DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8 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.
In claim 1, line 7, it is unclear which member of the plurality of members is being references by the limitation, “the member”?
In claim 7, lines 1-2, it is unclear which member of the plurality of members is being references by the limitation, “the member”?
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WILSON et al. (US 2024/0280350 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson et al. disclose an adapter for a shaped charge 100 comprising: a plurality of members 102 configured to be secured to an inner surface of a shaped charge case 101; and a securing mechanism 104, wherein each member of the plurality of members 102 (shock attenuation layers) is spaced apart (Fig. 1) from each other such that the adapter has a central open area (Fig. 1), and the securing mechanism 104 is configured to secure the member to an inner surface feature (contour of the surface) of the shaped charge case 101.
Regarding claim 2, Wilson et al. disclose (Fig. 1) that each member of the plurality of members 102 comprises: a first end; and a second end opposite and spaced apart from the first end.
Regarding claim 5, Wilson et al. disclose that each member of the plurality of members 102 comprises: a first surface; and a second surface spaced apart from the first surface, wherein the second surface is configured to be adjacent the inner surface of the shaped charge case 101 (Fig. 1).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SCHIEB et al. (DE 3933955 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Schieb et al. discloses an adapter for a shaped charge 2, 3, comprising: a collar 28 (Fig. 2); and a plurality of members (collar portion protruding between the grooves 29 – Fig. 2) secured to the collar 28 in a spaced apart configuration from each other such that the adapter has a central open area (Fig. 2), wherein the collar and the plurality of members are secured to an inner surface of a shaped charge case 1.
Regarding claim 10, Schieb et al. disclose the plurality of members (collar portion protruding between the grooves 29 – Fig. 2) comprises: a first member; and a second member, wherein the first and second members are spaced 180 degrees from each other on the collar 28.
Regarding claim 11, Schieb et al. reads on the recited range because in Fig. 2 the width of each of the plurality of members (collar portions protruding between the grooves 29) appears to fall within the range of 20 degrees to 100 degrees of the 360 degrees circumference of the collar 28.
Regarding claim 12, Schieb et al. disclose wherein each of the plurality of members (collar portions protruding between the grooves 29) comprise a first end (left side surface) and a second end (right side surface) opposite and spaced apart from the first end, wherein the collar is secured to a substantially central portion of each of the members between the first end (left side surface) and second ends (right side surface).
Regarding claim 13, Schieb et al. disclose wherein a surface profile of each of the plurality of members is contoured to conform to a contour of the inner surface of the shaped charge case (Fig. 2).
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DOUE et al. (DE 60314681 T2).
Regarding claim 1, Doue et al. disclose an adapter for a shaped charge 1 comprising: a plurality of members 11a, 11b configured to be secured to an inner surface of a shaped charge case; and a securing mechanism (ring 9 and screws 12a, 12b); wherein each member of the plurality of members 11a, 11b is spaced apart from each other (Fig. 2) such that the adapter has a central open area (Figs. 2-4b), and the securing mechanism is configured to secure [the] each member to an inner surface feature (the inwardly angled contour at the opening end of the case 3 - the conical section 6a) of the shaped charge case 3).
Regarding claim 2, Doue et al. disclose that each member 11a, 11b of the plurality of members comprises: a first end; and a second end opposite and spaced apart from the first end (Figs. 2-4b).
Regarding claim 3, Doue et al. disclose that the securing mechanism (ring 9) extends from the second end of at least one of the members 11a, 11b (Figs. 2-4b).
Regarding claim 4, Doue et al. disclose that the securing mechanism (ring 9) extends from the at least one member 11a, 11b in a direction away from the first end to engage the inner surface feature (Figs. 2-4b).
Regarding claim 5, Doue et al. disclose that each member of the plurality of members 11a, 11b, comprises: a first surface; and a second surface spaced apart from the first surface, wherein the second surface is configured to be adjacent the inner surface of the shaped charge case 3 (Figs. 1-4b).
Regarding claim 6, Doue et al. disclose that the securing mechanism (ring 9) extends outwardly from the second surface of the member 11a, 11b to engage the inner surface feature.
Regarding claim 7, Doue et al. disclose that the securing mechanism (ring 9) extends from the first end of the member 11a, 11b (Figs. 2-4b).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHIEB et al. (DE 3933955 A1).
Schieb et al. do not specifically disclose that the adapter 28 is made from a plastic material. However, it would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to form the adapter 28 from a plastic material so as to benefit from the ease of manufacture using plastic materials and/or cost advantages of using plastic materials.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOUE et al. (DE 60314681 T2).
Regarding claim 8, Doue et al. disclose that the securing mechanism (ring 9) comprises a conical surface 20 for engagement with the conical section 6a of the shaped charge case 3 (Figs 1, 3a-4b). To modify Doue by adding a circumferential slot in the inner conical section 6a of the case 3, and a matching circumferential bead on the conical surface 21 of the ring 9, would have been obvious design choice within the skill level of a POSITA before the effective filing date of the invention, the motivation to enhance the securement of the ring 9 to the case wall 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-FORM 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S BERGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5am.
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.
/JAMES S BERGIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641