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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 03/27/2026 amending Claim 15. Claims 15 and 17 are examined
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholls, J. A. and Cullen, R. E., “The Feasibility of a Rotating Detonation Wave Rocket Motor,” Final Report RPL-TDR-64-113, University of Michigan, April 1964, hereinafter “Nicholls” in view of “Mass Flow Rate Equations”, NASA Glenn Research Center, [https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/mass-flow-rate-equations/ accessed on 01/30/2024], hereinafter “Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation” in view of Yuhui Wang and Jianping Wang, “Effect of equivalence ratio on the velocity of rotating detonation”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 40, May 2015, hereinafter “Wang” in view of Barrere et al., “Rocket Propulsion”, Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, 1960, hereinafter “Barrere” in view of Ghani et al. (7,914,279) in view of Design Choice.
PNG
media_image1.png
708
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Nicholls teaches, in Fig. 41 on Pg. 255 of 310, the invention as claimed including a RDE injector, comprising: a plurality propellant injector nozzle pairings (Fig. 41 shows “injector pair, 72 req’d”) wherein each pairing (72 pairs) is arrayed in a circumferential pattern (the rotating detonation wave chamber was annular as shown in Fig. 42 on Pg. 256 of 310, Fig. 57 on Pg. 271 of 310, and Fig. 58 on Pg. 272 of 310) about the RDE injector; each pairing including a fuel injector nozzle (labeled above) and an oxidizer injector nozzle (labeled above); wherein each fuel injector nozzle is in fluidic communication with a source of hydrogen gas (tank labeled “Hydrogen Gas” in Fig. 33 on Pg. 247 of 310, arrow line labeled “Fuel Supply Bank” in Fig. 44 on Pg. 257 of 310, and Fig. 59 on Pg. 273 of 310 where the fuel was hydrogen gas) and each oxidizer injector nozzle is in fluidic communication with a source of oxygen (tank labeled “Oxygen Gas” in Fig. 33 on Pg. 247 of 310, arrow line labeled “Oxygen Supply Bank” in Fig. 44 on Pg. 257 of 310, and Fig. 59 on Pg. 273 of 310 where the fuel was oxygen gas); a ratio of (1) a diameter (0.024 inch Pg. 125, first sentence) of each oxidizer injector nozzle to (2) a diameter (0.017 inch - Pg. 124, last sentence) of each fuel injector nozzle was 1.41 (= 0.024 / 0.017), wherein the injector includes micronozzle injector channels (gas flow channels inside each injector); wherein each paired fuel injector nozzle and oxidizer injector nozzle are configured such that a nozzle injection pressure of hydrogen (measured in the hydrogen fuel manifold) and a nozzle injection pressure of oxygen (measured in the oxidizer manifold) passing through the respective nozzles have a hydrogen-oxygen nozzle injection pressure ratio in a range of 0.8775 to 1.4917. Nicholls discloses, in Fig. 59 on Pg. 273 of 310, at least four test runs of the RDE injector where the hydrogen-oxygen nozzle injection pressure ratio were within the claimed range of 0.8775 to 1.4917, as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Test Run No.
Fuel injector nozzle
Pressure
(psi)
Oxidizer injector nozzle pressure
(psi)
Fuel-oxidizer nozzle injection pressure ratio
151
1300
1275
1.02
154
1360
1350
1.01
156
1680
1330
1.26
160
1620
1310
1.24
a ratio of (1) a jet momentum of hydrogen at the fuel injector outlet apertures [during operation the flow of hydrogen gas at the fuel injector outlet apertures would have inherently had a jet momentum because momentum was the product of the mass time the velocity: p = m x v] to (2) a jet momentum of oxygen at the oxidizer injector outlet apertures [The following is just the conventional definition of momentum.] wherein each jet momentum is defined as a product of the corresponding mass flow rate and a flow velocity at the corresponding outlet aperture.
Nicholls as discussed above is silent on said ratio of (1) a diameter (0.024 inch) of each oxidizer injector nozzle to (2) a diameter (0.017 inch) of each fuel injector nozzle between 1.2 and 1.4 (0.024 / 0.017 = 1.41) because Nicholls ratio was 1.41.
