Detailed Action
The following is a non-final rejection made in response to preliminarily amended claims received on July 22nd 2025. 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 § 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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 10,415,939 (hereinafter referred to as “HIRTENBERGER DEFENSE EUROPE” or “HDE”) further in view of US Pat. No 2,798,431 (hereinafter referred to as “SEMON”).
Regarding claims 1-6, 9-11, 17, 19-21, 24, and 26, HDE teaches a projectile (1) having a projectile base body (4) which has a recess (5) for receiving explosive1 and, at least in sections, a jacket surface oriented along a longitudinal axis of the projectile base body (see Fig. 1a), and wherein at least one fragmentation group comprising at least two mutually adjacent annular fragmentation bodies (via ring-shaped elements 8) is provided (Fig. 1a shows a plurality of fragmentation groups formed by at least two mutually adjacent rings; Figs. 2-9 provide a closer look at the various embodiments that each individual ring may take), which are threaded along the jacket surface and form a fragmentation section of the projectile2; wherein each fragmentation body of a fragmentation group has an outer surface opposite the jacket surface and the outer surfaces of all fragmentation bodies of a fragmentation group define the surface of the projectile in this fragmentation section (see Fig. 1a).
However, inasmuch as HDE teaches, the reference fails to teach that the fragmentation bodies are welded together, and therefore fails to explicitly teach the various weld configurations cited in claims 3-6, 9-11, 17, 19-21, 24, and 26.
While HDE fails to explicitly teach this limitation, welding fragmentable rings for use on a projectile/explosive is not considered a novel advance when the prior art is considered as a whole.
Evidence of this assertion may be found in Semon, which discloses a structurally similar fragmentation warhead. Semon teaches a projectile body, having an explosive cavity stationed therein, whereby “a series of metal rings of uniform size are brazed or welded together to form a hollow tube for enclosing the explosive charge. Each ring has a pattern of symmetrical and uniformly shaped portions of the periphery of the rings removed whereby the rings are ruptured into uniform destructive fragments as the explosive charge is detonated.” (see col. 1, ll. 24-30)
Based on the facts presented, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was effectively filed to modify the fragmenting projectile taught by HDE to include a weld between the fragmenting portions, in a manner similar to that taught by Semon, with the motivation of providing a well-known means of securing the fragmenting portions together.
Regarding claim 13, HDE teaches that at least two fragmentation groups are provided (see Fig. 1a) and the fragmentation bodies of the one fragmentation group have at least in sections a different angle of inclination in relation to the orthogonal plane than the fragmentation bodies of the other fragmentation group (Fig. 1a shows different sets of fragmentation rings positioned at different angles of inclination).
Regarding claim 14, HDE teaches that at least one of the annular fragmentation bodies has a largest outer diameter which is smaller than the largest outer diameter of its adjacent fragmentation bodies for receiving a sealing ring (9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16 and 27 are 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.
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 “The blasting pipe 4 has a recess 5 for receiving the explosive and an adjoining recess 6 for receiving a fuze (not shown).” see col. 5, ll. 26-28
2 “The outer diameter of the cylindrical shell surface 7 and the inner diameter of the ring-shaped elements 8 are chosen such that the ring-shaped elements 8 may be pushed and/or threaded over the substantially cylindrical pipe element with play in a simple manner.” see col. 5, ll. 36-40