clearly visible cue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8229. The examiner can normally be reached 11:30am-8pm.
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.
GABRIEL J. KLEIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3641
/Gabriel J. Klein/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights