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 § 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-14 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur (US 2013/0253237), in view of JP H0192560 A (hereafter the ‘560 patent).
Regarding claims 1-2, 12-13 and 18
Mathur discloses a liquid rocket propellant comprising a hydrocarbon mixture with a hydrogen content of 15.06 wt %, a viscosity of 6.886 cSt at -30 C and a sulfur content of less than 1 mg/kg (table 1, blend H).
It is noted that about -33 C is seen to read on -30 C.
It is noted that he 15.06 wt % hydrogen content of the reference is seen to read on or make obvious the claimed about 15.3 mass %, as the use of the term about allows for some leeway.
As the content of sulfur overlaps with the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Mathur also discloses that liquid oxygen can be used as the oxidizer (para 0003). Which would require providing both materials.
Mathur discloses that the composition has a flash point of 149 C (Table 1, Blend G).
Mathur discloses a distillation initial boiling point of 354.2 C (Table 1, Blend G).
Mathur discloses that the composition comprises fuels having a C12-C20 isoparaffin content of at least 40 % by mass (abstract), as this amount overlaps with the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Although Mathur does not explicitly disclose the claimed mass ratio of oxidizer to fuel, Mathur does disclose or make obvious the other limitations of the claim. However, the ‘560patent discloses that in liquid rocket engines using liquid oxygen and kerosene (i.e., a hydrocarbon) that the mass ratio of liquid oxygen to hydrocarbon can be 2.6:0.9 (i.e., 2.88:1) and that such a ratio provides stable combustion with a combustion efficiency of 98 % or higher (examples). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Mathur by using a liquid oxygen to hydrocarbon mass ratio of 2.88:1 with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a useful rocket and the expected benefit of providing a stable combustion with high efficiency as suggested by the ‘560 patent.
Regarding claims 3 and 14
The 2.88 ratio of the ‘560 patent is seen to read on or make obvious the claimed about 2.75, as the use of the term about allows for some leeway.
Regarding claim 5
Mathur discloses that the liquid hydrocarbon includes isoparaffin (i.e., a branched paraffin) (abstract).
Regarding claims 8 and 19
Mathur discloses a specific gravity of 0.7600 (Table 1, Blend H), and room temperature is seen to read on or make obvious about 15 C.
Regarding claim 9
Mathur discloses a freezing point of less than -81 C (Table 1, Blend H).
Regarding claims 10 and 20
This is a product-by-process limitation which does not serve to further limit a composition claim unless it can be shown that the processed used results in a materially different product.
Regarding claims 11 and 21
The c* value of the composition is a property of the composition, and Mathur discloses or makes obvious the other limitations of the claims. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur (US 2013/0253237), in view of JP H0192560 A (hereafter the ‘560 patent), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8-14 and 18-21 above, in view of Bratukin et al. (RU 2429370 C1).
Regarding claim 15
Although, Mathur does not teach the use of a burner plate, Mathur does disclose or make obvious the rocket fuel and oxidizer. However, Bratukin discloses that a liquid-propellant rocket can have a burner plate in the combustion chamber of the rocket engine (abstract). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Mathur by using a rocket motor having a burner plate in the combustion chamber where the fuel and oxidizer are combined, with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a useful rocket motor, as suggested by Bratukin.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that they use a different method to measure the hydrogen content. This is not persuasive as applicants have failed to show that the hydrogen content of the reference4 would not be within the claimed amount, and a reference is good for all that it teaches.
Applicants argue that Mathur does not disclose a hydrocarbon mixture having less than 50 % isoparaffins having 12 to 20 carbon atoms. This is not persuasive as the reference discloses at least 40 % by mass, which is less than and/or overlaps the claimed amount. Further, Applicants have failed to presented any evidence of new or unexpected results.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above, and in further consideration of their additional limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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 E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734