MPEP2144.05(I) stated that “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Nicholls rendered the claimed ratio of (1) a diameter of each oxidizer injector nozzle to (2) a diameter of each fuel injector nozzle obvious because Nicholls’ ratio of 1.41 was so mathematically close to the claimed range of between 1.2 and 1.4 that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.
Nicholls, as discussed above, is silent on said micronozzle injector channels that choke the gas propellant flow as it passes through the injector outlet apertures.
Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation teaches on Pg. 1, an equation to calculate the mass flow rate for an ideal compressible gas when the Mach number (M = 1), i.e., when the gas flow was choked. Two of the variables of the equation, specifically R the gas specific constant and γ (gamma) the specific heat ratio, were inherent material properties of the particular propellant that were listed in prior art handbooks and/or text books. Therefore, after the propellant was chosen, the Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation reduces to just four variables ṁ, A, P, and T. When three of the four variables were known, then the equation could be solved for the fourth variable. “There is a maximum airflow limit that occurs when the Mach number is equal to one. The limiting of the mass flow rate is called choking of the flow. If we substitute M = 1 into Eq #10 (equation in the rectangle) we can determine the value of the choked mass flow rate (simplified equation below the rectangle)”.
PNG
media_image2.png
779
976
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nicholls with the choked flow conditions, taught by Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation because having the micronozzle injector channels choke the gas propellant flow as it passes through the injector outlet apertures would have maximized the propellant mass flow rate through said micronozzle injector channels and facilitated using the simplified equation to calculate the mass flow rate of the propellant through said micronozzle injector channels.
Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, as discussed above, is silent on wherein the propellant injector further includes a ratio of the mass flow rate of hydrogen over the mass flow rate of oxygen between 0.1263 and 0.2147.
Wang teaches, on Pg. 7953, first column, that the equivalence ratio (φ) was the
ratio of actual oxygen-hydrogen (fuel) ratio to stoichiometry, e.g., stoichiometric oxygen-hydrogen (fuel) ratio. In the combustion art, stoichiometric oxygen-fuel ratio was the ideal ratio of oxygen to fuel that allows for complete combustion of the fuel, meaning all the fuel is burned with no excess oxygen or fuel left over, i.e., perfectly balanced combustion. For oxygen and hydrogen, the stoichiometric oxygen-fuel ratio was 16:2 which simplified to 8:1 because the atomic mass of oxygen was about 16 and atomic mass of hydrogen was about 1 and one oxygen atom complete combusted with two hydrogen atoms to form water: O + H2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] H2O. The stoichiometric oxygen-fuel ratio of the mass flow rate of fuel (hydrogen) over the mass flow rate of oxidizer (oxygen) was 0.125 = 1 / 8. Therefore, the claimed range of 0.1263 and 0.2147 covered an equivalence ratio range of 1.0104 to 1.7176 because 0.1263 / 0.125 = 1.0104 and 0.2147 / 0.125 = 1.7176. Wang teaches, on Pg. 7953, bottom of first column continuing onto the second column, conducting experiments with equivalence ratio ranges of 0.34 to 1.257 for oxygen and hydrogen mixtures. An equivalence ratio (φ = 1.0) meant that the ratio of actual oxygen-fuel ratio was equal to the stoichiometric oxygen-fuel ratio. Wang teaches, on Pg. 7953, bottom half of second column, that for the fuel enriched condition, i.e., equivalence ratio φ > 1.0, the detonation velocity increased relative to the stoichiometric detonation velocity because the specific heat ratio of detonation products containing hydrogen (excess hydrogen that was not detonated) and steam (water vapor product of detonating oxygen with hydrogen: O + H2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] H2O) will increase relative to that in the stoichiometric condition because the specific heat ratio of hydrogen was higher than that of steam (water vapor).
Therefore, the ratio of the mass flow rate of fuel over the mass flow rate of oxidizer was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that when the actual ratio of the mass flow rate of fuel over the mass flow rate of oxidizer was greater than the ratio of the mass flow rate of fuel over the mass flow rate of oxidizer, i.e., equivalence ratio greater than 1.0, the detonation velocity increases. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the actual ratio of the mass flow rate of fuel over the mass flow rate of oxidizer, were disclosed in the prior art by Wang, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to operate the rotating detonation engine (RDE) of Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, with a ratio of the mass flow rate of fuel over the mass flow rate of oxidizer between 0.1263 and 0.2147, i.e., fuel enriched condition to increase the detonation velocity relative to the stoichiometric detonation velocity.
Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation and Wang, as discussed above, is silent on each fuel injector nozzle having a length over diameter ratio between 6 and 7, and each oxidizer injector nozzle having a length over diameter ratio between 5 and 6.
Barrere teaches, on Pgs. 370 – 371, that the length over diameter ratio (L/d) determined the coefficient of discharge (Cd) which was the ratio between the theoretical and actual discharge or flow rate values for a fluid flow. Barrere further teaches, in Table 1 on Pg. 371, progressive increase in the value of the length over diameter ratio (L/d) tended to increase the losses by friction and hence the value of ξ (relative value of kinetic energy loss) in equation (1) on Pg. 370 so that the coefficient of discharge (Cd) decreased as the length over diameter ratio (L/d) increased.
PNG
media_image3.png
132
244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the length over diameter ratio (L/d) was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the length over diameter ratio (L/d) increased the ξ (relative value of kinetic energy loss) and decreased the coefficient of discharge (Cd). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that injector nozzles had a length over diameter ratio (L/d), were disclosed in the prior art by Barrere, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fuel injector nozzles of Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation and Wang, to have a length over diameter ratio between 6 and 7 and to modify the oxidizer injector nozzles of Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation and Wang, to have a length over diameter ratio between 5 and 6 so that the coefficient of discharge (Cd) would have been around 0.905 for example when both length over diameter ratios (L/d) were around 6.
It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Routine optimization of the ratio of the mass flow rate of fuel over the mass flow rate of oxidizer and routine optimization of the length over diameter ratio of the oxidizer injector nozzles and the fuel injector nozzles in no more than the change of proportions that is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.
Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, and Barrere, as discussed above, is silent on said ratio of (1) a jet momentum of hydrogen at the fuel injector outlet apertures to (2) a jet momentum of oxygen at the oxidizer injector outlet apertures being between 0.51 and 0.86.
Ghani teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 40 – 45 and Col. 10, ll. 50 – 60, that the ratio of the jet momentum of fuel and the jet momentum of an oxidizer, in this case oxygen, was controlled to enhance the local mixing of the injected fuel and injected oxidizer and to control the penetration of the injected gases, e.g., fuel and oxygen, into a primary stream.
Therefore, the ratio of the jet momentum of fuel and the jet momentum of an oxidizer was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the ratio of the jet momentum of fuel and the jet momentum of an oxidizer was controlled to enhance the local mixing of the injected fuel and injected oxidizer and to control the penetration of the injected gases, e.g., fuel and oxygen, into a primary stream. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e., that, during operation, the fuel injector outlet apertures would have had a jet momentum of hydrogen and the oxidizer injector outlet apertures would have had a jet momentum of oxygen and therefore there would have been a ratio of the jet momentum of fuel and the jet momentum of an oxidizer, were disclosed in the prior art by Nicholls and Ghani, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the non-disclosed ratio of Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, and Barrere, to have a range between 0.51 and 0.86 to facilitate controlling the local mixing of the injected fuel and injected oxidizer and to control the penetration of the injected gases, e.g., fuel and oxygen, into a primary stream, e.g., the gases inside the annulus channel of the RDE.
It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Routine optimization of the ratio of the jet momentum of fuel and the jet momentum of an oxidizer is no more than the change of proportions that is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.
Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, Barrere, and Ghani, as discussed above, is silent on a ratio of (1) radial spacing of an injector nozzle pairing to (2) a diameter of the fuel injector nozzle that is between 2.5 and 2.7; and a ratio of (1) a circumferential spacing of adjacent injector pairs to (2) a diameter of the fuel injector nozzle that is between 3.3 and 3.6.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, Barrere, and Ghani, to have a ratio of (1) radial spacing of an injector nozzle pairing to (2) a diameter of the fuel injector nozzle that is between 2.5 and 2.7 ; and a ratio of (1) a circumferential spacing of adjacent injector pairs to (2) a diameter of the fuel injector nozzle that is between 3.3 and 3.6 because Applicant has not disclosed that “a ratio of (1) radial spacing of an injector nozzle pairing to (2) a diameter of the fuel injector nozzle that is between 2.5 and 2.7; and a ratio of (1) a circumferential spacing of adjacent injector pairs to (2) a diameter of the fuel injector nozzle that is between 3.3 and 3.6” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, the original disclosure only disclosed in Para. [0036] “Some embodiments, further include a ratio of injector pair spacing in a radial direction by injector diameter between 2.5 and 2.7” and in Para. [0092] “In some embodiments, the ratio of injector pair spacing in a radial direction by injector diameter is between 2.5 and 2.7”. Similarly, the original disclosure only disclosed in Para. [0036] “Some embodiments, further include a ratio of injector pair spacing in a circumferential direction by injector diameter is between 3.3 and 3.6” and in Para. [0092] “In some embodiments, the ratio of injector pair spacing in a circumferential direction by injector diameter is between 3.3 and 3.6”. The original disclosure failed to disclose that the claimed ratio ranges provided an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem which is indicative of a lack of criticality. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the ratio of (1) radial spacing of an injector nozzle pairing to (2) a diameter of the fuel injector nozzle of Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, Barrere, and Ghani, because Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, Barrere, and Ghani, repeatedly produced a rotating detonation wave during a plurality of tests. In other words, the rotating detonation wave completed a 360° circuit of the annular detonation channel.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, Barrere, and Ghani, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 15.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholls, J. A. and Cullen, R. E., “The Feasibility of a Rotating Detonation Wave Rocket Motor,” Final Report RPL-TDR-64-113, University of Michigan, April 1964, hereinafter “Nicholls” in view of “Mass Flow Rate Equations”, NASA Glenn Research Center, [https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/mass-flow-rate-equations/ accessed on 01/30/2024], hereinafter “Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation” in view of Yuhui Wang and Jianping Wang, “Effect of equivalence ratio on the velocity of rotating detonation”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 40, May 2015, hereinafter “Wang” in view of Barrere et al., “Rocket Propulsion”, Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, 1960, hereinafter “Barrere” in view of Ghani et al. (7,914,279) in view of Design Choice in view of Hoeptner et al. (3,334,490).
Re Claim 17, Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, Barrere, and Ghani, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein each pairing is arranged in an impinging doublet configuration with an interior angle between 55° and 65°.
Hoeptner teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 38 – 50 and Fig. 10, a similar impinging doublet configuration with an interior angle being about 58° which is encompassed by the claimed range of 55° and 65°.
PNG
media_image4.png
519
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, Barrere, and Ghani, with the interior angle being about 58° taught by Hoeptner, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the RDE injector, the plurality of propellant injector nozzle pairings, and impinging fuel injector nozzle and oxidizer injector nozzle, and an interior angle between about 58° between impinging pairs of propellant streams, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the interior angle between about 58°, taught by Hoeptner, for the interior angle of Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, Barrere, and Ghani, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the fuel stream injected by the fuel injector nozzle would have impinged with the oxidizer stream injected by the oxidizer injector nozzle thereby facilitating vigorous mixing of the fuel and oxidizer which would have facilitated immediate reaction when ignited, Hoeptner - Col. 2, ll. 38 – 50. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Alternatively, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Claim 17 the relative dimension was the “…interior angle between 55° and 65°”. Applicant has failed to factually prove that a RDE having the claimed relative dimensions would have perform differently than the prior art RDE, consequently the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the claimed RDE injector was not patentably distinct from the RDE injector of Nicholls, i.v., Mass-Flow-Rate-Equation, Wang, Barrere, and Ghani.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered and to the extent possible have been addressed in the rejections above, at the appropriate locations.
Applicant’s arguments on Pgs. 5 – 8 regarding reference Nicholls, Wang, Barrere, and Hoeptner in view of the amendments to Claim 15 are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments on Pgs. 7 – 8 regarding the “Design Choice” rationale are not persuasive. Applicant has failed to cite any evidence in the record to indicate the criticality of the ratios that were rejected using the “Design Choice” rationale. The rejections are maintained.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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
Prosecution Insights