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 .
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.
Claims 1-9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Seeman et al (8,689,696).
Regarding claim 1, Seeman et al disclose a projectile (cartridge 10 with projectile 26, Figure) comprising: a toughened polymer resin (Projectiles 26 have nominal dimensions conforming to the .45 ACP standard were produced using varying amounts of the toughened epoxy resin described above as the matrix 28 and iron powder (US Standard Mesh size 108) as the filler 30, using the following process., Col. 3 Lns. 15-19); a curative agent by which the toughened polymer resin is cured (As used herein, the term "hardener" refers to any type of curative agent for the resin. The mixture was then poured into a prepared projectile mold. The resin/filler/hardener mixture was cured to produce an epoxy polymer, and the projectile 26 was removed from the mold., Col. 3 Lns. 28-32); and a particulate filler distributed through the toughened polymer resin (The finished projectiles 26 were found to have the filler 30 distributed through the resin., Col. 3 Lns. 34-35), the particulate filler having a density greater than a density of the toughened polymer resin (Preferably the filler 30 is of higher density than the cured matrix 28. Col. 3 Lns. 2-3), and wherein the cured toughened polymer resin is 3% to 30 % by weight of the total projectile composition (For the example caliber tested, and for the specific combination of resin, hardener, and filler used with the example caliber, a range of 20% to 30% by weight of resin was preferred. The preferred proportion of resin will vary with various factors such as the type of resin and hardener, the type and size of filler, and so forth. In one particular tested example, the composition of the projectile 26 was 26% by weight resin and 74% by weight filler., Col. 3 Lns. 49-56). Regarding claim 2, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 1, wherein an average density of the projectile is less than the density of lead (According to one aspect of the invention, a projectile includes: (a) a cured, toughened polymer resin; and (b) a particulate filler distributed through the resin, the filler having a density greater than a density of the resin, wherein the projectile has average density less than the density of lead., Col. 42-46). Regarding claim 3, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 1, wherein the projectile has an average density that is less than 65% of the density of lead (Projectiles were produced with a range of masses from less than 2.6 g (40 grains) to over 5.8 g (90 grains). By comparison, a conventional lead projectile with the same exterior dimensions would typically have a mass of about 14.9 g (230 grains). Accordingly, the average density of the projectiles 26 was less than 45% of the density of a lead projectile of equal exterior dimensions., Col. 3 Lns. 42-48). Regarding claim 4, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 1, wherein the particulate filler is 70% to 97% by weight of the total projectile composition (For the example caliber tested, and for the specific combination of resin, hardener, and filler used with the example caliber, a range of 20% to 30% by weight of resin was preferred. The preferred proportion of resin will vary with various factors such as the type of resin and hardener, the type and size of filler, and SO forth. In one particular tested example, the composition of the projectile 26 was 26% by weight resin and 74% by weight filler., Col. 3 Lns. 49-56). Regarding claim 5, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 1, wherein the particulate filler includes copper (The filler 30 may be any powder or particulate. Non-limiting examples include lead, depleted uranium, copper, tungsten, bismuth, ceramic, bronze, iron and steel, clay, mica, silica, calcium carbide, and micro-encapsulated materials (wherein a selected material is encapsulated in a particulate- sized shell. Preferably the filler 30 is of higher density than the cured matrix 28., Col. 2 Ln. 64 to Col. 3 Ln. 3). Regarding claim 6, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 1, wherein the projectile is substantially lead-free (Optionally, the projectile 26 maybe lead-free., Col. 2 Lns. 40-41). Regarding claim 7, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 1, wherein the particulate filler includes a material selected from the group consisting of copper, tungsten, lead, brass, bismuth iron, and steel (The filler 30 may be any powder or particulate. Non-limiting examples include lead, depleted uranium, copper, tungsten, bismuth, ceramic, bronze, iron and steel, clay, mica, silica, calcium carbide, and micro-encapsulated materials (wherein a selected material is encapsulated in a particulate-sized shell. Preferably the filler 30 is of higher density than the cured matrix 28., Col. 2 Ln. 64 to Col. 3 Ln. 3). Regarding claim 8, Seeman et al disclose a projectile (cartridge 10 with projectile 26, Figure) comprising: a polymer resin (Projectiles 26 have nominal dimensions conforming to the .45 ACP standard were produced using varying amounts of the toughened epoxy resin described above as the matrix 28 and iron powder (US Standard Mesh size 108) as the filler 30, using the following process., Col. 3 Lns. 15-19); a curative agent configured to cure the polymer resin (As used herein, the term "hardener" refers to any type of curative agent for the resin. The mixture was then poured into a prepared projectile mold. The resin/filler/hardener mixture was cured to produce an epoxy polymer, and the projectile 26 was removed from the mold., Col. 3 Lns. 28-32); a particulate filler distributed through the polymer resin (The filler 30 may be any powder or particulate. Non-limiting examples include lead, depleted uranium, copper, tungsten, bismuth, ceramic, bronze, iron and steel, clay, mica, silica, calcium carbide, and micro-encapsulated materials (wherein a selected material is encapsulated in a particulate-sized shell. Preferably the filler 30 is of higher density than the cured matrix 28., Col. 2 Ln. 64 to Col. 3 Ln. 3), the particulate filler having a density greater than a density of the polymer resin (Preferably the filler 30 is of higher density than the cured matrix 28. Col. 3 Lns. 2-3); and a payload configured for effect on target (This combination of materials has been found to have important advantages over conventional metal alloy projectiles. In particular, projectiles made from this combination of materials can have significantly improved wounding performance than conventional homogenous metallic projectiles, and may have less mass than conventional projectiles., Col. 3 Lns. 4-9). Regarding claim 9, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 8, wherein the cured polymer resin is 3% to 30% by weight of the total projectile composition (For the example caliber tested, and for the specific combination of resin, hardener, and filler used with the example caliber, a range of 20% to 30% by weight of resin was preferred. The preferred proportion of resin will vary with various factors such as the type of resin and hardener, the type and size of filler, and so forth. In one particular tested example, the composition of the projectile 26 was 26% by weight resin and 74% by weight filler., Col. 3 Lns. 49-56). Regarding claim 12, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 8, wherein the payload comprises a plurality of uniformly distributed particles (filler 30 is shown to be uniformly distributed, Figure). Regarding claim 16, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 8, wherein the polymer resin does not require a separate curative agent to achieve a cured state (As used herein, "toughened" describes the cured state of the resin, and it is noted that the chemical component providing the quality of toughness may be provided by any of the constituent components used to produce the final resin, or may come about as a result of the curing reaction., Col. 2 Lns. 53-58).
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 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeman et al (8,689,696).
Regarding claim 10, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 8, wherein the payload is a plurality of metal particulate mixed in the particulate filler (The filler 30 may be any powder or particulate. Non-limiting examples include lead, depleted uranium, copper, tungsten, bismuth, ceramic, bronze, iron and steel, clay, mica, silica, calcium carbide, and micro-encapsulated materials (wherein a selected material is encapsulated in a particulate-sized shell. Preferably the filler 30 is of higher density than the cured matrix 28., Col. 2 Ln. 64 to Col. 3 Ln. 3). Seeman et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein the payload are metal balls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to make the payload as metal balls, since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to create a spaced apart nesting of the payload in the resin matrix. Regarding claim 13, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 8. Seeman et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the payload comprises a plurality of non-uniformly distributed particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to make the projectile wherein the payload comprises a plurality of non-uniformly distributed particles, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would have been to distribute the payload weight to affect the trajectory of the projectile.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeman et al Hollerman et al (8,402,896).
Regarding claim 14, Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 8. Seeman et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein the payload comprises a luminescent element capable of igniting, detonating, ejecting, or actuating the payload contained within the projectile. Hollerman et al, in the field of luminescent ammunition, teaches a projectile (Abstract) wherein the payload comprises a luminescent element capable of igniting, detonating, ejecting, or actuating the payload contained within the projectile (The experiment in this example was conducted to determine if triboluminescent material could be made to emit visible light during the flight of a projectile. This form of 30 luminescent projectile does not rely on light generated from the burning of propellant to stimulate the luminescent material. Instead, the pressure from the environment of the barrel of the gun initiates the triboluminescent phenomenon., Col. 10 Lns. 27-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to combine the element of Hollerman et al with the projectile of Seeman et al. The motivation for doing so would have been to illuminate the trajectory. Regarding claim 15, modified Seeman et al disclose the invention as shown above in Claim 14, wherein the luminescent element includes a material selected from the group consisting of a powder, slurry, pellet, optical lenses, and combustible discs or cups. Hollerman et al, in the field of luminescent ammunition, teaches a projectile (Abstract) wherein the luminescent element includes a material selected from the group consisting of a powder, slurry, pellet, optical lenses, and combustible discs or cups (Technique Two includes all the steps of Technique Onc. After the LM mixture has been applied to the projectile cavity, but prior to the curing of the mixture, a further step is performed. LM, in pure powder form with no addition of binder, is sprinkled over the projectile base, completely covering the surface. The powder form LM is piled up to created a layer of LM powder that is a minimum of 2 mm thick. After the LM mixture and sprinkled LM layer have reached the designated cure time, the excess LM is dusted off with a brush or some other similar tool., Col. 10 Lns. 44-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to combine the powder of Hollerman et al with the projectile of Seeman et al. The motivation for doing so would have been to track the projectile during flight.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeman et al (8,689,696) in view of Georgantzis et al (6,988,450).
Seeman et al is applied as to claim 8 above. Seeman et al fail to disclose a payload comprising a plurality of metal balls being carried in a cavity of the projectile. Georgantzis et al teach that it is known to have a payload 20 comprising a plurality of metal balls (column 3, line 34) being carried in a cavity formed in a frangible projectile (column 3, lines 52-54). Motivation to combine is the improved performance available by having a payload able to scatter and strike an intended target. To employ the teachings of Georgantzis et al on the projectile of Seeman et al and have the claimed payload of metal balls in a cavity is considered to have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application’s filing.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeman et al (8,689,696) in view of Nguyen et al (2022/0299302).
Seeman et al is applied as to claim 8 above. Seeman et al fail to disclose a payload comprising a plurality of metal balls being mixed in the particulate filler of the projectile. Nguyen et al teach that it is known to have a payload comprising a plurality of metal balls 112B being mixed in a matrix 111 within a projectile. Motivation to combine is the improved performance available by having a payload able to scatter and strike an intended target. To employ the teachings of Nguyen et al on the projectile of Seeman et al and have the claimed payload of metal balls in a cavity is considered to have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application’s filing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to J. WOODROW ELDRED whose telephone number is (571)272-6901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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.
/J. Woodrow Eldred/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
JWE
Prosecution Insights