Detailed Action
The following is a non-final rejection made in response to claims received on March 14th 2025. 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
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,252,453. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2006/0144279 (hereinafter referred to as “SHOCK TUBE SYSTEMS”, “STS”, or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claim 1, STS teaches a shock tube system comprising: a covering made from a flexible or elastic material (via polymer or “shrink wrap” cover 28), the covering defining an interior portion (24); a bundle of shock tubing (22) disposed within the interior portion (see Fig. 10), the covering applying a compression fit on the bundle of shock tubing (see Fig. 10), the bundle of shock tubing having a first end (26b) and a second end (26a), the first end being configured to couple with an initiator device (36), the second end being configured to couple with a detonator (34).
Regarding claims 3-5, STS teaches an initiator device (36) coupled to the first end (26b), wherein the initiator is moveably/removably coupled to the cover (via secondary cover 38).
Regarding claim 6, STS teaches a detonator device (34) coupled to the second end (26a), the detonator device being removably disposed within the interior portion (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, STS teaches that the bundle of shock tubing includes a portion adjacent the second end (26a), the portion extending through the second opening (see Fig. 10); further comprising a pull string or tab operably coupled to the detonator, the pull string or tab extending at least partially through the second opening (see para. [0025]1).
Regarding claims 9-12, STS teaches that the cover is made of textile or copolymer (para [0044] teaches that the cover may be either a polymer material or textile) and is made from a single piece or a plurality of components2 (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claims 13-15, STS teaches that the bundle of shock tubing comprises a coil of shock tubing having an inner diameter (see Fig. 10); a detonator (34) removably coupled to the inner diameter; and wherein the bundle of shock tubing comprises a plurality of successive short lengths of tubing folded back on another (see Figs. 1 and 10).
Conclusion
While the Examiner is available via telephone to help resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing the USPTO’s Inventor Assistance Center for general administrative and/or procedural matters at 800-786-9199. Issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. In accordance with current USPTO policy, this form must be submitted on the record prior to internet communications being authorized. A written statement by the Applicant authorizing internet communications on the record is not sufficient. Once authorization is submitted, the Applicant may contact the Examiner at samir.abdosh@uspto.gov. In the event that a telephone conversation would be the easiest means of resolving issues related to the subject matter of a pending patent application, the Examiner may be reached by telephone at 303-297-4454. Interviews will not be granted after issuance of a final rejection unless it is to discuss an amendment that either places the application in condition for allowance or simplifies issues for appeal.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Samir Abdosh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
1 From para. [0025] – “In use, the detonator 34 is removed from the coil 22 by pulling on a portion of the tubing 22 left protruding through a central hole 40 in the end plate 26a. Alternatively, a pull string or tab may be attached to the detonator 34 or proximate tubing for use in removing the detonator from the coil interior 24.”
2 On p. 8 of the Applicant’s specification, the disclosure states “In another embodiment, the outer covering
28 may be formed by multiple components. The multiple components may be separate, integral, or coupled together.” Para. [0044] of the STS reference teaches that the outercovering may be a mesh material, which is considered to be “multiple components…integral or coupled together”.