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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed 2/4/2026 for application 18620981. Claim 2 is canceled by Applicant. Claims 25-26 are newly presented by Applicant. Claims 1 & 3-26 are pending. Claims 4-24 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3, & 25-26 are examined below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/4/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ”a monitor that controls a flow of said fuel and a flow of said liquid peroxide, said monitor ensures that a stoichiometry of a combination of said fuel and said liquid peroxide is appropriate for generating a combustion of said combination of said fuel and said liquid peroxide” in claims 1 & 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3, & 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the recitations “said fuel source provides said fuel to a combustion chamber of a rotating detonation engine” (ll. 2-3), “said liquid peroxide source provides said liquid peroxide within said rotating detonation engine such that a first surface of a wall partially defining said combustion chamber of said rotating detonation engine is cooled” (ll. 4-7), and “said first surface of said wall is cooled by application of said liquid peroxide to said first surface of said wall” (last two lines) are vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the combustion chamber, rotating detonation engine, the first surface, or the wall, or any combination of these, are required in the claim. The claim recites these elements in a way (“provides”) which could be directed to intended uses of the respective components of the rotating detonation engine system with non-required elements (e.g. the fuel source is merely capable of supplying fuel to any device, including a combustion chamber of a rotating detonation engine) or an intended function of the respective components with required elements (e.g. the fuel source and the combustion chamber of the rotating detonation engine being required, but the “provides” recitation is directed solely to an intended function during operation). Note that the term “provides” means to make available (something needed or desired); furnish (from thefreedictionary.com). This does not clearly establish that the combustion chamber, rotating detonation engine, the first surface, the wall, or any combination of these structures is required by the claim. Rather, the foregoing, again, could merely recite an intention to use the fuel source and peroxide source in such a manner.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, the recitations “said fuel source provides said fuel to a combustion chamber of a rotating detonation engine” (ll. 2-3), “said liquid peroxide source provides said liquid peroxide within said rotating detonation engine such that a first surface of a wall partially defining said combustion chamber of said rotating detonation engine is cooled” (ll. 4-7), and “said first surface of said wall is cooled by application of products of decomposition of said liquid peroxide to said first surface of said wall” (last two lines) are vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the combustion chamber, rotating detonation engine, the first surface, or the wall, or any combination of these, are required in the claim. The claim recites these elements in a way (“provides”) which could be directed to intended uses of the respective components of the rotating detonation engine system with non-required elements (e.g. the fuel source is merely capable of supplying fuel to any device, including a combustion chamber of a rotating detonation engine) or an intended function of the respective components with required elements (e.g. the fuel source and the combustion chamber of the rotating detonation engine being required, but the “provides” recitation is directed solely to an intended function during operation). Note that the term “provides” means to make available (something needed or desired); furnish (from thefreedictionary.com). This does not clearly establish that the combustion chamber, rotating detonation engine, the first surface, the wall, or any combination of these structures is required by the claim. Rather, the foregoing, again, could merely recite an intention to use the fuel source and peroxide source in such a manner.
Dependent Claims 25 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependence from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, & 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh 20210140641 in view of Wegener 20220235727 and further in view of Morrison 3240010.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Singh teaches a rotating detonation engine system (Figs. 1-2, rotating detonation combustion system 100) comprising:
a fuel source (see Fig. 8, tank 290) containing a fuel (para. [0089]), said fuel source provides said fuel to a combustion chamber of a rotating detonation engine (the italicized limitations are directed to an intended use of the fuel source, and 290 is capable of providing fuel to a combustion chamber of rotating detonation combustion system 100);
an oxidizer source (82), said oxidizer source provides said oxidizer within said rotating detonation engine such that a first surface of a wall partially defining said combustion chamber of said rotating detonation engine is cooled (oxidizer from 82 capable of cooling a surface of wall 120); and
a monitor (210) that controls a flow of said fuel and a flow of said oxidizer (para. [0054]), said monitor ensures that a stoichiometry of a combination of said fuel and said liquid peroxide is appropriate for generating a combustion of said combination of said fuel and said oxidizer (controller 210 controls equivalence ratios, and thus stoichiometry, such that the fuel and oxidizer is appropriate for generating a combustion of the fuel and oxidizer; para. [0054]).
Singh fails to teach the oxidizer source is a liquid peroxide source.
Wegener teaches the use of rotating detonation in a gas turbine engine (para. [0005], analogous to the rotating detonation combustion system taught by Singh discussed above), wherein the rotating detonation can utilize air or liquid or gaseous oxidizer (para. [0015]).
Morrison teaches a rotary detonation power plant (see Title) which utilizes liquid peroxide (Col. 3, ll. 31-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh’s rotating detonation engine system such that the oxidizer source is a liquid oxidizer source, as taught by Wegener, and the liquid oxidizer source is a liquid peroxide source, as taught by Morrison, because rotating detonation engine systems as taught by Singh and Wegener were known to be capable of utilizing liquid oxidizer instead of air, as taught by Wegener, the use of liquid peroxide in rotating detonation engine systems was known, as taught by Morrison, and because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (the air source taught by Singh versus the claimed liquid peroxide source as taught by Morrison), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (both air and liquid peroxide sources were known for use as oxidizer sources in rotating detonation engine systems), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Singh’s air source or Morrison’s liquid peroxide source could have been used to predictably provide an oxidizer source for a rotating detonation engine system, as evidenced by Wegener’s use of liquid oxidizers and Morrison’s specific use of liquid peroxide). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Regarding the recitation “said first surface of said wall is cooled by application of said liquid peroxide to said first surface of said wall,” Singh in view of Wegener and further in view of Morrison’s rotating detonation engine system is capable of operating in the claimed manner (the liquid peroxide source, discussed for claim 1 above, provides liquid peroxide in place of Singh’s air 82, and the provision of this liquid peroxide would cool the first surface of the wall where it makes contact with it). Note, however, that it is unclear whether the wall is positively recited in the claim.
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Singh teaches a rotating detonation engine system (Figs. 1-2, rotating detonation combustion system 100) comprising:
a fuel source (see Fig. 8, tank 290) containing a fuel (para. [0089]), said fuel source provides said fuel to a combustion chamber of a rotating detonation engine (the italicized limitations are directed to an intended use of the fuel source, and 290 is capable of providing fuel to a combustion chamber of rotating detonation combustion system 100);
an oxidizer source (82), said oxidizer source provides said oxidizer within said rotating detonation engine such that a first surface of a wall partially defining said combustion chamber of said rotating detonation engine is cooled (oxidizer from 82 capable of cooling a surface of wall 120); and
a monitor (210) that controls a flow of said fuel and a flow of said oxidizer (para. [0054]), said monitor ensures that a stoichiometry of a combination of said fuel and said liquid peroxide is appropriate for generating a combustion of said combination of said fuel and said oxidizer (controller 210 controls equivalence ratios, and thus stoichiometry, such that the fuel and oxidizer is appropriate for generating a combustion of the fuel and oxidizer; para. [0054]).
Singh fails to teach the oxidizer source is a liquid peroxide source.
Wegener teaches the use of rotating detonation in a gas turbine engine (para. [0005], analogous to the rotating detonation combustion system taught by Singh discussed above), wherein the rotating detonation can utilize air or liquid or gaseous oxidizer (para. [0015]).
Morrison teaches a rotary detonation power plant (see Title) which utilizes liquid peroxide (Col. 3, ll. 31-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Singh’s rotating detonation engine system such that the oxidizer source is a liquid oxidizer source, as taught by Wegener, and the liquid oxidizer source is a liquid peroxide source, as taught by Morrison, because rotating detonation engine systems as taught by Singh and Wegener were known to be capable of utilizing liquid oxidizer instead of air, as taught by Wegener, the use of liquid peroxide in rotating detonation engine systems was known, as taught by Morrison, and because a) the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components with other components (the air source taught by Singh versus the claimed liquid peroxide source as taught by Morrison), b) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (both air and liquid peroxide sources were known for use as oxidizer sources in rotating detonation engine systems), and c) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (either Singh’s air source or Morrison’s liquid peroxide source could have been used to predictably provide an oxidizer source for a rotating detonation engine system, as evidenced by Wegener’s use of liquid oxidizers and Morrison’s specific use of liquid peroxide). It has been held that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)). See MPEP 2143 I(B).
Regarding the recitation “said first surface of said wall is cooled by application of products of a decomposition of said liquid peroxide to said first surface of said wall,” Singh in view of Wegener and further in view of Morrison is capable of operating in the claimed manner (the liquid peroxide source, discussed for claim 1 above, providing liquid peroxide via Singh’s channel for air 82 would result in some thermal decomposition of the liquid peroxide and thus cooling of the first surface of the wall would be effected with the products of decomposition of the liquid peroxide). Note, however, that it is unclear whether the wall is positively recited in the claim.
Regarding Dependent Claim 25, Singh in view of Wegener and further in view of Morrison teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. Regarding the recitation “wherein exothermic decomposition of said liquid peroxide causes increase of pressure near said wall, and wherein the increase of the pressure near said wall inhibits said fuel from contacting said wall” Singh in view of Wegener and further in view of Morrison is capable of operating as claimed (replacing the air with liquid peroxide, as discussed for claim 1 above, exothermic decomposition of the liquid peroxide would occur during use and cause a corresponding increase of pressure near the wall, where the liquid peroxide is injected, and the increase of pressure would have the same effect as claimed – i.e. inhibiting fuel from contacting the wall where the exothermic decomposition occurs at the wall). Note, however, that it is unclear whether the wall is positively recited in the claim.
Regarding Dependent Claim 26, Singh in view of Wegener and further in view of Morrison teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 25. Regarding the recitation “wherein the increase of the pressure near said wall extends over an area over which said liquid peroxide adheres to said wall,” Singh in view of Wegener and further in view of Morrison is capable of operating as claimed (wherever liquid peroxide adheres to the wall, the increase of pressure will extend over that area). Note, however, that it is unclear whether the wall is positively recited in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant’s statement that “monitor” is structural by definition is unpersuasive. It is structural in the sense that it refers to some kind of structure, as any nonce term does (as a placeholder), but the term conveys no specific structural meaning (the term “monitor” is not a term of art for a specific structure and appears to be used in place of a controller… but “monitor” does not mean “controller” – functionally, the term “monitor” implies something that monitors, whereas the claim uses the term to refer to something that controls rather than monitors – and while the term, outside of the field of the invention, certainly has a definite structure relating to devices for displaying computer outputs (i.e. a computer monitor), that is clearly not the structure Applicant is claiming). The term “monitor,” therefore, has no definite structure in and of itself, as recited in the claim, and is a nonce term. The presumption that the claim limitation at issue invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not rebutted by Applicant’s argument.
Applicant’s argument that the claims are definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in view of Applicant’s amendments replacing “configured” with “provides” is unpersuasive. The term “provides” does not positively require the additional structures identified in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and Applicant does not definitively state that the additional structures are actually intended to be positively recited. If these additional structures are intended to be positively recited, Applicant can amend the claims to make that clear (e.g. recite “A rotating detonation engine system comprising: a rotating detonation engine, the rotating detonation engine comprising a combustion chamber, the combustion chamber at least partially defined be a wall, the wall comprising a first surface”).
Applicant’s arguments concerning the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Singh, Wegener, and Morrison fail to teach film cooling. Applicant has not claimed film cooling.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 only rely on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure. Replacing air with a liquid oxidizer was known in the art. Liquid peroxide was known in the art as a liquid oxidizer. These teachings do not require Applicant’s disclosure in order to arrive at replacing air with liquid oxidizer. The replacement is readily apparent solely from the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights