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 .
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.
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rastegar (US 11,226,181).
Re claim 8, Rastegar (Figs 2a and 2b) discloses a fragmentation projectile comprising: a core (112) comprising an explosive material; and an outer casing (Fig 2b) enveloping the core, the casing composed at least by a plurality of pre-formed fragments in a stacked arrangement, wherein at least one of the pre-formed fragments has a geometry optimized for a reduction of a drag coefficient (see c. 6, l. 21+ discussing aerodynamically shaped fragments).
Re claim 10, Rastegar discloses the fragmentation projectile of claim 8, wherein the casing comprises a backing layer (110) comprising at least one of an epoxy or polymer that secures the plurality of pre-formed fragments in the stacked arrangement.
Re claim 18, Rastegar (Fig 1) discloses the fragmentation projectile of claim 8, wherein the casing includes a plurality of concentric layers each comprising the pre-formed fragments.
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(s) 1-5, 7, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar (US 11,226,181) in view of Tunger (DE 100 07 675 A1). Rastegar (Fig 2b) discloses an optimized fragment geometry casing for an explosive projectile device, comprising a plurality of streamlined bodies positioned around a periphery of (Fig 1) and comprising an outer casing (Fig 2b) of the explosive projectile device.
Rastegar does not disclose that the fragment geometry wherein the streamlined bodies are structured in a teardrop shaping have an ovular body characteristic of two radii of non-eqiuivalent values joined with a tail portion which extends along a single vector. Tunger (Fig 2) teaches a streamlined body (4) wherein the body is a teardrop shaping have an ovular body characteristic of two radii of non-eqiuivalent values joined with a tail portion which extends along a single vector. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the streamlined bodies in Rastegar to be teardrop shaped as in Tunger. The motivation would simply be to replace one known streamlined body with another known streamlined body. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9, 11-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar (US 11,226,181).
Re claim 9, Rastegar discloses the claimed invention except for optimized drag coefficient. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the drag coefficient, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 11-13 and 15, In regard to the different shape(s) of the fragments in these claims. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the fragments to any known aerodynamic shape, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. Additionally, claim 11 does not require the first and second drag coefficients to be different. See Fig 2b for hedron shape.
Re claim 17, Rastegar discloses the claimed invention except for the material of the fragments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the material to be steel or tungsten, since it has been held to be within 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. Limitations related to additive manufacturing are considered product-by-process limitations. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-6-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the examiner’s reference to Rastegar (US 11,226,181) does not disclose “an outer casing…envelop[es] the core [and is] composed at least by a plurality of pre-formed fragments in a stacked arrangement….” The examiner disagrees. Rastegar clearly discloses and an outer casing (Fig 2b) enveloping the core (112), the casing composed at least by a plurality of pre-formed fragments in a stacked arrangement (Fig 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7010. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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.
/REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights