DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 February, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 26 March, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant, further, added claims 21-26, directed to the invention elected, and cancelled claims 15-20, directed to the non-elected Invention II.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAKER (US 6,918,254 B2 – published 19 July, 2005), in view of GRAYSON (US 5,901,557 – published 11 May, 1999).
As to claim 1, BAKER discloses a passive boiler system for operating in a low-gravity environment (abstract ;col.4, lines 45-49; MPEP § 2114 - II), the system comprising(as shown in figure 1):
boiler tank(evaporator; col.5, lines 22-24) to receive a liquid(high pressure, high temperature saturated liquid; col.5, lines 14-18);
a capillary pumping surface(capillary wick) on an inside surface of the boiler tank(figure 1; col. 5, lines 22-24), the capillary pumping surface configured to receive heat from outside the boiler tank(via the capillary heat source; col. 5, lines 22-26; col.6, line 28) and
an output port(port which discharges high pressure, saturated vapor) on the boiler tank to vent gas produced from boiling the liquid in the boiler tank by the received heat (col. 5, lines 22-25).
However, BAKER does not expressly disclose the liquid being cryogenic liquid.
It will be noted, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP §2144.07. More so, GRAYSON teaches wherein space vehicles are known to carry cryogenic fluids, such as liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, during outer space missions, for propellant, power generation, or other uses ( col.1, lines 21-24 and lines 36-42). As it is understood through BAKER, the intended use of the system, applicable to a space vehicles (col. 5, lines 51-57), is to aid in thermal control applications and power generation applications of space vehicles (col.5, line 48-65). For this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to specifically provide the working fluid of BAKER is a cryogenic liquid, based on the known suitability of cryogenic liquid within the intended use of BAKER, as taught by GRAYSON.
As to claim 2, BAKER, as modified, further discloses comprising an accumulator tank (vapor accumulator) configured to receive the vented gas from the output port (figure 1).
As to claim 3, BAKER, as modified, further discloses wherein the heat is waste heat produced by at least one part of a space vehicle (col.10, lines 37-40), the system further comprising:
a heat collector to collect the waste heat(col.10, lines 37-40; figure 1, wherein it is understood the heat source of the capillary wick is a heat collector of waste heat); and
a waste heat transfer path from the collector to the capillary pumping surface in the boiler tank (figure 1, arrow flowing waste heat, in view of col. 10, lines 37-40, towards the capillary pumping surface within the boiler tank).
As to claim 6, BAKER, as modified, previously taught wherein the passive boiler system of claim 1 is applicable to a space vehicle( abstract; col.4, lines 45-49; MPEP § 2114 – II), in addition to the inclusion of a heat collector to receive waste heat from another system of the space vehicle (col.10, lines 37-40).
Furthermore, it is understood that “wherein the heat collector is configured to collect waste heat produced by a hydraulic system of the space vehicle” is an intended use of employing the passive boiler system. See MPEP § 2114 – II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the inclusion of a hydraulic system of a space vehicle is merely an intended use, as these structures are not requirements of the passive boiler system, but rather structures ancillary thereto that the passive boiler system merely would need to be capable of receiving waste heat therefrom.
For these reasons, BAKER, as previously modified, teaches the structural requirements of the claimed invention, and is capable of providing the intended use, as claimed, in view of BAKER providing cooling to systems that produce waste heat within a space vehicle (i.e., hydraulic systems).
As to claim 7, BAKER, as modified, previously taught wherein the passive boiler system of claim 1 is applicable to a space vehicle( abstract; col.4, lines 45-49; MPEP § 2114 – II), in addition to the inclusion of a heat collector to receive waste heat from another system of the space vehicle (col.10, lines 37-40).
Furthermore, it is understood that “wherein the heat collector is configured to collect waste heat by fuel cells of the space vehicle” is an intended use of employing the passive boiler system. See MPEP § 2114 – II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the inclusion of a fuel cell of a space vehicle is merely an intended use, as these structures are not requirements of the passive boiler system, but rather structures ancillary thereto that the passive boiler system merely would need to be capable of receiving waste heat therefrom.
For these reasons, BAKER, as previously modified, teaches the structural requirements of the claimed invention, and is capable of providing the intended use, as claimed, in view of BAKER providing cooling to systems that produce waste heat within a space vehicle (i.e., fuel cells).
As to claim 8, BAKER, as modified, previously taught wherein the passive boiler system of claim 1 is applicable to a space vehicle( abstract; col.4, lines 45-49; MPEP § 2114 – II), in addition to the inclusion of a heat collector to receive waste heat from another system of the space vehicle (col.10, lines 37-40).
Furthermore, it is understood that “wherein the heat collector is configured to collect waste heat produced by a fuel/oxidizer propulsion system of the space vehicle” is an intended use of employing the passive boiler system. See MPEP § 2114 – II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this case, the inclusion of a fuel/oxidizer propulsion system of a space vehicle is merely an intended use, as these structures are not requirements of the passive boiler system, but rather structures ancillary thereto that the passive boiler system merely would need to be capable of receiving waste heat therefrom.
For these reasons, BAKER, as previously modified, teaches the structural requirements of the claimed invention, and is capable of providing the intended use, as claimed, in view of BAKER providing cooling to systems that produce waste heat within a space vehicle (i.e., fuel/oxidizer propulsion system).
As to claim 10, BAKER, as modified, further discloses wherein the boiler tank includes a portion of a thermal loop (figure 1) external to the capillary pumping surface(such as the wick container that is external to the capillary wick), the thermal control loop configured to carry pumped fluid (such as the fluid pumped by the capillary and/or by the liquid pump; figure 1).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAKER (US 6,918,254 B2 – published 19 July, 2005), in view of GRAYSON (US 5,901,557 – published 11 May, 1999) and FREDLEY (US 4,869,313 – published 26 September, 1989).
As to claim 4, BAKER, as modified, provides wherein waste heat is received by the heat transfer path, but does not expressly disclose wherein the heat transfer path includes a conduit to carry heated fluid.
However, FREDLEY is within the field of endeavor provided a passive boiler system (12 and/or 50) for a low-gravity environment (figure 1; col.2, lines 39-40). FREDLEY teaches wherein it is known to provide the heat transfer path a conduit (56 and/or 58) to carry heated fluid (col. 3, lines 53-68). This is strong evidence that modifying BAKER as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., supplying fluid for heat transfer to remove heat from desired components; col. 3, lines 10-32 and 53-68). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify BAKER by FREDLEY such that the heat transfer path includes a conduit to carry heated fluid, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of ., supplying fluid for heat transfer to remove heat from desired components (col. 3, lines 10-32 and 53-68).
As to claim 5, BAKER, as modified, previously taught the heat transfer path including a conduit (a solid heat conducting material, wherein the walls of the conduit are solid; see rejection of claim 4).
BAKER, further, discloses wherein the heat transfer path penetrates at least a portion of the boiler tank (figure 1, wherein the flow path extends into the boiler tank, evaporator, to provide heat to the capillary wick held therein).
As such, the combination of BAKER, as modified, effectively teaches the requirements of the claimed invention set forth by claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11-14 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.
Claim 21-26 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, when considered as a whole, alone or in combination, fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest the requirements of “wherein the cryogenic liquid is liquid oxygen, and wherein the boiler tank includes magnets adjacent to the capillary pumping surface” (claim 9), “further comprising a thermal switch that controls thermal energy flow in the heat transfer path” (claim 11), “further comprising a heat exchanger in the boiler tank, the heat exchanger configured to receive exhaust from a combustion device” (claim 12), “further comprising a resistance coil heater in the boiler tank, the resistance coil heater electrically connected to an electric current source” (claim 13), “wherein the accumulator tank is inside the boiler tank” (claim 14), and “A boiler system for operating in a low-gravity environment, the system comprising:a cryogenic tank configured to store a cryogenic liquid; a boiler tank in fluid communication with the cryogenic tank and configured to receive the cryogenic liquid from the cryogenic tank, the boiler tank including a capillary pumping surface on an inside surface of the boiler tank; a heat collector configured to collect waste heat produced by at least one part of a space vehicle; a heat transfer path from the heat collector to the boiler tank, the heat transfer path configured to transfer the waste heat to the capillary pumping surface; and an output port on the boiler tank to vent gas produced from boiling the cryogenic liquid in the boiler tank by the waste heat.” (claim 21). BAKER (US 6,918,254 B2 – published 19 July, 2005) is considered the closest prior art of record, but fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest the requirements set forth within claims 9, 11-14, and 21-26. Absent some teaching, motivation, and/or suggestion to modify the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established. As such, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, absent impermissible hindsight reasoning, the requirements set forth in claims 9, 11-14, and 21-26.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 6/12/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights