DETAILED ACTION
Continuation Reissue Application
The instant reissue application is a continuation reissue of earlier reissue Application No. 17/320,916, which is a division reissue of earlier reissue Application No. 17/319,988. Thus, the instant application is a third application for reissue of US Patent No. 10,286,599 B2. See MPEP 1451, 35 USC 251(b), and 37 CFR 1.177.
Earlier reissue Application No. 17/320,916 was concluded with the issuance of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,775 E on January 2, 2024, and earlier reissue Application No. 17/319,988 was concluded with the issuance of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,765 E on December 26, 2023.
Maintenance Fees
MPEP 2504 explains that, for maintenance fees due on or after January 16, 2018, separate maintenance fees must be paid in:
Each reissued patent in force on (i.e., issued before) the maintenance fee due date. This includes all reissued patents that replace the same original patent.
An original patent that is not surrendered because one or more applications for reissue of that original patent are still pending on the maintenance fee due date.
USPTO records show that the four-year maintenance fee has been timely filed and, thus, maintenance fee payments are up to date for original US Patent No. 10,286,599 B2. No maintenance fee is yet due for US Reissued Patent Nos. RE49,775 E and RE49,765 E.
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 16, 2026, which has been entered with the exception of the proposed replacement drawing sheets (see explanation below).
Claims Subject to Examination
Reissue claims 31-36, 39-53 and 57-67 are subject to examination. Patent claims 1-30 and reissue claims 37, 38 and 54-56 have been canceled.
Proposed Replacement Drawing Sheets
The proposed replacement drawing sheets filed on January 16, 2026 have been disapproved by the examiner and will not be entered because:
The replacement drawing sheets (especially Figs. 7, 8 and 15) do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l). All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.
Fig. 15 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m). Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Fig. 15 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1). Reference characters must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet.
Fig. 15 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 0.32 cm (1/8 inch) in height.
In Fig. 15, reference number 96 has been placed over its lead line (arrow) rather than being placed next to it.
In Fig. 15, reference number 97 is inaccurate. According to the amended paragraph beginning at column 14, line 42 of the patent specification, reference number 97 should label (via a lead line) the ABS thermoplastic that is illustrated in the box at the top of Fig. 15 and that is fed into the compounding step/device.
Objections to Amendments – Formalities
The specification amendments filed on January 16, 2026 are objected to because:
In the 5th line of the new paragraph added at col. 1, line 10, “filed on Dec. 2E 2023.” should read “filed on Dec. 21, 2023.”
In the 1st line of the amended paragraph beginning at col. 8, line 60, “FIG. 4 is a flow diagram…” is inaccurate because Fig. 4 does not show a “flow diagram” of a manufacturing process.
In the 1st line of the amended paragraph beginning at col. 9, line 14, “[FIGS.] 12” should read “[FIGS.] FIG. 12”.
Reference number 11 has been added to the amended paragraph beginning at col. 11, line 47, but reference number 11 does not appear in the current version of the drawings (since the proposed replacement sheets are not entered).
Reference numbers 96, 97 and 98 have been added to the amended paragraph beginning at col. 14, line 42, but reference numbers 96, 97 and 98 do not appear in the current version of the drawings (since the proposed replacement sheets are not entered).
In the 15th line of the amended paragraph beginning at col. 14, line 42, “flammable material 94” is inconsistent with the amendments to the paragraph beginning at col. 15, line 50 (which change “94” to “[94] 89” and which use reference number 89 to identify “feedstock” instead of “flammable material”).
Reference number 96 has been added to the amended paragraph beginning at col. 15, line 1, but reference number 96 does not appear in the current version of the drawings (since the proposed replacement sheets are not entered).
Reference number 89 has been added to the amended paragraph beginning at col. 15, line 50, but reference number 89 does not appear in the current version of the drawings (since the proposed replacement sheets are not entered).
In the 8th line of the amended paragraph beginning at col. 15, line 50, “feedstock 94” is inconsistent with the other amendments to the paragraph (which change “94” to “[94] 89”).
Reference number 96 has been added to the amended paragraph beginning at col. 15, line 66, but reference number 96 does not label the additive manufacturing apparatus in the current version of the drawings (since the proposed replacement sheets are not entered).
In the 1st line of the paragraph beginning at col. 15, line 66, “die 96” is inconsistent with the amendments to the paragraphs beginning at col. 14, line 42 and col. 15, line 1 (which recite “additive manufacturing apparatus [90] 96”).
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 10,286,599 B2, which issued from US Application No. 15/818,381, which was a continuation-in-part (CIP) of US Application No. 15/275,423 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,822,045 B2), which was a CIP of U.S. Application No. 12/052,934 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,453,479 B1), which claimed priority to US Provisional Application No. 60/896,296.
The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of Application No. 15/818,381 as filed on November 20, 2017 since Application No. 15/818,381 was a CIP of (and, thus, added disclosure to) prior Application Nos. 15/275,423 and 12/052,934.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) prohibits any amendment that introduces new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
35 USC 251(a) prohibits the introduction of new matter into the application for reissue.
Objection to Amendment – New Matter
The amendment filed on January 16, 2026 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter for the reasons given below.
Claims 32 and 51 have been amended to recite “in which the fuel grain section is elongated.” The original disclosure describes each fuel grain section as being generally cylindrical, with an outer diameter d2 of 19 inches and a height h1 of 23 inches. The original disclosure does not describe each fuel grain section as “elongated”. One ordinary and customary meaning of “elongated” is long and slender: having a form notably long in comparison to its width.1 The disclosed outer diameter d2 of 19 inches and a height h1 of 23 inches is not consistent with a form notably long in comparison to its width and, thus, is not inherently elongated. It is noted that the assembled fuel grain (or fuel grain assembly) comprising plural stacked fuel grain sections is disclosed as having a height h2 of 92 inches. Thus, the assembled fuel grain (or fuel grain assembly) is “elongated” since the height of 92 inches is notably long in comparison to the outer diameter of 19 inches.
Claim 50 recites “in which the inner wall of the fuel grain is formed of beads of the fuel grain material from at least one of the multiple layers” (ll. 10-11). However, the original disclosure does not provide support for the inner wall being formed of fuel grain beads from only one (or a small number) of the multiple layers of beads that form the fuel grain section (which is encompassed by the “from at least one of the multiple layers” claim language).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Consent of Assignee
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking the written consent of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP 1410.01.
The consent of assignee (i.e., Form PTO/AIA /53) filed in the instant application on December 21, 2023 is a copy of the consent of assignee filed in parent reissue Application No. 17/319,988 on May 13, 2021. Such a copy of the assignee consent is only acceptable if the continuation reissue application corrects an error for which consent was made in the parent reissue application. That is, such a copy of the assignee consent is only acceptable if it gives consent for an error that was (a) identified in the parent reissue application (e.g., in the reissue oath/declaration filed in the parent reissue application), and (b) corrected in the continuation reissue application. See MPEP 1451, subsection II.
In this case, applicant has failed to explain why the filing of the copy of the reissue declaration from the parent reissue application is sufficient to ensure that an error is correctly identified by the continuation reissue application. See MPEP 1451, subsection II. Thus, applicant has failed to establish that consent was made in the parent reissue application for the error now corrected in the continuation reissue application.
A proper assent of the assignee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 is required in reply to this Office action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration filed on December 21, 2023 is defective because it fails to specifically and properly identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01.
As required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), the reissue oath/declaration must specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. It is not sufficient to merely state that applicant seeks to broaden or narrow the scope of a patent claim. Further, a statement in the reissue oath/declaration of “…failure to include a claim directed to…” and then reciting all the limitations of a newly added claim would not be considered a sufficient error statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.
The reissue declaration (i.e., Form PTO/AIA /05) filed in the instant application on December 21, 2023 is a copy of the reissue declaration filed in parent reissue Application No. 17/319,988 on May 13, 2021.
Where a continuation reissue application is filed with a copy of the reissue oath/declaration from the parent reissue application, and the parent reissue application is not abandoned, the copy of the reissue oath/declaration is improper under 35 U.S.C. 251 unless it is accompanied by a statement explaining compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2). If the same error corrected in the parent reissue application is also being corrected in the continuation reissue application, but the error is being corrected in a different way, a statement is needed to explain compliance with 37 CFR 1.175(f)(2). See MPEP 1414, subsection II(D). In this case, applicant has failed to explain why the filing of the copy of the reissue declaration from the parent reissue application is sufficient to ensure that an error is correctly identified by the continuation reissue application. See MPEP 1451, subsection II(B).
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The following claim terms/limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in reexamination:
Claim Term:
Bead
Examiner’s Construction:
A continuous line or deposit of applied material
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “bead” is used in applicant’s specification and claims in a manner consistent with the following ordinary meaning of the term “bead”: a line of continuously applied ductile material, such as solder or caulking compound.2 Applicant’s “bead” is not a solder or caulking compound, but it is a line of continuously applied ductile material. Further, the term “bead” is used in applicant’s specification and claims in a manner similar to (but not exactly the same as) the following ordinary meaning of the term “bead”: (in welding) a continuous deposit of fused metal, either straight (stringer bead) or zigzag (weave bead).3 Applicant’s “bead” is not a welded bead per se, but it is a continuous deposit of material that fuses to adjacent beads of material.
Claim Term:
Corrugated
Examiner’s Construction:
Shaped into alternating wrinkles, or alternating folds, or alternating ridges and grooves
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “corrugated” is used in applicant’s specification and claims in a manner consistent with the following ordinary meaning of the term “corrugated”: having corrugations,4 where a “corrugation” is a ridge or groove of a surface that has been corrugated,5 and where the act of corrugating means to form or shape into wrinkles or folds or into alternating ridges and grooves.6
Effective Filing Date
The examiner has reviewed the disclosures of the applications to which priority is claimed in order to determine whether such applications provide support in the manner required by 35 USC 112(a) for the subject matter claimed in the instant application.
The examiner finds that prior Application No. 12/052,934 and prior Provisional Application No. 60/896,296 fail to provide support in the manner required by 35 USC 112(a) for at least the following subject matter recited in the claims of the instant application:
“the fuel grain material comprises a mixture of a hybrid rocket fuel material and a metallic material” (claims 31 and 50).
“in which an end of one fuel grain section is bonded to an end of an adjacent fuel grain section to form a fuel grain assembly” (claims 42 and 60).
The examiner finds that prior Application Nos. 12/052,934 and 15/275,423 and prior Provisional Application No. 60/896,296 fail to provide support in the manner required by 35 USC 112(a) for at least the following subject matter recited in the claims of this application: “the fuel grain material comprises between 75% and 95% by mass of the hybrid rocket fuel material and between 5% and 25% by mass of the metallic material” (claims 48 and 66).
Accordingly:
The effective filing date of claims 31-36, 39-47, 49-53, 57-65 and 67 of the instant application is September 25, 2016, i.e., the filing date of prior Application No. 15/275,423 (now US Patent No. 9,822,045 B2).
The effective filing date of claims 48 and 66 of the instant application is November 20, 2017, i.e., the filing date of US Patent No. 10,286,599 B2 for which reissue is sought.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Fuller”
US Publication No. 2013/0042951 A1
“Jellis et al. ‘424”
US Publication No. 2012/0009424 A1
“Jellis et al. ‘962”
US Publication No. 2015/0307962 A1
“Jones ‘479”
US Patent No. 9,453,479 B17
“Lou et al.”
US Patent No. 5,386,777
“Moriwaki et al.”
JP Publication No. 2011-1904 A (with translation)
“Mullaney”
US Patent No. 2,990,682
“Nissan”
JP Publication No. S46-39645 B1 (with translation)
“Stark”
US Patent No. 3,423,943
“Whitmore et al. ‘256”
US Publication No. 2016/0194256 A1
“Whitmore et al. ‘892”
US Publication No. 2015/0322892 A1
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 31-36, 39-53 and 57-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue oath/declaration is explained above.
GROUND 2: Claims 32, 50-53 and 57-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 because these claims improperly introduce new matter into the application for reissue. See the explanation above. Claims 52, 53 and 57-67 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation 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.
GROUND 3: Claims 32, 50-53 and 57-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above. Claims 52, 53 and 57-67 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
GROUND 4: Claims 39, 48-53 and 57-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 31 recites that “the inner wall of the fuel grain section has a corrugated structure” (l. 8). Claim 39 depends from claim 31 and recites “the inner wall of the fuel grain section defines alternating protrusions and depressions.” Claim 39 is indefinite because it is unclear how the alternating protrusions and depressions of claim 39 relate to the corrugated structure of claim 31. By apparently allowing for the alternating protrusions and depressions to be distinct from the corrugated structure, claim 39 fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification.
In claim 48, “The fuel grain of claim 31” (l. 1) is inconsistent with claim 31, which has been amended to recite “A fuel grain section” (l. 1). Thus, in claim 48, “The fuel grain” lacks proper antecedent basis and creates confusion as to the scope of the claim.
Claims 49 and 67 recite “a casing, in which the fuel grain section is housed” (l. 8). According to the specification, the hybrid rocket engine 70 shown in Fig. 7 has a motor case 60 in which the assembled fuel grain 40 (or fuel grain assembly) is housed. Thus, the specification does not describe the case 60 as housing an individual fuel grain section. The examiner suggests amending claims 49 and 67 by changing “the fuel grain section” (l. 8) to “the fuel grain assembly” in order to conform the claim language to the specification.
Claim 50 recites “beads of fuel grain material” (l. 5). Claim 50 goes on to recite “…is formed of beads of the fuel grain material” (ll. 10-11). Due to the re-introduction of “beads” in line 10, it is unclear whether the line 10 refers to the same beads required by line 5, or to different beads. The examiner suggests amending claim 50 by changing “formed of beads of the fuel grain material” (ll. 10-11) to “formed of a subset of the beads of the fuel grain material”. Note that a similar amendment was made to claim 35.
Claim 50 recites that “the inner wall of the fuel grain section is formed of beads of the fuel grain material…defining a corrugated structure” (ll. 10-11). Claim 57 depends from claim 50 and recites “the inner wall of the fuel grain section defines alternating protrusions and depressions.” Claim 57 is indefinite because it is unclear how the alternating protrusions and depressions of claim 57 relate to the corrugated structure of claim 50. By apparently allowing for the alternating protrusions and depressions to be distinct from the corrugated structure, claim 57 fails to conform to the description of the invention in the specification.
In claim 60, “an adjacent fuel grain” (l. 3) is inconsistent with both “multiple of the fuel grain sections” (l. 2) and “one fuel grain section” (l. 3). The examiner suggests changing “an adjacent fuel grain” (l. 3) to “an adjacent fuel grain section”.
In claims 63-66, “The fuel grain of claim 50” (l. 1) is inconsistent with claim 50, which has been amended to recite “A fuel grain section” (l. 1). Thus, in claims 63-66, “The fuel grain” lacks proper antecedent basis and creates confusion as to the scope of the claim.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
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.
GROUND 5: Claims 31-33, 35, 36, 39-46, 48, 50-52, 57-64 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmore et al. ‘256 in view of Fuller and Whitmore et al. ‘892.
With respect to claims 31, 42, 43, 45, 50, 60, 61 and 63, Whitmore et al. ‘256 teaches a plurality of fuel grain sections 30a, 30b, 30c (or 31a, 31b, 31c, or 33a, 33b, 33c) that are stacked and joined to form a complete fuel grain 10. See Figs. 1, 2A and 4; ¶¶ 0029, 0034, 0037. The fuel grain sections have interlocking features 35 (or 62, 63) and are also secured (bonded) end to end using ABS cement in order to form an air-tight connection. See Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶ 0029, 0037-0038. The fuel grain sections are formed of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) using fused deposition modeling (FDM®).8 See ¶¶ 0008-0009, 0015, 0029, 0031. Whitmore et al. ‘256 explains that each fuel grain section includes a plurality of successive flat layers 50 that are built up to form the fuel grain section and to define the combustion port within the fuel grain section (the combustion ports of the fuel grain sections collectively defining a combustion port 20 of the complete fuel grain). See ¶¶ 0008, 0015, 0029, 0035. As shown in Fig. 2B, the flat layers 50 provide the boundary wall of the combustion port with a textured surface pattern, i.e., a series of projections and depressions defining undulations. See ¶ 0033, which explains that the structure of the combustion port increases the nominal surface skin friction.
With respect to claims 31, 35, 36, 44, 50 and 62, Whitmore et al. ‘256 fails to teach that the FDM® involves extruding multiple beads of the fuel grain material to define the layers of fuel grain material. With respect to claims 31, 46, 48, 50, 64 and 66, Whitmore et al. ‘256 fails to teach that the fuel grain material comprises a mixture of the ABS and a nanoscale metallic material in the form of aluminum powder.
Fuller teaches a fuel grain section 128 made of a fuel grain material 208 comprising a mixture of ABS and an energy-increasing additive in the form of powdered metal such as aluminum powder. See Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶ 0048, 0072, 0089-0090. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such aluminum powder is of a size measurable in nanometers or microns (i.e., nanoscale). The fuel grain section 128 has a combustion port 210 with a relatively complex shape. See Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0044, 0049, 0071-0074. The port shape can induce turbulence in the fluid flow. See ¶ 0049. Like Whitmore et al. ‘256, Fuller teaches that a plurality of fuel grain sections are stacked to form a complete fuel grain. See ¶¶ 0024, 0078. Fuller also teaches the use of FDM® for forming a fuel grain having a combustion port with a complex shape. See ¶¶ 0051, 0053. Fuller explains that, in FDM®, a plastic is melted, a bead of molten plastic material is extruded through a moving nozzle, a trail of the extruded material solidifies behind the nozzle to form a substantially two-dimensional first layer, and the process is repeated to build up successive layers until a three-dimensional object is formed. See ¶¶ 0051, 0053.
Based on the teachings of Fuller:
The FDM® used by Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Fuller involves extruding multiple beads of the fuel grain material to define the layers of fuel grain material. Thus, the Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Fuller combination meets the bead limitations of claims 31, 35, 36, 44, 50 and 60. It would have been obvious to use such a process to fabricate the fuel grain sections of Whitmore et al. ‘256 because (i) Whitmore et al. ‘256 already teaches the use of FDM®, and (ii) the extrusion of beads taught by Fuller allows for the formation of the built-up layers of Whitmore et al. ‘256 in an accurate and efficient manner. Further, Fuller and Whitmore et al. ‘256 establish that such a fuel grain construction is beneficial in providing a fuel grain with a complex shape and/or desired surface characteristics for more efficient combustion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Whitmore et al. ‘256 to mix a nanoscale metallic material in the form of aluminum powder because Fuller teaches that adding the aluminum powder results in an increase in the energy produced by the fuel grain.
With respect to claims 31, 39, 50 and 57, Fig. 2B of Whitmore et al. ‘256 shows that the flat layers 50 provide the boundary wall of the combustion port with a textured surface pattern, and the textured surface pattern appears to be shown as having alternating protrusions and depressions that define a corrugated texture. However, Whitmore et al. ‘256 is not considered to fully teach the claimed corrugated texture defined by alternating protrusions and depressions.
Whitmore et al. ‘892 teaches a hybrid rocket 10 including a first fuel grain section 20 (defining a housing of an ignition system 12) and a second fuel grain section 34. See Figs. 1-3B; ¶¶ 0030-0032, 0040. As illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3A, the first and second fuel grain sections 20, 34 are formed in one piece to define a complete fuel grain. Like Fuller and Whitmore et al. ‘256, Whitmore et al. ‘892 teaches that the fuel grain sections 20, 34 are formed of ABS using FDM®. See ¶¶ 0011, 0030, 0032, 0040. The fuel grain section 20 includes a plurality of successive flat layers 18 that are built up to form the fuel grain section and to define the boundary wall surface 14 of the combustion port 48 within the fuel grain section, with the flat layers 18 defining a series of ridges/peaks (protrusions) 16/92 and grooves (depressions) 94 along the boundary wall of the combustion port 48, thereby defining a corrugated texture on the boundary wall of the combustion port 48. See Figs. 5-6; ¶¶ 0030, 0040-0042. The peaks (protrusions) 92 may have a small radius at their peripheral end. See ¶ 0042. Thus, Whitmore et al. ‘892 teaches an inner wall defining the combustion port 48, wherein the inner wall is shaped into alternating ridges and grooves that define a corrugated texture.
Since the fuel grain section 34 of Whitmore et al. ‘892 is formed in one piece with and of the same fuel grain material as the fuel grain section 20, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the fuel grain section 34 can also be formed using FDM® to produce the plural flat layers 18 defining the ridges/peaks (protrusions) 16/92 and grooves (depressions) 94 along the boundary wall of its combustion port. Whitmore et al. ‘892 explains that:
The ridges/peaks (protrusions) 16/92 and grooves (depressions) 94 are formed as a result of ABS possessing a very unique electro-mechanical property such that FDM® results in a distinctive surface structure that is different than the surface of a monolithically fabricated (e.g., a molded or machined) ABS structure. See ¶¶ 0040-0042.
Due to the unique structure of ABS formed by FDM®, as material from the boundary wall surface 14 of the combustion port 48 is consumed or removed (ablates) through combustion, a newly exposed internal surface maintains similar surface characteristics or surface roughness. See ¶ 0041.
From these teachings of Whitmore et al. ‘892, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Whitmore et al. ‘256 by forming the ABS-based fuel grain sections using FDM® so as to produce a distinctive corrugated surface structure/texture defined by alternating ridges/peaks (protrusions) and grooves (depressions) along the boundary wall of the combustion port. It would have been obvious to use such a process to fabricate the fuel grain sections of Whitmore et al. ‘256 because (i) Whitmore et al. ‘256 already teaches the use of FDM®, and (ii) the extrusion of beads taught by Fuller and the formation of a distinctive surface structure/texture taught by Whitmore et al. ‘892 allows for the formation of the built-up layers of Whitmore et al. ‘256 in an accurate and efficient manner. Further, Fuller, Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892 establish that such a fuel grain construction is beneficial in providing a fuel grain with a complex shape and/or desired surface characteristics for more efficient combustion.
With respect to claims 32 and 51, Whitmore et al. ‘256, Fuller and Whitmore et al. ‘892 all teach fuel grains that are elongated.
With respect to claims 33 and 52, Whitmore et al. ‘256 teaches fuel grain sections that are generally cylindrical.
With respect to claims 40 and 58, Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892 teach essentially the same corrugated texture, i.e., alternating projections and depressions, as that disclosed by applicant. Since the structure is essentially the same, the textured surface pattern of Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892 is capable of creating a swirling current of oxidizer in the same manner that applicant’s textured surface pattern is capable of creating a swirling current of oxidizer.
With respect to claims 41 and 59, Whitmore et al. ‘892 explains that, due to the unique structure of ABS formed by FDM®, as material from the boundary wall surface 14 of the combustion port 48 is consumed or removed (ablates) through combustion, a newly exposed internal surface maintains similar surface characteristics or surface roughness. See ¶ 0041.
With respect to claims 48 and 66, Fuller teaches the use of an aluminum powder as an additive to the ABS-based fuel grain material. The skilled artisan would appreciate that the ABS would constitute a majority of the mass, with the additive constituting a minority. The skilled artisan would also recognize that the particular amount of aluminum powder affects the desired increase in the energy produced during combustion, i.e., more aluminum powder produces a greater increase in energy during combustion, and less aluminum powder produces a lesser increase in energy. Given the general framework taught by Fuller, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select particular ratios of ABS to aluminum powder, e.g., 75% ABS and 25% aluminum powder, or 80% ABS and 20% aluminum powder, or 90% ABS and 10% aluminum powder, or 95% ABS and 5% aluminum powder, in order to produce the desired increase in energy for a given application.
GROUND 6: Claims 34, 47, 53 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmore et al. ‘256 in view of Fuller and Whitmore et al. ‘892 (GROUND 5) and further in view of Jellis et al. ‘424.
With respect to claims 34, 47, 53 and 65, the Whitmore et al. ‘256, Fuller and Whitmore et al. ‘892 combination fails to teach a nanoscale aluminum powder that is passivated with a polymer.
Jellis et al. ‘424 is directed to passivated metal nanoparticles having an epoxide-based oligomer coating. See the title; ¶ 0004. Jellis et al. ‘424 explains (i) that aluminum nanostructures are valuable for many energy-related applications, including as propellants for rockets, (ii) use of nanoscale aluminum particles is challenging because of their reactivity, and (iii) it is desirable to use a coating or cap to passivate aluminum nanoparticles for greater safety/stability. See ¶¶ 0006-0008. Thus, Jellis et al. ‘424 teaches a coating of epoxide-based oligomer surrounding an aluminum nanoparticle core. See ¶¶ 0009-0012.
From the teachings of Jellis et al. ‘424, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Whitmore et al. ‘256 by fabricating the energy-increasing additive as passivated aluminum nanoparticles having an epoxide-based oligomer coating in order to increase the safety/stability of the fuel grain.
GROUND 7: Claims 40 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over e Whitmore et al. ‘256 in view of Fuller and Whitmore et al. ‘892 (GROUND 5) and further in view of Moriwaki et al.
With respect to claims 40 and 58, Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892 teach essentially the same corrugated texture, i.e., alternating projections and depressions, as that disclosed by applicant. Since the structure is essentially the same, the textured surface pattern of Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892 would appear to be capable of creating a swirling current of oxidizer in the same manner that applicant’s textured surface pattern is capable of creating a swirling current of oxidizer. In an alternative interpretation, Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892 are considered to fail to fully teach the swirling current feature of claims 40 and 58.
Moriwaki et al. teaches a complete fuel grain 3 that is incorporated into a hybrid rocket engine comprising (i) an oxidizer source (see Figs. 4(A) and 6(A)) configured to provide a flow of an oxidizer through the combustion port 5 during operation of the hybrid rocket engine, (ii) a valve (see ¶¶ 0026, 0028) configured to control the flow of the oxidizer through the combustion port 5, (iii) a nozzle 4 in fluid communication with the combustion port, and (iv) a casing/shell 2 within which the complete fuel grain 3 is housed, with the nozzle 4 extending beyond an end of the casing/shell 2. See Figs. 1-6; ¶¶ 0002, 0026, 0028.9 Like Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892, Moriwaki et al. teaches that the fuel grain structure has a boundary wall of the combustion port that is specially configured to provide protrusions 10a, 10b (see Fig. 1), 13 (see Fig. 2) or undulations 15 (see Fig. 4), and Moriwaki et al. explains that such a textured surface creates turbulence in the fluid for better mixing of gaseous fuel and oxidizer and more efficient combustion. See Figs. 1-2 and 4; ¶¶ 0005-0013, 0018-0019, 0027, 0029-0035, 0040-0043. While plural combustion ports 5 are shown in Fig. 4, the fuel grain 3 can have a single combustion port 5. See ¶ 0044.
From the teachings of Moriwaki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Whitmore et al. ‘256 by using the textured surface to create a swirling current of oxidizer in the combustion port for better mixing of gaseous fuel and oxidizer and more efficient combustion.
GROUND 8: Claims 49 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmore et al. ‘256 in view of Fuller and Whitmore et al. ‘892 (GROUND 5) and further in view of Stark.
With respect to claims 49 and 67, Whitmore et al. ‘256 teaches a hybrid rocket engine 100 including a casing/shell (see Fig. 1) that houses the complete fuel grain 10. See Fig. 1; See ¶ 0029. Whitmore et al. ‘256 fails to discuss all of the components of the hybrid rocket engine and, thus, fails to explicitly teach the conventional hybrid rocket engine components required by claims 49 and 67.
Stark discloses a fuel grain for a hybrid rocket, comprising multiple fuel grain sections 18 and multiple additional fuel grain sections 26 arranged in a stacked configuration, with the fuel grain sections 18 each having an opening 20 bounded by a boundary wall, with the additional fuel grain sections 26 each having an opening 28 bounded by a boundary wall, and with the openings 20, 28 defining a collective combustion port (or respective combustion ports) extending axially through the fuel grain. See Figs. 1-3; col. 3, ll. 9-42. The additional fuel grain sections 26 define shoulders 32 that induce a highly turbulent flow of fluid through the combustion port, including cross currents possessing an outward radial component, resulting in partial recirculation for better mixing of gaseous fuel and oxidizer and more efficient combustion. See Fig. 1; col. 1, l. 56 to col. 2, l. 21; col. 3, ll. 43-60. This highly turbulent flow (i.e., cross currents having an outward radial component, resulting in partial recirculation) is illustrated in Fig. 1 as a reverse flow of fluid that (i) is produced by the fluid’s interaction with each shoulder 32, and (ii) creates a rotary/whirling/ swirling motion in the fluid downstream of each shoulder 32.
Stark’s multiple fuel grain sections 18 and multiple additional fuel grain sections 26 are arranged in a stacked configuration to form an elongated and generally cylindrical fuel grain. The complete fuel grain is incorporated into a hybrid rocket engine comprising (i) an oxidizer source 16 configured to provide a flow of an oxidizer through the combustion port during operation of the hybrid rocket engine, (ii) a valve 19 configured to control the flow of the oxidizer through the combustion port, (iii) a nozzle 14 in fluid communication with the combustion port, and (iv) a casing/shell (see Fig. 1) within which the complete fuel grain, the oxidizer source 16, and the valve 19 are housed, with the nozzle 14 extending beyond an end of the casing/shell. See Fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 41-58.
Whitmore et al. ‘892 teaches a similar hybrid rocket engine including an oxidizer source 22, a nozzle 26, and a casing/shell (see Fig. 1) housing the complete fuel grain. See Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0030, 0032.
From the teachings of Stark and/or Whitmore et al. ‘892, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Whitmore et al. ‘256 by providing the hybrid rocket engine with the conventional hybrid rocket engine components required by claims 49 and 67 because (i) Whitmore et al. ‘256 already teaches a hybrid rocket engine, and (ii) the conventional components required by claims 49 and 67 are necessary components for such a hybrid rocket engine to function in the manner intended.
Double Patenting – Nonstatutory
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
GROUND 9: Claims 31-36, 39-53 and 57-67 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 31-33, 36-46, 49, 50, 54-56, 58-65 and 68 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,775 E in view of Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892.
Claims 31-36, 39-53 and 57-67 of the instant application are, in one sense, broader versions of 31-33, 36-46, 49, 50, 54-56, 58-65 and 68 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,775 E because claim 31-36, 39-53 and 57-67 of the instant application recite many of the same limitations found in claims 31-33, 36-46, 49, 50, 54-56, 58-65 and 68 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,775 E, but claims 31-36, 39-53 and 57-67 of the instant application omit some of limitations recited in claims 31-33, 36-46, 49, 50, 54-56, 58-65 and 68 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,775 E. Specifically:
The omission of one or more limitations (i.e., the additional limitations required by claims 31-33, 36-46, 49, 50, 54-56, 58-65 and 68 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,775 E) with the consequent loss of their function is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 31 and 50 of the instant application, an inner wall having a corrugated texture is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892.
With respect to claims 32 and 51 of the instant application, elongated fuel grains are well-known in the art, as evidence by Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892.
Accordingly, claims 31-36, 39-53 and 57-67 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 31-33, 36-46, 49, 50, 54-56, 58-65 and 68 of US Reissued Patent No. RE49,775 E.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference number 10 is used to designate the solid fuel grain section (Figs. 1-3) and the additive manufacturing machine (Fig. 4). See also the fuel grain sections 10a-d in Figs. 5A-5B. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
In Fig. 8, the rightmost occurrence of reference number 82 should be changed to 80. See Fig. 7; col. 13, ll. 41-42 and 46-48.
Fig. 10 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(i) because it is placed within the outline of Fig. 11.
Fig. 13 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes reference number 121, which is not mentioned in the specification.
Fig. 14A does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because reference number 131 does not include a lead line directed to the port wall surface pattern (see col. 16, l. 33).
Reference number 90 is used to designate the beads depicted in Fig. 11 and the additive manufacturing apparatus shown in Fig. 15. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
Reference number 91 is used to designate the port wall surface pattern depicted in Fig. 11 and the ABS thermoplastic shown in Fig. 15. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. Further, Fig. 15 has an additional occurrence of reference number 91 (located above the extruder 90b) that is not described in the specification.
Reference number 92 is used to designate the fuel grain corrugation pattern depicted in Fig. 11 and the polymer capped nanocomposite aluminum particles shown in Fig. 15. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
Reference number 93 is used to designate the fuel grain depicted in Fig. 11 and the compounding shown in Fig. 15. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
Fig. 15 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it does include reference numbers 89, 97 and 98, which are now mentioned in the specification (see the amended paragraphs beginning at col. 14, line 42 and col. 15, line 50).
In Fig. 15, reference number 96 does not label the additive manufacturing apparatus (see the amended paragraph beginning at col. 15, line 1).
Fig. 15 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l). All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.
Fig. 15 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m). Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Fig. 15 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1). Reference characters must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet.
Fig. 15 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 0.32 cm (1/8 inch) in height.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lou et al. teaches a fuel grain that is formed by laminating a corrugated web 11 and a flat web 12 to form a composite web 20 that is wound into a fuel grain structure 25. See the figure; col. 2, ll. 11-17 and 43-48; col. 3, ll. 47-60; col. 4, ll. 17-42; col. 7, l. 52 to col. 8, l. 2; col. 8, ll. 25-40. Lou et al. further teaches (i) a fuel grain comprising a polymeric binder (i.e., PVA) and a metallic fuel material (e.g., aluminum), (ii) that the proportions of the polymeric binder and the metallic fuel material may vary, and (iii) the proportion of metallic fuel material will generally fall within the range of about 10% to about 40% on a weight basis. See col. 1, l. 55-60; col. 7, ll. 3-41.
Nissan teaches a complete fuel grain (comprising stacked fuel grain sections 11a, 12a, 11b, 12b, 11c, 12c) that is incorporated into a hybrid rocket engine comprising (i) an oxidizer source 5 configured to provide a flow of an oxidizer 4 through the combustion port during operation of the hybrid rocket engine, (ii) a valve 7 configured to control the flow of the oxidizer 4 through the combustion port, (iii) a nozzle 15 in fluid communication with the combustion port, and (iv) a casing/shell (see Fig. 1) within which the complete fuel grain, the oxidizer source 5, and the valve 7 are housed, with the nozzle 15 extending beyond an end of the casing/shell. See Figs. 1-2(b); p. 2, l. 35 to p. 3, l. 28.10 Nissan teaches that the fuel grain structure has a boundary wall of the combustion port that is specially configured to provide protrusions, which create eddies (i.e., rotary/whirling/swirling motion) in the fluid downstream of the protrusions for better mixing of gaseous fuel and oxidizer and more efficient combustion. See Fig. 2(b); p. 2, ll. 25-34; p. 3, ll. 16-33.
