Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/23/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 5-8, 10-23 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the mixing of the gaseous fuel and the oxidizer is performed external to walls of the combustion chamber”. There is no discussion of the mixing occurring external to walls of the combustion chamber in the original disclosure. Therefore, this is new matter.
Claims dependent thereon inherit the deficiencies of the respective base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 12-15 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0120216) in view of Bormotov (WO 2011/096850).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method (Figure 10) of driving rotation (Figure 4B) of a rotor (Figure 4A, 330) with at least one jet engine (300), the method comprising:
- conveying gaseous fuel (conduits 314a-c carry fuel, and paragraph 108 describes the fuel as gaseous) to a mixing space (315a-c, the mixing space is the section of 315 upstream of the ignitor 420, see annotated figure 7B) via centrifugal forces generated by the rotating rotor (paragraph 62);
- mixing the gaseous fuel with the oxidizer to form the mixture in the mixing space (Figure 7B shows the fuel 416 mixing with the swirls of air coming from 318 in addition to the mixing caused by the atomization of the fuel);
- conveying the mixture from the mixing space to a combustion chamber (Figure 7B shows the mixture conveys from the mixing space to the combustion space);
- treating the mixture of the gaseous fuel and the oxidizer prior to detonation to increase detonation capacity (paragraph 85 describes vaporizing the fuel with an atomizer, i.e. the air, and thus the mixture of gaseous fuel and the oxidizer, before combustion)
- detonating (Figure 10, 720) a mixture of gaseous fuel and oxidizer (Figure 7B shows fuel 416 mixing with air, i.e. oxidizer, from 318) in the combustion space to produce a jet stream (gases leaving 430, paragraph 88); and
- rotating the rotor by a thrust force of the jet stream (paragraph 65).
Lee is silent on wherein the mixing of the gaseous fuel and the oxidizer is performed external to walls of the combustion chamber and prior to the mixture being conveyed to the combustion chamber.
Bormotov teaches wherein the mixing of the gaseous fuel (Figure 4, 9) and the oxidizer (Figure 4, elements 6, 7, 8) is performed external to walls of the combustion chamber and prior to the mixture being conveyed to the combustion chamber (Figure 4 shows the mixing chamber 10.3 is external to the walls of combustion chamber 10.4 and prior to entering combustion chamber 10.4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s invention to include wherein the mixing of the gaseous fuel and the oxidizer is performed external to walls of the combustion chamber and prior to the mixture being conveyed to the combustion chamber in order to fully mix the fuel and oxidizer for more complete combustion.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein the jet stream is formed with an orientation at a substantially orthogonal direction to a rotor radius such that a reaction force generated by the jet stream drives the rotor to rotate about an axis (paragraph 65 describes the ejection of the combustion gases, i.e. jet stream, substantially tangential to the blade sweep, i.e. orthogonal to the rotor radius, which rotates the rotor about the central shaft 320, which has an axis about which the rotor rotates).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches further comprising treating the gaseous fuel prior to the gaseous fuel being mixed with the oxidizer to increase detonation capacity of the gaseous fuel (paragraph 85 describes vaporizing the fuel and figure 7B shows this occurs before the fuel 416 is mixed with the air).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein the treating comprises increasing the kinetic energy of the mixture by injecting the mixture radially inward into the combustion chamber from at least one annularly disposed injector (Figure 7B, fuel injector 410 is shown at the rotor tip in an annular arrangement) directed into a common detonation chamber (Figure 7B shows the common detonation space 400 inside of the combustion chamber 315).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein the treating comprises excitation of the mixture by a detonation initiator (paragraph 110 describes initiating detonation with a spark plug), wherein the detonation initiator is a physical impulse source (paragraph 110 describes initiating detonation with a spark plug, i.e. a physical impulse source).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein the mixing is preceded by conveying the oxidizer to the mixing space (Figure 7B, upstream end of combustion chamber where fuel 416 and air mix) via the centrifugal forces generated by the rotating rotor (Figures 4B and 7B show the air is conveyed to the combustor 315, and paragraph 62 describes the air being conveyed via the centrifugal forces, before it is mixed with the fuel).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein said oxidizer is characterized as environmental air (paragraph 75) which is drawn from an intake (Figure 4B, 312a-c) proximate to a rotor tip (Figure 4B shows the air intakes 312a-c are on the rotor blades 310a-c near the rotor tips where combustion chambers 315a-c are).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein said oxidizer is characterized as environmental air (paragraph 75) which is drawn from an intake (Figure 4B, 312a-c) between a rotor tip (the rotor tips are where combustion chambers 315a-c are) and a rotor axis (center of hub 320), wherein the environmental air drawn at the intake is subject to the centrifugal forces while being conveyed to the mixing space at the rotor tip (paragraphs 62 and 75).
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches further comprising transferring heat between a conveyance path of the gaseous fuel (Figures 4B and 7B show the fuel is conveyed via conduits 314a-c) and a conveyance path of the oxidizer (Figures 4B and 7B show the air is conveyed through 380) such that heat transfer is provided thorough a heat conducting structure common to said paths (The blade and conduits 314a-c act as heat conducting structure such that any difference in temperature between the fuel and air will cause heat transfer).
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein the mixing is preceded by conveying the oxidizer to the mixing space (Figure 7B, upstream end of combustion chamber where fuel 416 and air mix) via the centrifugal forces generated by the rotating rotor (Figures 4B and 7B show the air is conveyed to the combustor 315, and paragraph 62 describes the air being conveyed via the centrifugal forces, before it is mixed with the fuel).
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches further comprising transferring heat between a conveyance path of the gaseous fuel (Figures 4B and 7B show the fuel is conveyed via conduits 314a-c) and a conveyance path of the oxidizer (Figures 4B and 7B show the air is conveyed through 380) such that heat transfer is provided thorough a heat conducting structure common to said paths (The blade and conduits 314a-c act as heat conducting structure such that any difference in temperature between the fuel and air will cause heat transfer).
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein the treating comprises excitation of the mixture by a pressure wave, the pressure wave being formed by a jet stream exhaust (reflected back to the combustion chamber (Figure 7B, combustion causes the mixture to increase in pressure and the constriction shown in figure 7B reflects some of the jet stream exhaust back to the left end of 315 and excites the mixture that is being atomized by increasing pressure of the mixture).
Regarding claim 22, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein the mixture is treated prior to the mixture entering into the combustion chamber for detonation (Annotated figure 7B and paragraph 85 show the mixture is treated, i.e. atomized, in the region before the ignitor 420 and before entering the combustion space).
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein the mixing space is a mixing chamber external to the combustion chamber (Figure 7B shows the mixing chamber is upstream of the combustion chamber, i.e. external to the combustion chamber), and wherein the mixture is conveyed from the mixing chamber to the combustion chamber by pressure exerted on the mixture from the gaseous fuel and the oxidizer entering into the mixing chamber (The pressure of the fuel and oxidizer forces the mixture downstream into the combustion chamber as shown in figure 7B).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0120216) in view of Bormotov (WO 2011/096850) and Goddard (US Patent 2,395,403).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Bormotov teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except wherein treating comprises partially combusting the mixture.
Goddard teaches wherein treating comprises partially combusting the mixture (col. 4, ll. 67-74 describes partially combustion the fuel with the oxidizer).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Bormotov’s invention to include wherein treating comprises partially combusting the mixture in order to promote effective mixing of the fuel and oxidant as suggested and taught by Goddard in col. 4, ll. 67-74.
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Bormotov and Goddard teach the invention as claimed and described above. Lee further teaches wherein the mixing is preceded by conveying the oxidizer to the mixing space (Figure 7B, upstream end of combustion chamber where fuel 416 and air mix) via the centrifugal forces generated by the rotating rotor (Figures 4B and 7B show the air is conveyed to the combustor 315, and paragraph 62 describes the air being conveyed via the centrifugal forces, before it is mixed with the fuel).
Claims 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0120216) in view of Bormotov (WO 2011/096850) and Dean et al. (US 2007/0157623).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Bormotov teach all the essential features of the claimed invention as claimed and described above, but is silent on wherein the treating further comprises pyrolysis of the gaseous fuel such that the pyrolysis occurs via contact with a heat source.
Dean teaches wherein the treating further comprises pyrolysis of the gaseous fuel such that the pyrolysis occurs via contact with a heat source (paragraph 15 describes pyrolyzing fuel by applying heat to the fuel).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Bormotov’s invention to include wherein the treating further comprises pyrolysis of the gaseous fuel such that the pyrolysis occurs via contact with a heat source in order to increase detonation of the fuel as suggested and taught by Dean in paragraph 15.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Bormotov teach all the essential features of the claimed invention as claimed and described above, including the mixing space (Figure 7B, upstream end of the combustion chamber where 416 exits 410).
Lee is silent on wherein the conveying is preceded by evaporating a liquid fuel to a gaseous state prior to subjecting the gaseous fuel to the centrifugal forces, which motivate the gaseous fuel towards the mixing space.
Dean teaches wherein the conveying is preceded by evaporating a liquid fuel (paragraph 10 describes liquid fuels such as gasoline) to a gaseous state (paragraph 16 describes vaporizing the liquid fuel to a gaseous state) prior to subjecting the gaseous fuel towards the mixing space (paragraph 15 describes the pyrolysis occurs in the absence of an oxidizer, i.e. before the fuel is brought to the mixing space).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s invention to include wherein the conveying is preceded by evaporating a liquid fuel to a gaseous state prior to subjecting the gaseous fuel to the centrifugal forces, that motivate the gaseous fuel towards a mixing space (in the system of Lee in view of Bormotov and Dean, the preconditioning of the fuel described by Dean occurs before the fuel is conveyed via centrifugal forces to the mixing space as described by Lee) in order to increase detonation of the fuel as suggested and taught by Dean in paragraph 15.
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Bormotov teach all the essential features of the claimed invention as claimed and described above, but is silent on wherein detonating creates a detonation wave that propagates with a supersonic velocity.
Dean teaches wherein detonating creates a detonation wave that propagates with a supersonic velocity (paragraph 9 describes the detonation waves as supersonic speeds).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Bormotov’s invention to include wherein detonating creates a detonation wave that propagates with a supersonic velocity in order to enhance the performance of the system as suggested and taught by Dean in paragraph 2.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Bormotov teach all the essential features of the claimed invention as claimed and described above, but is silent on wherein the detonating is pulse resonant detonation performed in the combustion chamber.
Dean teaches wherein the detonating is pulse resonant detonation performed in the combustion chamber (paragraph 9 describes the detonation occurring in the combustion reaction zone).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Bormotov’s invention to include wherein the detonating is pulse resonant detonation performed in the combustion chamber in order to enhance the performance of the system as suggested and taught by Dean in paragraph 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 5-8, filed July 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-8 of the Remarks that Lee does not teach “conveying the mixture from the mixing space to a combustion chamber, wherein the mixing of the gaseous fuel and the oxidizer is performed external to walls of the combustion chamber and prior to being conveyed to the combustion chamber”. This is a moot point as Bormotov is relied upon to teach this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 pm.
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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights