Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Interpretation The claims recite “and/or” in a number of instances. These instances are being interpreted consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation one of ordinary skill in the art would make. For example, prior art having only one of the limitations related by the phrase and/or is being interpreted as reading on the claim, i.e. the claim as if reciting “or”. Applicant is encouraged to review the claims and amend as appropriate to recite the desired scope. Regarding claim 7. The claim recites limitations to the modules, which are interpreted as an optional feature of claim 5, from which 7 depends. Therefore, claim 7 will be interpreted as requiring the module limitations of claim 5 to be present. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17-19, 22-23, 25-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding the following instances, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 line 2 Claim 10 line 3 Claim 10 line 5 Claim 19 line 4 Claim 22 line 4 Claim 22 line 6 Claim 22 line 7 Claim 25 line 3 Claim 26 line 3 For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider these instances as not positively requiring the limitations following “preferably. If Applicant wishes for the limitations to be positively required, then it is suggested to remove the phrase “preferably” altogether. Regarding the following instances, the phrase "in particular", “particularly”, or some variation thereof renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 line 6 Claim 2 line 3 Claim 2 line 4 Claim 3 line 4 Claim 3 line 6 Claim 5 line 4 Claim 5 line 6 Claim 5 line 7 (two instances) Claim 7 line 2 Claim 7 line 4 Claim 7 line 5 Claim 7 line 7 Claim 10 line 4 Claim 10 line 6 Claim 10 line 7 Claim 15 line 4 Claim 17 line 4 Claim 18 line 3 Claim 19 line 6 Claim 19 line 8 Claim 22 line 1 Claim 22 line 5 Claim 23 line 3 Claim 23 line 4 Claim 23 line 5 Claim 23 line 7 Claim 25 line 4 Claim 26 line 4 Claim 26 line 5 Claim 28 line 4 Claim 29 line 4 For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider these instances as not positively requiring the limitations following “in particular”, “particularly”, or some variation thereof. If Applicant wishes for the limitations to be positively required, then it is suggested to remove the phrase “in particular”, “particularly”, or some variation thereof altogether. Regarding claim 12. The claim recites the limitation “the modules (46’, 46’’, …)” in lines 3-4 and 9 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if dependent upon claim 5, which properly introduces the recited modules. Regarding claim 15. The claim recites the limitation, “wherein the combustion chamber (30) at the other end has an upper plate (44)”. It is unclear what the limitation to the other end is referencing, since no end was previously defined. For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if optionally requiring an upper plate at the downstream end of the combustion chamber, at least as shown in Applicant’s fig. 3. Regarding claim s 17 and 23 . The claim s recite the limitation, “the outlet opening (32)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim s . For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if first introducing, “ the an outlet opening (32)”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Please Note: The mapping of the prior art will be expressed with brackets [ ] since the claims already include parentheses ( ). Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22-23, 25-27, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2006017367 A to Yamanaka, cited in Applicant’s 2/4/25 IDS and 5/21/25 IDS. Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Yamanaka. Regarding claim 1 . Yamanaka teaches a combustion chamber system (1), comprising: a combustion chamber (30) [fig. 1, primary combustion region 17] in which hydrogen (H.sub.2) and preferably oxygen (O.sub.2) is burned in the presence of water (H.sub.2O) and/or water vapor (28, H.sub.2O) in the combustion chamber (30) [p. 5 para. 10, “Hydrogen supplied from the hydrogen supply pipe 15 to the fuel nozzle 16 is added to the premixed oxygen and water vapor, and combustion gas (water vapor) is generated in the primary combustion region 17.], an intermediate space (41) [fig. 1, water vapor passage 14] in which steam (28) flows around the combustion chamber (30) on the outside in the intermediate space (41) [p. 5 para. 9], in particular flows over the entire length of the combustion chamber (30) [fig. 1, the passage 14 extends the entire length of the primary combustion region 17] in the intermediate space (41) of a flame tube (22) [fig. 1, combustion chamber 11]. Please note: The English translation of figure 1 above is provided by Google Translate. Regarding claim 3. Yamanaka teaches the combustion chamber system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the length of the combustion chamber (30) or of the flame tube (22) is at least three times, particularly three to five times, the length of the hydraulic