DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2025 entering the 08/14/2025 claim set amending Claims 1 and 8 has been entered. Claims 1 – 8 are examined.
Note: In the 08/14/2025 claim set, the status indicator of Claim 3 was (Currently Amended) which is believed to be in error for --(Previously Amended)-- because none of the limitations of Claim 3 were amended in the 08/14/2025 claim set.
Consideration of Declaration Under 35 C.F.R. § 1.132
The declaration by Manuel La Rosa Betancourt under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 08/14/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of Claims 1 – 8 based upon 35 USC § 103 as set forth in the Office Action mailed on 04/14/2025 because of the following reasons.
Paragraph 1 is noted as not satisfying the requirements of establishing the preliminary requirement the affiant is of the appropriate skill level in the art.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 are irrelevant because declarant is merely summarizing the disclosed invention.
Paragraph 4 is irrelevant in view of newly cited prior art Collier-Wright et al., “System architecture and business opportunities for Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters”, IEPC-2019-801, 36th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Vienna, Austria, September 15-20, 2019 discussed in the prior art rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “propellant injection system configured to inject a propellant into the discharge region” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from amended Claim 1. The original figures failed to show the amended “propellant injection system”. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “concentric anode includes gas channels and orifices for injecting the propellant at an arc-attachment area” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from amended Claim 1. The original figures failed to show the amended “gas channels and orifices”. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figure 3 show(s) modified forms of construction in the same view. Paragraph [0040] of the instant Specification disclosed “Fig. 3 shows a thruster 300 with a magnetic field strength along the symmetry axis 330 generated by the conventional (top) and the helix saddle (bottom) coil configurations”. Therefore, the top half of Fig. 3 shows the conventional coil configuration while the bottom half of Fig. 3 shows the helix saddle coil configuration. Fig. 3 should be split into Fig. 3A and Fig. 3B.
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Applicant’s Figure 4 appears to be a copy of the bottom right figure labeled “3D MN configuration for thrust vector control” on Pg. 4 of M. Merino, “Magnetic nozzles for electric propulsion, EPIC lecture series, 2017, Madrid, Spain cited in the 08/03/2023 IDS and Paragraphs [0039] and [0040] of the instant Specification.
Figure 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Applicant’s Figure 6 appears to be a copy of the left figure of Figure 11 on Pg. 10 of A. Boxberger and G. Herdrich, “Integral Measurements of 100 kW Class Steady State Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thruster SX3 and Perspectives of AF-MPD Technology”, IEPC-2017-339, 35th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, October 8 – 12, 2017 cited in the 08/03/2023 IDS.
Figure 4 is objected to because reference character “300” is believed to be in error for reference character “30o”. Specification Para. [0040] disclosed “Fig. 3 shows a thruster 300 with a magnetic field strength…”. However, Specification Para. [0041] disclosed “The shape of the anode 30 is shown in Fig. 4 can be approximated to two conical segments, but the anode 30 is formed as a single piece. The inner piece 30i has a conducting surface and is where the arc attaches and there is an electric current flowing. The outer piece 30o has a high temperature coating with a high surface emissivity.”
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Rc, Ra1, and Ra2 – Fig. 5
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
150 – Para. [0030] and Pg. 14, l. 21
200, 210, 220, and 230 – Para. [0038] and Pg. 14, ll. 23 – 25
300 – Para. [0040] and Pg. 14, l. 27
320, 325, and 330 – Para. [0040]
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code, in at least Paras. [0034], [0039], and [0040]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0040], l. 7 “direction of the plasma plume 70 and” is believed to be in error for --direction of the plasma plume [[70]] 75 and-- because Para. [0029], l. 4 ‘a plasma plume 75 at a required direction’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, l. 7 “reduce anode sheath voltage” is believed to be in error for --reduce anode fall voltage-- to maintain consistency with Specification Para. [0043] ‘reduce the anode fall voltage as shown in Fig. 5’.
Claim 8, ll. 3 - 4 “injecting a propellant into the discharge region between the centrally arranged cathode and the concentric anode to generate a plasma;” is believed to be in error for --injecting [[a]] the propellant into the discharge region between the centrally arranged cathode and the concentric anode to generate [[a]] the plasma;-- because Claim 1 previously recited ‘a propellant’ and ‘a plasma’.
Claim 8, ll. 7 - 11 “generating a first magnetic field from a first superconducting magnet system in the discharge region to accelerate ions in the plasma and create a plasma plume; and - generating a second magnetic field from a second superconducting magnet system to steer the plasma plume off-axis through a nozzle in a desired thrust direction” is believed to be in error for --generating [[a]] the first magnetic field the plasma plume; and - generating [[a]] the second magnetic field the nozzle in a desired thrust direction-- because Claim 1 previously recited ‘a propellant’ and ‘a plasma’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, l. 4 “propellant injection system configured to inject a propellant into the discharge region”. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, published in 1990 defined system as “1d: a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network esp. for distributing something or serving a common purpose <a telephone ~> <a heating ~> <a highway ~> <a data processing ~>”. MPEP2181(I) stated that “configured to” was a linking word or phrase that was equivalent to the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for").
Claim 2, l. 4 “thermal management system” interpreted as a ‘system for thermal management’. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, published in 1990 defined system as “1d: a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network esp. for distributing something or serving a common purpose <a telephone ~> <a heating ~> <a highway ~> <a data processing ~>”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, Claim 1, l. 4 recitation “propellant injection system configured to inject a propellant into the discharge region” is interpreted as invoking 112(f) interpretation. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, the disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of at least partially ionizing the source material. The original written description failed to disclosed “propellant injection system” or an “injection system”. As discussed in the Drawing Objection section, none of the original drawings showed the claimed “propellant injection system”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there were many different systems capable of injecting propellant depending upon the type and material phase of said propellant. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation “propellant” encompasses all phases of matter and a wide variety of propellants known to man. Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Furthermore, none of the dependent claims further define the scope of the “propellant injection system configured to inject a propellant into the discharge region”. Claims 2 – 8 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim 1, l. 4 limitation “” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. The original written description failed to disclosed “propellant injection system” or an “injection system”. As discussed in the Drawing Objection section, none of the original drawings showed the claimed “propellant injection system”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there were many different systems capable of injecting propellant depending upon the type and material phase of said propellant. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation “propellant” encompasses all phases of matter and a wide variety of propellants known to man. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2 – 8 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2 and 4 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. Claim 2 and 4 recites the limitation "the plurality of superconducting coils". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collier-Wright et al., “System architecture and business opportunities for Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters”, IEPC-2019-801, 36th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Vienna, Austria, September 15-20, 2019, hereinafter “Collier-Wright”.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Collier-Wright teaches, in Fig. 5, the invention as claimed, a propulsion unit for a spacecraft (Abstract) comprising: a centrally arranged cathode (labeled in Figs. 4 and 5); and a concentric anode (labeled in Figs. 4 and 5) defining a discharge region therebetween (annular region defined between the cathode and the concentric anode); a propellant injection system [Fig. 5 left side olive colored elements matching the “Propellant Supply” legend and Pg. 7, second bullet point teaches “propellant injection system”.] configured to inject a propellant into the discharge region [As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, “propellant injection system configured to inject a propellant into the discharge region” is interpreted as invoking 112(f) interpretation. As discussed above, Collier-Wright teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘propellant injection system’.] at a plurality of locations (the outlet of each gas channel), wherein the concentric anode includes gas channels (Pg. 9, under heading “1. Anode”) and orifices (the outlet of each gas channel) for injecting the propellant at an arc-attachment area of the concentric anode to reduce anode sheath voltage [The limitation ‘sheath voltage’ is interpreted as --fall voltage-- to maintain consistency with Specification Para. [0043] ‘reduce the anode fall voltage’. Pg. 9, under heading “1. Anode” teaches “The anode design must therefore focus on minimizing the fall voltage. … Furthermore, customised gas channels can be incorporated in the anode to inject gas at the points where arc attachment occurs, further nullifying the impact of the anode fall voltage.”]; an acceleration system comprising a first set of superconducting coils (Fig. 4 the rectangles containing an ‘X’ and labeled “HTSC” where “HTSC” stood for ‘high-temperature superconductor coils’ and Fig. 5 labeled “HTS coil” where “HTS” stood for ‘high-temperature superconductors’.) is arranged about the concentric anode (shown in Figs. 4 and 5) to generate a first magnetic field (Pg. 2 teaches “B = Magnetic Field Strength”) in the discharge region for accelerating ions in a plasma [Pg. 6 under heading “IV. System Architecture of an Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thruster using High Temperature Superconductors” teaches, “The applied magnetic field is produced by magnets positioned cylindrically around the anode, generating a magnetic field in the axial direction.” The paragraph then discusses the four main acceleration mechanisms of the ions in the plasma.] and a vectoring coil system [Pg. 8, last paragraph teaches “magnetic thrust-vector control (TVC) system”] comprising a second set of superconducting coils (“separate HTS unit in the AF-module, positioned downstream of the main acceleration coil”) arranged about the concentric anode to generate a second magnetic field (“a tailored magnetic field can be created”) for off-axis steering of a plasma plume [Pg. 8, last paragraph teaches “In the SUPREME architecture, the inclusion of a separate HTS unit in the AF-module, positioned downstream of the main acceleration coil towards the thruster exhaust, can act as a magnetic TVC system. By using a helix saddle coil geometry, a tailored magnetic field can be created to deflect the accelerated ions and thus re-orientate the thruster exhaust plume. The direction of deflection can be altered by simply adjusting the current through the coils, with no moving parts. Such a system would significantly reduce the thruster system mass, and remove potential point of mechanical failure.” Pg. 7, second paragraph teaches that SUPREME was an acronym that stood for “SUPerconductor-based Readiness Enhanced Magnetoplasmadynamic Electric Propulsion”.], the vectoring coil system having an end forming a nozzle (shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Pg. 6 under heading “IV. System Architecture of an Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thruster using High Temperature Superconductors” teaches, “Downstream of the main discharge, the diverging axial magnetic field lines form a magnetic nozzle of sorts.”) through which the plasma plume (different name for the “thruster exhaust plume”) is expelled; and wherein [Examiner notes that the phrase “the first and second magnetic fields are created … plasma plume from the nozzle, respectively” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Collier-Wright can perform the functions as discussed above.] the first and second magnetic fields are created between the centrally arranged cathode and the concentric anode by the first and second sets of superconducting coils to accelerate the plasma and to direct the plasma plume from the nozzle, respectively.
Re Claim 3, Collier-Wright discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, in Fig. 5 and Pg. 8, second paragraph, further comprising a cryostat for cooling the superconducting coils. Collier-Wright discloses, in Pg. 8, second paragraph, “A cryogenic cooling system is thus included in the system architecture as part of the AF-module. The HTS tapes are embedded within a cryostat, which is maintained below the critical temperature by the cryocooler. Cryogenic cooling systems are an industrially mature technology with existing spaceflight heritage”.
Re Claim 8, Collier-Wright discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, a method of propelling a spacecraft (Abstract), wherein the spacecraft comprises a propulsion unit of claim 1, the method comprising: - injecting a propellant [Pg. 9, under heading “1. Anode” disclosed “Furthermore, customised gas channels can be incorporated in the anode to inject gas at the points where arc attachment occurs, further nullifying the impact of the anode fall voltage.” The injected gas was the propellant.] into the discharge region (annular region defined between the cathode and the concentric anode) between the centrally arranged cathode (labeled in Figs. 4 and 5) and the concentric anode (labeled in Figs. 4 and 5) to generate a plasma [Pg. 6 under heading “IV. System Architecture of an Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thruster using High Temperature Superconductors” teaches, “The applied magnetic field is produced by magnets positioned cylindrically around the anode, generating a magnetic field in the axial direction.” The paragraph then discusses the four main acceleration mechanisms of the ions in the plasma.] ;- generating a first magnetic field (Pg. 2 teaches “B = Magnetic Field Strength”) from a first superconducting magnet system (Fig. 4 the rectangles containing an ‘X’ and labeled “HTSC” where “HTSC” stood for ‘high-temperature superconductor coils’ and Fig. 5 labeled “HTS coil” where “HTS” stood for ‘high-temperature superconductors’.) in the discharge region to accelerate ions in the plasma and create a plasma plume [Pg. 6 under heading “IV. System Architecture of an Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thruster using High Temperature Superconductors” teaches, “The applied magnetic field is produced by magnets positioned cylindrically around the anode, generating a magnetic field in the axial direction.” The paragraph then discusses the four main acceleration mechanisms of the ions in the plasma. Pg. 8, last paragraph disclosed “the main acceleration coil” which was another name for the first superconducting magnet system.]; and - generating a second magnetic field from a second superconducting magnet system (“separate HTS unit”) to steer the plasma plume off-axis through a nozzle in a desired thrust direction. [Pg. 8, last paragraph teaches “In the SUPREME architecture, the inclusion of a separate HTS unit in the AF-module, positioned downstream of the main acceleration coil towards the thruster exhaust, can act as a magnetic TVC system. By using a helix saddle coil geometry, a tailored magnetic field can be created to deflect the accelerated ions and thus re-orientate the thruster exhaust plume. The direction of deflection can be altered by simply adjusting the current through the coils, with no moving parts. Such a system would significantly reduce the thruster system mass, and remove potential point of mechanical failure.” Pg. 7, second paragraph teaches that SUPREME was an acronym that stood for “SUPerconductor-based Readiness Enhanced Magnetoplasmadynamic Electric Propulsion”.]
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier-Wright et al., “System architecture and business opportunities for Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters”, IEPC-2019-801, 36th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Vienna, Austria, September 15-20, 2019, hereinafter “Collier-Wright”.
Re Claim 2, Collier-Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, in Fig. 5 and Pg. 7, fourth bullet, further comprising a thermal management system [As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, “thermal management system” is interpreted as invoking 112(f) interpretation. Specification Para. [0031] disclosed “Such a thermal management system 140 is comprised of several layers of insulation which form a multi-layer, multi-material architecture”. Collier-Wright discloses an equivalent thermal management system.] Collier-Wright discloses, in Pg. 7, fourth bullet, “The thermal management sub-system, including passive components such as multi-layer insulation and radiators.” Collier-Wright is silent on said thermal management system (i.e., multi-layer insulation) being arranged between at least part of the concentric anode and the plurality of superconducting coils (Interpreted as the first and second sets of superconducting coils).
Collier-Wright further teaches, on Pg. 9, under heading “1. Anode” that “The anode is a source of losses due to anode heating, thus resulting in lower thrust efficiencies. This heating can be attributed to the anode fall voltage, a phenomenon that occurs due to the formation of an un-ionised sheath at the anode.” Collier-Wright further teaches, on Pg. 8, second paragraph, that “The primary challenge for the HTS coils is the need to maintain them at a temperature below their critical temperature. Above this temperature, the coils experience a sudden gain in resistance. If this temperature is exceeded during operation, the HTS coils are “quenched” i.e. the resistance increases sharply. This phenomenon can result in significant damage to the superconductors. Thus, the maintenance of the HTS temperature is of significant importance. A cryogenic cooling system is thus included in the system architecture as part of the AF-module.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Collier-Wright, with the further teaching of Collier-Wright, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a propulsion unit for a spacecraft comprising: a centrally arranged cathode, a concentric anode, a propellant injection system, an acceleration system comprising a first and second sets of superconducting coils, and a thermal management system including passive components such as multi-layer insulation and radiators, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., arranging the thermal management system (multi-layer insulation) between at least part of the concentric anode and the plurality of superconducting coils (Interpreted as the first and second sets of superconducting coils) would have facilitated reducing the amount of power required by the cryostat (cryogenic cooling system) to maintain the first and second sets of superconducting coils at a temperature below their critical temperature by reducing the flow of heat generated by the concentric anode from flowing to the lower temperature first and second sets of superconducting coils. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A). It was a scientific fact that heat from a high temperature region naturally flowed to a lower temperature region and that various forms of insulation have been used in the prior art to reduce the flow rate of heat.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier-Wright et al., “System architecture and business opportunities for Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters”, IEPC-2019-801, 36th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Vienna, Austria, September 15-20, 2019, hereinafter “Collier-Wright” in view of Goodzeit et al. (2011/0148238).
Re Claim 4, Collier-Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, on Pg. 8, last paragraph, wherein at least some of the plurality of superconducting coils (Interpreted as the first and second sets of superconducting coils) are arranged in one of a helix manner about the concentric anode. Collier-Wright further teaches, on Pg. 8, last paragraph, “By using a helix saddle coil geometry, a tailored magnetic field can be created to deflect the accelerated ions and thus re-orientate the thruster exhaust plume”.
Collier-Wright is silent on said helix manner, i.e., saddle coil geometry, being a triple helix or a double helix manner.
Goodzeit teaches, in Para. [0047], superconducting coils are arranged in a double helix manner to facilitate preventing degradation of the superconductor material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Collier-Wright with the at least some of the plurality of superconducting coils are arranged in a double helix manner, taught by Goodzeit, to facilitate preventing degradation of the plurality of superconducting coils arranged about the concentric anode.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier-Wright et al., “System architecture and business opportunities for Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters”, IEPC-2019-801, 36th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Vienna, Austria, September 15-20, 2019, hereinafter “Collier-Wright” in view of M. Merino, “Magnetic nozzles for electric propulsion, EPIC lecture series, 2017, Madrid, Spain (cited in the 08/03/2023 IDS and Paragraphs [0039] and [0040] of the instant Specification), hereinafter “Merino”.
Re Claim 4, Collier-Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including, on Pg. 8, last paragraph, wherein at least some of the plurality of superconducting coils (Interpreted as the first and second sets of superconducting coils) are arranged in one of a helix manner about the concentric anode. Collier-Wright further teaches, on Pg. 8, last paragraph, “By using a helix saddle coil geometry, a tailored magnetic field can be created to deflect the accelerated ions and thus re-orientate the thruster exhaust plume”.
Collier-Wright is silent on said helix manner, i.e., saddle coil geometry, being a triple helix or a double helix manner.
Merino teaches, on Pg. 4, bottom right figure labeled “3D MN configuration for thrust vector control”, a triple helix arrangement of a plurality of superconducting coils to facilitate thrust vector control. Merino teaches, on Pg. 4, last bullet point, “With more than one coil, we can create 3D magnetic configurations to deflect the plasma jet laterally, i.e., thrust vector control without moving parts.” The original Specification disclosed, in Para. [0040], “The use of three coils (i.e. a triple helix) enables the use of asymmetric magnetic field topologies to change the direction of the plasma plume 70 and use the same superconducting coils to accelerate and have a control of on the thrust vector as shown in Fig. 4 (adapted from M. Merino, Magnetic nozzles for electric propulsion, EPIC lecture series, (2017), Madrid. Url: http://epic-src.eu/wpcontent/uploads/09_EPICLectureSeries2017_UC3M_nozzles-merino.pdf).” As discussed in the Drawing Objections section above, Applicant’s Figure 4 appears to be a copy Merino’s figure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Collier-Wright with the at least some of the plurality of superconducting coils are arranged in a triple helix manner, taught by Merino, to facilitate thrust vector control without moving parts, i.e., a magnetic nozzle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier-Wright et al., “System architecture and business opportunities for Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters”, IEPC-2019-801, 36th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Vienna, Austria, September 15-20, 2019, hereinafter “Collier-Wright” in view of Schumacher et al. (5,075,594).
Re Claim 5, Collier-Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the centrally arranged cathode further includes a thermionic insert.
Schumacher teaches, in Fig. 3 and Col. 6, ll. 20 – 25, a centrally arranged cathode (16) that includes a thermionic insert (16b). Schumacher teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 20 – 25, “The hollow cathode 16 includes a metal support tube 16a, which retains therein a tubular thermionic cathode insert 16b. The insert 16b is preferably made of porous tungsten impregnated with barium aluminate to increase the thermionic emission of electrons.”
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Collier-Wright with the centrally arranged cathode further includes a thermionic insert, taught by Schumacher, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster for a spacecraft comprising: a centrally arranged cathode, a concentric anode, an split injection for injecting a propellant, a nozzle, and a centrally arranged cathode having a thermionic insert, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the centrally arranged cathode having a thermionic insert, taught by Schumacher, for the centrally arranged cathode of Collier-Wright, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the centrally arranged cathode having a thermionic insert would have facilitated increasing the thermionic emission of electrons, i.e., plasma generation. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collier-Wright et al., “System architecture and business opportunities for Applied-Field Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters”, IEPC-2019-801, 36th International Electric Propulsion Conference, Vienna, Austria, September 15-20, 2019, hereinafter “Collier-Wright” in view of Darmann et al. (2014/0301007).
Re Claims 6 and 7, Collier-Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 6) further comprising a connection for loading the superconducting coils with an electric current and (Claim 7) wherein the connection is an inductive loading connection.
Darmann teaches, in Para. [0006], loading superconducting coils with an electric current via an inductive fault current limiter (FCL) which was a type of inductive loading connection. Darmann teaches, in Para. [0006], “A HTS FCL is typically categorised as an inductive FCL--where the load current flows through a metal coil--or a resistive FCL--where the current flows thought the superconductor coil. For an inductive FCL use is made of a HTS DC bias coil for biasing the core into saturation at least in the vicinity of the metal coil. This bias is such that a flow of current through the metal coil above a given threshold will result in the core being progressed out of saturation which, in turn, will change the inductance of the metal coil and have a limiting affect upon the load current.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Collier-Wright with the inductive loading connection for loading the superconducting coils with an electric current, taught by Darmann, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) thruster for a spacecraft comprising: a centrally arranged cathode, a concentric anode, an split injection for injecting a propellant, a nozzle, a plurality of superconducting coils, and the inductive loading connection for loading the superconducting coils with an electric current, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., during assembly the inductive loading connection would have been connected to the ends of the superconducting coils to facilitate protecting the electrical distribution infrastructure during fault conditions, Darmann – Para. [0004]. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the base reference Myers nor the secondary reference Rubinraut applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741