Mullaney teaches a complete fuel grain 15 (comprising stacked fuel grain sections 17, 18) that is incorporated into a hybrid rocket engine comprising (i) an oxidizer source 11 configured to provide a flow of an oxidizer through the combustion port 16 during operation of the hybrid rocket engine, (ii) a nozzle 12 in fluid communication with the combustion port 16, and (iii) a casing/shell 10 within which the complete fuel grain 15 is housed, with the nozzle 12 extending beyond an end of the casing/shell 10. See Figs. 1-2; col. 1, l. 46 to col. 2, l. 13; col. 2, ll. 14-35. Mullaney teaches that the fuel grain structure has a boundary wall of the combustion port 16 that is specially configured to provide protrusions, which create turbulence in the fluid for better mixing of gaseous fuel and oxidizer and more efficient combustion. See Figs. 1-2; col. 1, ll. 11-14 and 27-37; col. 2, ll. 2-13 and 35-60.
Jones ‘479 teaches a plurality of fuel grain sections 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d that are stacked and joined using interlocking features 100a, 100b, 100c, 102a, 102b, 102c, 104b, 104c, 104d, 106b, 106c, 106d to form a complete fuel grain 40. See Figs. 5A-6; col. 4, ll. 22-27; col. 5, ll. 20-43. The fuel grain sections 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d are formed of ABS using FDM®. See Figs. 1-4; col. 4, ll. 9-22; col. 4, l. 41 to col. 5, l. 19. Each of the fuel grain sections 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d includes a plurality of successive flat layers that are built up to form the fuel grain section and to define a specially configured boundary wall surface 14 of the combustion port 16 within the fuel grain section, with the flat layers providing the boundary wall surface 14 with a dimpled (textured) surface pattern in the form of a series of projections and depressions (i.e., undulations) along the boundary wall surface 14 in order to increase the surface area for combustion and provide the fuel grain with an increased regression rate. See Figs. 1-3; col. 2, ll. 27-39; col. 3, ll. 19-37; col. 3, l. 58 to col. 4, l. 8; col. 6, ll. 25-28. See also the “predetermined pattern of peaks and valleys” recited in claims 1 and 13. This specially configured surface pattern persists as the fuel grain burns, i.e., when the boundary wall ablates due to combustion in the combustion port, a new surface of fuel grain material is exposed to the combustion port. See Figs. 9A-9C; col. 2, ll. 36-45; col. 3, ll. 34-44; col. 6, ll. 29-35. The complete fuel grain 40 is wrapped in a thermally insulating film 50. See Fig. 6; col. 5, ll. 44-55. The wrapped complete fuel grain 40, an oxidizer source 76 and a valve 78 are housed in a shell 72 of a hybrid rocket 70, and a nozzle 82 extends beyond the end of the shell 72. See Figs. 7-8; col. 5, l. 56 to col. 6, l. 5. Jones ‘479 explains that the boundary layer 65 is usually turbulent over a large portion of the length of the combustion port 46 of the complete fuel grain 40, a turbulent diffusion flame sheet 66 within the boundary layer 65 produces a flow of fuel gas that mixes with the oxidizer, and the increased surface area of the specially configured boundary wall surface 14 produces an increased regression rate and corresponding thrust impulse. See Fig. 8; col. 6, ll. 6-28.
Jellis et al. ‘962 teaches polymer-capped aluminum nanoparticles. See the title.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the previous objections for lack of compliance with 37 CFR 1.173 and 1.126. The examiner concurs.
Applicant argues that the amendments no longer recite new matter. The examiner disagrees for the reasons given above.
Applicant requests that the objection to the consent of the assignee be held in abeyance. This does not constitute a proper response since reissue applicants must comply with all reissue statutes and regulations.
Applicant requests that the objection to the reissue declaration and the rejection under 35 USC 251 be held in abeyance. This does not constitute a proper response since reissue applicants must comply with all reissue statutes and regulations.
Applicant argues that the prior rejection under 35 USC 112(a) for failure to comply with the enablement requirement has been overcome by the claim amendments. The examiner concurs.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), applicant argues that the findings of indefiniteness have been overcome by the claim amendments. The examiner disagrees for the reasons given above.
Applicant argues that the prior rejections under 35 USC 103 have been overcome by amending claims 31 and 50 to require a corrugated texture, and applicant argues that Whitmore et al. ‘256 and Whitmore et al. ‘892 fail to teach a corrugated texture. The examiner disagrees for the reasons explained in the modified grounds of rejection above.
Applicant requests that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance. This does not constitute a proper and complete response since all outstanding rejections must be addressed.
With respect to the objections to the specification, applicant argues that the objections have been overcome by the amendments to the specification. The examiner disagrees because the amendments to the specification contain the errors identified above.
Applicant argues that the objections to the drawings have been overcome by the replacement drawing sheets. However, the proposed replacement sheets have not been entered for the reason explained above.
Final Action
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new/modified grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center11: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail12 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elongated
2 https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=bead
3 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bead
4 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corrugated
5 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corrugation
6 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corrugate
7 Jones ‘479 qualifies as prior art with respect to claims 37-39, 48, 55-57 and 66 because it was published more than 1 year prior to the effective filing date of these claims. See 35 USC 102(a)(1) and (b)(1).
8 Also known as fused filament fabrication (FFF) or filament freeform fabrication. The acronym FDM is trademarked by Stratasys, Inc.
9 All citations are to the English translation.
10 All citations are to the English translation.
11 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).
12 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.