diameter of the combustion chamber (30) or of the flame tube (22) [Yamanaka appears to teach this limitation based on what one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from fig. 1], and/or wherein the combustion chamber (30) over the length, particularly the entire length, has the same cross section transversely with respect to the combustion chamber axis (31) [from fig. 1, the combustion chamber 11 has a constant cross section for the majority of its length]. Regarding claim 5. Yamanaka teaches the combustion chamber system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the combustion chamber (30) is formed by the flame tube (22) [fig. 1, combustion chamber 11 surrounds the primary combustion region 17], and wherein the flame tube (22) is annular or tubular in cross section, particularly is circular or oval-shaped in cross section [It is understood that the burners described herein are substantially annular, see for example fig. 9], and/or wherein the flame tube (22) is constructed modularly, in particular has a plurality of modules (46′, 46″, . . . ) which are particularly annular or tubular, and particularly are circular or oval-shaped in cross section [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative]. Regarding claim 12. Yamanaka teaches the combustion chamber system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the flame tube (22) or the modules (46′, 46″, . . . ) have steam passages (50) [as noted in the annotated figure below, the combustion chamber 11 has steam passages] and/or the modules (46′, 46″, . . . ) have steam outlets (150), through which steam flows into the combustion chamber (30) [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative]; and/or wherein the steam passages (50) are designed so as to prevent application of a hot flame to the wall of the flame tube (22) [intended use which the device of Yamanaka is capable of, at least since the injection of steam would be understood to at least partially prevent the hot flame from impinging on the wall immediately downstream of the steam passages]; and/or wherein the steam passages (50) and/or steam outlets (150) extend over the entire length and/or circumference of the flame tube (22) or its modules (46′, 46″, . . . ) [based on what one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from the figure, the steam passages extend over the entire circumference of the combustion chamber 11]. Regarding claim 10. Yamanaka teaches the combustion chamber system as claimed in claim 1, wherein hydrogen (H.sub.2) and preferably oxygen (O.sub.2) and/or water vapor flows into the combustion chamber (30) via a baseplate (4), particularly in one plane [annotated figure below, H.sub.2 flows into the combustion chamber 11 via the left side, i.e. a baseplate, as indicated by the dotted line labeled plane of injection ], and/or wherein hydrogen (H.sub.2) and preferably oxygen (O.sub.2) and/or water vapor is mixed in a baseplate (4), particularly is mixed in a mixer (55), and flows into the combustion chamber (30) via the baseplate (4), particularly in one plane [annotated figure below, the H.sub.2 is mixed in the premixing chamber 12, in addition to flowing into the combustion chamber as described above]. Regarding claim 15. Yamanaka teaches the combustion chamber system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: an outer pressure jacket (40) which surrounds the combustion chamber (30) and thus forms the intermediate space (41) [fig. 1, duct 10], wherein in particular the intermediate space (41) is directly bounded directly by the pressure jacket (40) and the flame tube (22) [fig. 1, the water vapor passage 14 is bound by the duct 10 and the combustion chamber 11], and/or wherein the combustion chamber (30) at the other end has an upper plate (44) which lies against the pressure jacket (40) such that they form the intermediate space (41) [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative]. Regarding claim 17. Yamanaka teaches the combustion chamber system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a steam supply line (9) which conducts steam (28) into the combustion chamber (30) and into the intermediate space (41) [annotated figure below, based on what one of ordinary skill in the art would infer from the figures, there exists a supply line which conducts water vapor into the combustion chamber 11, at least as evidenced by the indicated arrows], particularly level with the baseplate (4) such that the steam flows from the baseplate in the direction of an outlet opening (32) [the indicated arrows show water vapor being injected via the baseplate towards the right hand side of the figure, i.e. in the direction of the outlet opening]. Regarding claim 19. Yamanaka teaches the combustion chamber system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: drainage lines (33) and/or pressure control valves or overpressure protection (36) [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative] and/or a steam bypass (39) [fig. 1, the steam can bypass the combustion chamber 11 via the portion of the water vapor passage 14 at the exit of the combustion chamber 11] and/or an H.sub.2O spray (42), preferably at the end of the combustion cylinder (7) [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative], and/or a flushing system (3) which flushes through the supply lines, particularly using nitrogen [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative], and/or a flange (700), particularly with the baseplate (4), with steam inlet openings (703, . . . ), with drainage openings for a drainage line (33) for removing condensates, particularly with an opening for the burner (58) [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative]. Regarding claim 22. Yamanaka teaches a method for generating steam, particularly process steam, using a combustion chamber system having a combustion chamber as claimed in claim 1 [see rejection to claim 1], comprising: burning hydrogen (H.sub.2) and preferably oxygen (O.sub.2) in the presence of water (H.sub.2O) or water vapor (28, H.sub.2O) in the combustion chamber (30), particularly burning only hydrogen (H.sub.2) and preferably oxygen (O.sub.2) [p. 5 para. 10, “Hydrogen supplied from the hydrogen supply pipe 15 to the fuel nozzle 16 is added to the premixed oxygen and water vapor, and combustion gas (water vapor) is generated in the primary combustion region 17.], and/or introducing only hydrogen (H.sub.2) and preferably oxygen (O.sub.2) and also water vapor into the combustion chamber (30) [from fig. 1, only hydrogen, oxygen, and water vapor are introduced into the combustion chamber 11]. Regarding claim 23. Yamanaka teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, wherein steam (28) flows around the combustion chamber (30) on the outside in an intermediate space (41) [fig. 1, water vapor passage 14], particularly in a closed intermediate space (41) [optional limitation], around the combustion chamber (30), and in particular the steam flows in the direction of an outlet opening (32) [fig. 1, water vapor passage 14 routs steam around the combustion chamber 11 in the right hand direction, i.e. in the direction of an outlet opening], as a result of which the flame tube (22) is cooled, particularly is cooled without further cooling [ p. 5 para. 4 which describes the surrounding steam flow as being used to adjust the temperature of the generated combustion working fluid, i.e. used to cool the combustion working fluid. Therefore, it is understood that the combustion chamber 11 would be substantially cooled by the flow of steam 14 during steady state operation ], and/or wherein steam, in particular all of the steam, flows out of the intermediate space (41) into the combustion chamber (30) [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative], and/or wherein steam flows around a burner (58) during the combustion [fig. 1, water vapor passage 14 surrounds the burner structure of combustion chamber 11]. Regarding claim 25. Yamanaka teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, wherein hydrogen (H.sub.2) and preferably oxygen (O.sub.2) and also water vapor flow into the combustion chamber (30) via a baseplate (4), particularly in one plane [see rejection to claim 10]. Regarding claim 26. Yamanaka teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, wherein hydrogen (H.sub.2) and preferably oxygen (O.sub.2) and/or water vapor are mixed in a baseplate (4), particularly are mixed in a mixer (55), and flow into the combustion chamber (30) via a baseplate (4), particularly in one plane [see rejection to claim 10]. Regarding claim 27. Yamanaka teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, wherein steam flows into the intermediate space (41) [fig. 1, water vapor passage 14] in order to keep the flame tube (22) warm or to heat it when not in operation [this limitation would be met at least during the initial stages of operation when the combustion chamber has not yet heated up]. Regarding claim 32. Yamanaka teaches a plant comprising: a combustion chamber system (1) as claimed in claim 1 [see rejection to claim 1]; wherein the plant comprises a steam turbine plant [p. 5 para. 8] or a gas and steam turbine plant [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative] or a plant for generating steam for process steam [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative. A plant comprising a steam turbine plant would read on this limitation also]. Regarding claim 2. Yamanaka teaches a combustion chamber system (1), comprising: a combustion chamber (30) [fig. 10, primary combustion region 4] in which hydrogen (H.sub.2) and preferably oxygen (O.sub.2) is burned in the presence of water (H.sub.2O) and/or water vapor (28, H.sub.2O) in the combustion chamber (30) [fig. 10, water vapor + oxygen is mixed with hydrogen is combusted in primary combustion region 4], an intermediate space (41) [fig. 10, portion housing water vapor + oxygen and/or water vapor. In particular, the portion on the extremities having a flow in the left hand direction] in which steam (28) flows around the combustion chamber (30) on the outside in the intermediate space (41) [fig. 10, water vapor having left hand direction flow], in particular flows over the entire length of the combustion chamber (30) [fig. 10, this flow can be seen to exist across the entire primary combustion region 4] in the intermediate space (41) of a flame tube (22) [fig. 10, body separating left and right hand direction flows]. wherein the intermediate space (41) is closed at the end of the combustion chamber (30) [fig. 10, the left hand direction flow reaches a closed end on the left hand side], particularly in the region of an outlet opening (32) of the flame tube (22) [optional limitation, see claim interpretation section above], most particularly the intermediate space (41) is a sealed space [the outer portions of the left hand direction flow appear to be substantially sealed ]. Please note: The English translation of figure 10 above is provided by Google Translate. 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. 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. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20070190469 A1 to Clark. Regarding claim 7. Yamanaka teaches the combustion chamber as claimed in claim 5, But fails to teach the optional limitation of claim 5 to wherein the flame tube (22) is constructed modularly, in particular has a plurality of modules (46′, 46″, . . . ) which are particularly annular or tubular, and particularly are circular or oval-shaped in cross section , and therefore also fails to teach the limitations of claim 7: wherein the modules (46′, 46″, . . . ) are arranged one above another, particularly coaxially, and/or wherein the modules (46′, 46″, . . . ) or the flame tube (22) are ceramic, particularly on the basis of oxide ceramic, most particularly on the basis of aluminum oxide or aluminum oxide/spinel, and/or wherein the modules (46′, 46″, . . . ) are fastened to one another, particularly by groove (102) and tongue (101). Clark teaches wherein a flame tube is constructed modularly [fig. 6C, thermal reaction chamber 32 having modular construction] , in particular has a plurality of modules which are particularly annular or tubular [fig. 6C, tubular modules] , and particularly are circular or oval-shaped in cross section [fig. 6A, circular cross section , see also para. 46 ] , and wherein the modules are arranged one above another, particularly coaxially [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative] , and/or wherein the modules or the flame tube are ceramic, particularly on the basis of oxide ceramic, most particularly on the basis of aluminum oxide or aluminum oxide/spinel [optional limitation, see mapping to alternative] , and/or wherein the modules are fastened to one another, particularly by groove and tongue [fig. 6C and para. 47, “ FIG. 6C is a partial cut-away view of the ceramic cylinder design showing the stacking of the individual ceramic rings 36 having a complimentary ship-lap joint design, wherein the stacked ceramic rings define the thermal reaction chamber 32. ” ] . Further, Dunfield Timber describes a V-Groove as an alternative to shiplap, as well as shiplap having a tongue and groove [“ Shiplap and V-groove (or V-joint) are two of the most popular types of cladding profile. Both can have a tongue and groove fit. ”]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yamanaka to have a combustion chamber with a suitable modular profile, as taught by Clark, where the ship lap connection could be replaced with a V-groove, as taught by Dunfield Timber. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of having a combustion chamber which is more easily replaceable, as suggested by Clark in para. 103, preventing leakage of infrared radiation from a modular combustion chamber, as suggested by Clark in para. 47, and providing a suitable joint, as taught by Dunfield Timber, see portion cited above. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 101123114 B1 (KR ‘114). Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of KR ‘144. Regarding claim 18. Yamanaka teaches the combustion chamber system as claimed in claim 1, But fails to teach further comprising: an igniter (405) which particularly is guided into and out of the combustion chamber (30). KR ‘114 teaches an igniter which particularly is guided into and out of the combustion chamber [ fig. 8, igniter 234 ] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yamanaka to implement a suitable igniter, as taught by KR ‘114. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably igniting the hydrogen and oxygen mixture of Yamanaka, as suggested by KR ‘144 in the paragraph spanning pp. 3-4 Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6201029 B1 to Waycuilius . Regarding claim 28. Yamanaka teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, But fails to teach wherein the combustion chamber (30) is operated in a steam atmosphere of 1 bar to 140 bar, particularly 1 bar to 80 bar. Waycuilius teaches a combustion chamber [fig. 2, combustion chamber 431] operated in a steam atmosphere of 10-15 bar [col. 7 ll. 20-24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the system of Yamanaka at the pressure described in Waycuilius . This wo uld provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably providing steam to the device of Yamanaka, as suggested by Waycuilius in the portion cited above. With regards to the limitation of “ wherein the combustion chamber (30) is operated in a steam atmosphere of 1 bar to 140 bar, particularly 1 bar to 80 bar ”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a specific pressure of the steam atmosphere has predictable and expected results. For example, this pressure could be optimized by increasing or decreasing to achieve the desired result with respect to the combustion chamber, e.g. where a higher pressure would result in more steam being injected and operating at a higher flame pressure , the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a specific steam pressure is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the steam pressure is selected expectedly based on the desired application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the steam pressure to within the claimed range , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art , discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B. Regarding claim 29. Yamanaka teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, But fails to teach wherein the combustion chamber (30) is operated in a steam atmosphere of at least 2 bar, particularly at least 6 bar. Waycuilius teaches a combustion chamber [fig. 2, combustion chamber 431] operated in a steam atmosphere of 10-15 bar [col. 7 ll. 20-24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the system of Yamanaka at the pressure described in Waycuilius . This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably providing steam to the device of Yamanaka, as suggested by Waycuilius in the portion cited above. With regards to the limitation of “ wherein the combustion chamber (30) is operated in a steam atmosphere of at least 2 bar, particularly at least 6 bar ”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a specific pressure of the steam atmosphere has predictable and expected results. For example, this pressure could be optimized by increasing or decreasing to achieve the desired result with respect to the combustion chamber, e.g. where a higher pressure would result in more steam being injected and operating at a higher flame pressure , the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a specific steam pressure is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the steam pressure is selected expectedly based on the desired application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the steam pressure to within the claimed range , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art , discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B. Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 114207356 A to Eramaa and Waycuilius . Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Eramaa . Regarding claim 30. Yamanaka teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, But fails to teach wherein the combustion chamber (30) is operated at a pressure loss of 100 mbar - 3000 mbar. Eramaa teaches the pressure loss in a combustion chamber being about 3-5% [ p. 2 para. 6, “The total pressure loss of the combustion chamber is about 3-5 % due to the need to drive the combustion-supporting air through the burner.” ] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the device of Yamanaka such that a pressure loss is within the range of 100 mbar – 3000 mbar. For example, as per the rejection to claims 28-29, it would have been obvious to operate the combustion chamber of Yamanaka at approximately 10-15 bar, or 10,000 to 15,000 mbar. At these pressures, a pressure loss of 3-5% would result in a pressure loss of 300 to 750 mbar. With regards to the limitation of “ wherein the combustion chamber (30) is operated at a pressure loss of 100 mbar-3000 mbar ”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a combustion chamber pressure loss has predictable and expected results. For example, this pressure loss could be optimized by optimizing the operation pressure, since it is directly proportional to the pressure loss, controlling the loss through internal friction, leakage, etc., and controlling the loss through pressure added from the combustion process , the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a pressure loss is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the pressure loss is selected expectedly based on the desired application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the pressure loss to within the claimed range , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art , discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9945 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael G Hoang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6460 . 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. /KURT J WOLFORD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762