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 .
This is the first office action in response to the above identified patent application filed on 01/08/2024. Claims 1-24 are currently pending and being examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for bypassing in claim 6.
The claim limitation "means for bypassing" use the phrase "means". In the instant application, the phrase "means" has been treated as a broad limitation including any structure capable of performing the recited function and thus was not treated under 35 U.S.C. l12(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the specification does not contain a clear corresponding structure. Hence, the recitations have been interpreted as mere broad limitations.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the incoming ammonia stream" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the low pressure turbine" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the incoming air stream" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the incoming ammonia stream" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the incoming air stream" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said high pressure fuel pump" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the incoming ammonia stream" in lines 2-3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the high pressure turbine" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the incoming air stream" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
In Claim 12 line 4, the limitation "a second heat exchanger" in presumed to be -- the second heat exchanger -- for proper clarity. Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and “a second heat exchanger” is already recited in claim 10.Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the incoming ammonia stream" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the air intake stream" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the incoming ammonia stream" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the air intake stream" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites twice the recitation “a heat exchanger” in lines 2 and 4. It is unclear if this is the same heat exchanger or a different one. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the outgoing combustion chamber exhaust stream" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites twice the recitation “a heat exchanger” in lines 2 and 5. It is unclear if this is the same heat exchanger or a different one. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the outgoing exhaust stream" in lines 3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the incoming ammonia stream" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the low pressure turbine" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the high pressure turbine" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Bulat et al. (US 2018/0355794).
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Bulat discloses [Preamble a propulsion system] comprising; an ammonia cracking module 5; and an engine module (1, 2, 6); wherein ammonia is supplied to the ammonia cracking module to produce a fuel blend 24 of hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia (pars. 4, 16 teaches decomposing ammonia to produce a fuel blend of hydrogen, nitrogen and other constituents), said fuel blend 24 subsequently being fed to said engine module to produce energy (par. 22, 26 mechanical output at turbine 6 or via other energy-recovery arrangements); and wherein there is a thermal balance (heat exchange between the combustion exhaust stream 20 and the ammonia stream entering the unit 5) between the ammonia cracking module and the engine module.
The recited limitation of “propulsion” is read as intended use by the examiner and is given little patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Bulat discloses wherein said engine module (1, 2, 6) comprises a turbine engine 6.
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Bulat discloses wherein said ammonia cracking module 5 comprises a cracking reactor (par. 16 teaches the cracking module having a catalyst) formed from a series of one or more modular reactors.
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Bulat discloses wherein there is a means for bypassing a portion of the ammonia around the cracking reactor (ammonia stream 22 bypasses the racking reactor 5).
Regarding dependent Claim 22, Bulat discloses wherein an ammonia stream is split into two or more streams (22, 24) and at least one of said streams 24 is used in the ammonia cracking module 5.
In regards to Independent Claim 24, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Bulat discloses a method [PREAMBLE for propelling a vehicle]; wherein ammonia 3 is supplied to an ammonia cracking module 5 and wherein said ammonia is at least partially cracked by said ammonia cracking module to produce a fuel blend of hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia (pars. 4, 16 teaches decomposing ammonia to produce a fuel blend of hydrogen, nitrogen and other constituents), and said fuel blend is fed to an engine module (1, 2, 6) to produce energy (par. 22, 26 mechanical output at turbine 6 or via other energy-recovery arrangements).
Claims 1-5, 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Cocks et al. (US 2022/0162989).
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Cocks discloses [Preamble a propulsion system; par. 41, 48] comprising; an ammonia cracking module 70; and an engine module (44, 46, 48); wherein ammonia is supplied to the ammonia cracking module to produce a fuel blend 60 of hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia (shown in figure 1), said fuel blend 60 subsequently being fed to said engine module to produce energy (par. 3, 41 high energy gas flow for propulsion via the nozzle 50); and wherein there is a thermal balance (heat exchange between the stream 84 and the ammonia stream entering the unit 70) between the ammonia cracking module and the engine module.
The recited limitation of “propulsion” is read as intended use by the examiner and is given little patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Cocks discloses wherein said engine module comprises a turbine engine 48.
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Cocks discloses wherein said engine module comprises an engine suitable for use in an aircraft (pars. 41, 48).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Cocks discloses wherein said engine module comprises an engine suitable for use in a watercraft or in a vehicle on land (par. 34 teaches can be used for a land-based turbine).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Cocks discloses wherein said ammonia cracking module 70 comprises a cracking reactor (par. 43 teaches the cracking module having a catalyst) formed from a series of one or more modular reactors (shown in figure 5).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Cocks discloses wherein said thermal balance is achieved by way of at least one heat exchanger 52configured to exchange heat between an ammonia stream 58 and an air stream 84/52.
In regards to Independent Claim 24, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Cocks discloses a method [PREAMBLE for propelling a vehicle; pars. 41, 48]; wherein ammonia 58 is supplied to an ammonia cracking module 70 and wherein said ammonia is at least partially cracked by said ammonia cracking module to produce a fuel blend 60 of hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia (shown in figure 1), and said fuel blend 60 is fed to an engine module (44, 46, 48) to produce energy (par. 3, 41 high energy gas flow for propulsion via the nozzle 50).
Claims 1-5, 8, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Cocks et al. (US 2022/0162999).
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Cocks discloses [Preamble a propulsion system; par. 44, 46] comprising; an ammonia cracking module 72; and an engine module (44, 46, 48); wherein ammonia is supplied to the ammonia cracking module to produce a fuel blend 80 of hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia (par. 43, figure 1), said fuel blend 80 subsequently being fed to said engine module to produce energy (par. 35 high energy gas flow for propulsion via the nozzle 50); and wherein there is a thermal balance (heat exchange between the stream 54 and the ammonia stream entering the unit 72) between the ammonia cracking module and the engine module.
The recited limitation of “propulsion” is read as intended use by the examiner and is given little patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.02(II)). If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Cocks discloses wherein said engine module comprises a turbine engine 48.
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Cocks discloses wherein said engine module comprises an engine suitable for use in an aircraft (pars. 44, 46).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Cocks discloses wherein said engine module comprises an engine suitable for use in a watercraft or in a vehicle on land (par. 28 teaches can be used for a land-based turbine).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Cocks discloses wherein said ammonia cracking module 72 comprises a cracking reactor (74, par. 33 teaches the cracking module having a catalyst) formed from a series of one or more modular reactors (shown in figure 1).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Cocks discloses wherein said thermal balance is achieved by way of at least one heat exchanger 52 configured to exchange heat between an ammonia stream 78 and an air stream 56/52.
Regarding dependent Claim 23, Cocks discloses wherein a high pressure ammonia compression stage (via compressor 92) occurs after a catalytic cracking stage 72.
In regards to Independent Claim 24, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Cocks discloses a method [PREAMBLE for propelling a vehicle; pars. 44, 46]; wherein ammonia 78 is supplied to an ammonia cracking module 72 and wherein said ammonia is at least partially cracked by said ammonia cracking module to produce a fuel blend 80 of hydrogen, nitrogen and ammonia (par. 43, figure 1), and said fuel blend 80 is fed to an engine module (44, 46, 48) to produce energy (par. 35 high energy gas flow for propulsion via the nozzle 50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cocks’989 or Cocks’999.
Cocks’989 or Cocks ‘999 teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except a second heat exchanger contributes to the thermal balance by exchanging heat between the ammonia stream and the incoming air stream.
It has been held that "the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI(B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Cock’s 989 or Cocks’999 with additional heat exchangers for exchanging heat between the ammonia stream and the incoming air stream because to do so would be simply duplicating the components already present in the prior art with the expected result of pre-heating the ammonia stream.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bulat or Cocks’989 or Cocks’999 in view of Senjo et al. (US 4,061,743).
Bulat or Cocks’989 or Cocks’999 teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except the combustion chamber exhaust gases treated to remove nitrous oxide.
Senjo teaches that it is well-known and conventional to remove nitrogen oxides from the exhaust gases by any know conventional processes (col. 1 line 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have treated the exhaust gases in the system of Bulat or Cocks’989 or Cocks’999, as taught by Senjo, in order to remove nitrogen oxides by any known conventional processes/devices (col. 1 lines 25-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9 and 11-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
At least Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2021/0332759). Refer to figures 1 and 2.
At least Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2023/0313735). Refer to figure 3.
At least Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by MacDonald et al. (US 2022/0299205). Refer to figure 1.
At least Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Callas (US 2009/0133400). Refer to figures 1 and 2.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4831. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30.
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, Ehud Gartenberg can be reached on 571-272-4828. 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.
/William H Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights