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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim 2 is canceled by Applicant. Claims 1 & 3-26 are pending. Claims 4-24 remain withdawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3, & 25-26 are examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1 & 3:
The recitations “said liquid peroxide and permits” (7th to last and 6th to last lines of each of claim 1 and claim 3) are believed to be in error for - - said liquid peroxide permits - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 coupled to the fuel source and the liquid peroxide source such that the monitor is configured to control 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 and permits a secondary combustion, separate from the detonation, 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 § 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 coupled to provide said fuel to a combustion chamber of a rotating detonation engine (290 is coupled to provide fuel to a combustion chamber of rotating detonation combustion system 100 as indicated at 205; para. [0073]);
the combustion chamber comprising a wall (120), wherein the wall comprises a first surface (surface of 120) partially defining said combustion chamber of said rotating detonation engine, wherein a detonation occurs in the combustion chamber (arrow 138; para. [0031]);
an oxidizer source (82), said oxidizer source coupled to provide said oxidizer within said rotating detonation engine such that said first surface of said 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) coupled to the fuel source and the oxidizer source such that the monitor is configured to control 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 oxidizer and permits a secondary combustion, separate from the detonation, of said combination of said fuel and said oxidizer (controller 210 controls equivalence ratios, and thus stoichiometry, such that the fuel and oxidizer is sufficient for detonation and, additionally, permits a secondary combustion within augmenter 272 of the combination 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).
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 coupled to provide said fuel to a combustion chamber of a rotating detonation engine (290 is coupled to provide fuel to a combustion chamber of rotating detonation combustion system 100 as indicated at 205; para. [0073]);
the combustion chamber comprising a wall (120), wherein the wall comprises a first surface (surface of 120) partially defining said combustion chamber of said rotating detonation engine, wherein a detonation occurs in the combustion chamber (arrow 138; para. [0031]);
an oxidizer source (82), said oxidizer source coupled to provide said oxidizer within said rotating detonation engine such that said first surface of said 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) coupled to the fuel source and the oxidizer source such that the monitor is configured to control 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 oxidizer and permits a secondary combustion, separate from the detonation, of said combination of said fuel and said oxidizer (controller 210 controls equivalence ratios, and thus stoichiometry, such that the fuel and oxidizer is sufficient for detonation and, additionally, permits a secondary combustion within augmenter 272 of the combination 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’s rotating detonation engine system is capable of operating in the claimed manner (the liquid peroxide source, discussed 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).
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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument (p. 10 of Remarks) concerning the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is unpersuasive because the additional recited structure does not include monitor structure but instead further recites functions of the monitor structure.
Applicant’s argument (p. 13 of Remarks) that claims 1 & 3 as amended require film cooling via the liquid peroxide source is unpersuasive because this is not actually claimed. Additionally, Applicant’s originally-filed disclosure does not discuss film cooling using liquid peroxide (this function is performed using fuel) but rather discloses using liquid peroxide to cool an external surface of a wall.
Applicant’s argument (p. 13 of Remarks) that Singh does not teach a monitor coupled to a fuel source and a liquid peroxide source to control the flow of fuel and liquid peroxide and ensure a stoichiometry permits a secondary combustion, separate from the detonation in the combustion chamber, is unpersuasive. Singh’s monitor does control flows of the fuel and oxidizer (the liquid peroxide as modified in the rejections above) achieve desired equivalence ratios and, given the fact that Singh teaches an afterburner downstream from the primary combustion chamber in which detonation occurs (Fig. 8, combustion chamber 205 corresponds with combustion chamber 100 in Fig. 2), a secondary combustion of the remaining fuel and oxidizer from 205 as well as product gases therefrom will occur in the afterburner which is permitted by the operation of the monitor in controlling the fuel and oxidizer upstream therefrom.
Applicant’s argument (pp. 13-14 of Remarks) that Morrison teaches away from the use of oxidizer for cooling is unpersuasive. Morrison is relied on solely to show that it was known to use liquid peroxide as an oxidizer in rotating detonation engines, not to modify the remaining prior art structure in Singh and Wegener. Additionally, premixing fuel and oxidizer as taught by Morrison, does not teach away from using oxidizer for cooling at all it merely suggests that combining the flows before entry to the combustor improves mixing. Note that Applicant’s liquid peroxide is not recited as being used for film cooling and it does not appear that Applicant’s specification mentions this use of the liquid peroxide, either.
Applicant’s argument (p. 14 of Remarks) that the use of liquid peroxide as a coolant is counterintuitive is unpersuasive. Applicant has recited very little structure limiting the actual apparatus as it relates to the use of liquid peroxide for cooling and instead recites intended use of the apparatus. The claimed invention merely requires the liquid peroxide source be coupled to provide liquid peroxide to some surface of the wall, which the prior art is capable of doing in view of the obviousness of utilizing liquid peroxide as an oxidizer in a rotating detonation engine.
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