DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 amending Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 14, 18, and 19, canceling Claims 6 – 8 and 17, and adding new Claims 21 - 24 has been entered. Claims 1 – 5, 9 – 16, and 18 - 24 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, l. 7 “formed as monolithic piece” is believed to be in error for --formed as a monolithic piece--.
Claim 1, l. 9 “the metallic liner of the internal metallic” is believed to be in error for --the metallic liner structure of the internal metallic-- to maintain consistency within and among the claims.
Claim 1, l. 10 “the metallic liner being in a” is believed to be in error for --the metallic liner structure being in a-- to maintain consistency within and among the claims.
Claim 1, l. 11 “the metallic liner to improve airflow of the” is believed to be in error for --the metallic liner structure to improve airflow of the-- to maintain consistency within and among the claims.
Claim 11, ll. 7 - 8 “formed as monolithic piece” is believed to be in error for --formed as a monolithic piece--.
Claim 11, ll. 9 - 10 “the metallic liner of the internal metallic” is believed to be in error for --the metallic liner structure of the internal metallic-- to maintain consistency within and among the claims.
Claim 11, l. 11 “the metallic liner being in a” is believed to be in error for --the metallic liner structure being in a-- to maintain consistency within and among the claims.
Claim 11, l. 12 “the metallic liner to improve airflow of the” is believed to be in error for --the metallic liner structure to improve airflow of the-- to maintain consistency within and among the claims.
Claim 16, ll. 2 - 3 “wherein the motor case comprises an internal wall and an external wall and the metallic liner structure is located on the internal wall” is believed to be in error for --wherein the motor case comprises [[an]] the internal metallic sacrificial wall and [[an]] the external metallic wall and the metallic liner structure is located on the internal metallic sacrificial wall-- to maintain consistency among the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 recites “The method of claim 11, wherein the motor case comprises an internal wall (interpreted as “internal metallic sacrificial wall”) and an external wall (interpreted as “external metallic wall”) and the metallic liner structure is located on the internal wall (interpreted as “internal metallic sacrificial wall”)”. Claim 11, ll. 5 - 10 previously recited “the motor case comprising an external metallic wall and an internal metallic sacrificial wall formed as monolithic piece, the internal metallic sacrificial wall in a metallic liner structure that is part of the monolithic piece, the metallic liner of the internal metallic sacrificial wall configured”. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 – 5, 9 – 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (6,235,359) in view of Beck et al. (10,527,003) in view of Fite, Jr. (3,056,171) in view of Kobbeman (2,957,309) in view of Hutter (3,483,703) in view of Martin (3,802,346).
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 5, l. 55 to Col. 6, l. 5, the invention as claimed, including rocket motor (Fig. 1) comprising: a nozzle (labeled in Fig. 1); a combustion chamber (space inside motor case) configured to carry a propellant grain (16); and a motor case (12) enclosing the combustion chamber (shown in Fig. 1), the motor case (12) having a longitudinal body (along the longitudinal axis) having a head end (labeled) and a nozzle end (labeled) towards the nozzle (labeled), the motor case (12) comprising an external wall (12, best seen in the enlarged portion of Fig. 1) and an internal wall (14) configured to be in contact with the propellant grain (16, shown in the enlarged portion of Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
814
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wilson is silent on said external wall and said internal wall being an external metallic wall and an internal metallic wall formed as a monolithic piece, the internal metallic wall in a metallic liner structure that is part of the monolithic piece.
Beck teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Abstract, Col. 2, ll. 25 - 36, Col. 3, l. 60 to Col. 4, l. 5, Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, and Col. 10, ll. 1 – 5, a similar rocket motor (100) having an external metallic wall (106) and an internal metallic wall (107) that were formed as a monolithic piece (single piece) motor case (102, 103) by additive manufacturing, in this case direct laser metal sintering (DLMS). Beck further teaches the internal metallic wall in a metallic liner structure (structure of the wall) that is part of the monolithic piece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson to have the external wall and the internal wall be metallic walls formed as part of a monolithic piece using an additive manufacturing process, the internal metallic wall in a metallic liner structure that is part of the monolithic piece, taught by Beck, because Beck teaches, in the Abstract and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, that additive manufacturing greatly simplified the overall design and assembly of rocket motors since a rocket motor could be manufactured as a single monolithic piece having complex geometries that were difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional, subtractive machining techniques, e.g., milling, turning, drilling, grinding, etcetera.
Wilson, i.v., Beck, as discussed above, is silent on said internal metallic wall being an internal metallic sacrificial wall, i.e., configured to be sacrificial during combustion of the propellant.
Fite teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 3, ll. 1 – 15, and Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, a similar rocket motor having a combustion chamber (11) configured to carry propellant (12) for propelling the rocket; a motor case (10-15) enclosing the combustion chamber (11), the motor case comprising an external wall (10) and an internal wall (15) configured to be sacrificial during combustion of the propellant. Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, that during combustion of the propellant the inner surface of the internal wall was consumed, i.e., sacrificed, but retained its form due to the short burning duration of the solid propellant. Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 55 – 60, that combustion of solid propellant generated temperatures in excess of 4,900 °F. Examiner takes Official Notice that metals such as stainless steel and copper alloys, cited by Beck, had melting points that were significantly lower than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant. For example, stainless steel had a melting point of 2,500 °F to 2785 °F (1375 °C to 1530 °C) depending on the specific grade and copper alloys had a melting point of 1,650 °F to 1,900 °F (900 °C to 1,030 °C) which were significantly less than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant.
Thus, improving a particular device (rocket motor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Fite, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that during combustion of solid propellant in the combustion chamber of the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, a portion of the thinner internal metallic wall would have been consumed, i.e., sacrificed, due to the extremely high combustion temperatures while the thicker external metallic wall provided the mechanical strength necessary to contain the high temperature and high pressure combustion gases within the combustion chamber. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Wilson, i.v., Beck and Fite, as discussed above, is silent on said metallic liner (interpreted as ‘metallic liner structure’) being in a corrugated geometry that creates a plurality of spaces between the propellant grain and the metallic liner to improve airflow of the combustion chamber, wherein the corrugated geometry defines a plurality of longitudinal channels as part of the plurality of spaces, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor.
Kobbeman teaches, in Figs. 1 - 3, Col. 4, ll. 1 – 5, and Col. 4, ll. 45 – 60, a similar rocket motor (11) having a motor case (12) comprising a metallic liner structure (45 – Col. 4, ll. 1 – 5 “aluminum, or like resilient material”) being in a corrugated geometry (shown in Figs. 2 and 3, Col. 4, ll. 1 – 5 “Corrugated material 45”) that creates a plurality of spaces (bell-shaped open spaces defined between 31 and 45, best seen in Fig. 3) between a propellant grain (31) and the metallic liner (45) [Examiner notes that the phrase “to improve airflow of the combustion chamber” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Kobbeman can perform the function because, as shown in Fig. 1, the upper and lower ends (around 36 and 37) appear open to the open space around igniter (27) and combustion chamber (18), respectively.] to improve airflow of the combustion chamber, wherein the corrugated geometry defines a plurality of longitudinal channels (open white space shown in Fig. 3, which was a cross-sectional view of Fig. 1 along section line 2-2) as part of the plurality of spaces, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end (As shown in Fig. 6, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversed the head end to the nozzle end of the propellant grain (31).) [Examiner notes that the phrase “to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Kobbeman can perform the function because high pressure fluids naturally flowed to regions of lower pressure. When combustion of the propellant grain starts, the pressure of the combustion gases would be highest at the nozzle inlet end, i.e., the nozzle end, so high pressure combustion gases at the nozzle end would have naturally flowed through the channels to the head end until the pressure in the two ends equalized.] to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor. Hutter teaches, in Figs. 1 – 3 and Col. 3, ll. 30 – 40, a similar rocket motor (20) having a motor case (1) comprising a plurality of spaces (6, best seen in Figs. 2 and 3) between a propellant grain (2) and a liner (5) to improve airflow of the combustion chamber (3). Hutter teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 30 – 40, utilizing the plurality of spaces (6) to equalize the internal pressure and external pressure around the propellant grain (2), i.e., the pressure in the plurality of spaces (6) would match the pressure in the combustion chamber (3).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck and Fite, with the metallic liner structure having a corrugated geometry that creates a plurality of spaces between the propellant grain and the metallic liner to improve airflow of the combustion chamber, wherein the corrugated geometry defines a plurality of longitudinal channels as part of the plurality of spaces, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor, taught by Kobbeman and Hutter, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket motor comprising a motor case enclosing a combustion chamber configured to carry a propellant grain, the motor case comprising a metallic liner structure having a corrugated geometry that creates a plurality of spaces between the propellant grain and the metallic liner to improve airflow of the combustion chamber, wherein the corrugated geometry defines a plurality of longitudinal channels as part of the plurality of spaces, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the metallic liner structure being in a corrugated geometry that creates a plurality of spaces, i.e., longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end, between the propellant grain and the metallic liner structure would have facilitated improved airflow of the combustion chamber (equalize the pressures around the propellant grain - Hutter - Col. 3, ll. 30 – 40) and would have facilitated cushioning the propellant grain when the rocket motor was subjected to shocks or vibrations resulting in less likelihood that the propellant grain would have cracked or broken up during storage, handling, or operation, Kobbeman - Col. 4, ll. 45 – 65. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, and Hutter, is silent on the metallic liner structure has a mechanical strength that is within 50% and 400% of a mechanical strength of the propellant grain.
Kobbeman further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 13 – 17 and Col. 4, ll. 45 – 65, that the resilient metallic liner structure effectively compensated for thermal expansion and thermal contraction of the propellant grain due to changes in temperature by concurrently contracting or expanding, respectively resulting in a lower likelihood that the propellant grain would have cracked or broken up during storage, handling, or operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the mechanical strength of the resilient metallic liner structure of Kobbeman was about equal to or less than (around 100% or less) the mechanical strength of the propellant grain since propellant grain thermal expansion was compensated for by said resilient metallic liner structure contracting and since propellant grain thermal contraction was compensated for by said resilient metallic liner structure expanding. Martin teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Col. 1, ll. 30 – 42, and Col. 2, ll. 5 - 20, a similar rocket motor (Fig. 6) having a rigid metal motor case (30) comprising a liner structure (10) that was configured to be in contact with the propellant grain (35) where the liner structure had a mechanical strength that was less than or around the mechanical strength of the propellant grain (35). Martin teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 30 – 42 and Col. 2, ll. 5 - 20, that the liner structure facilitated avoiding destruction of the rocket motor due to cracks in the propellant grain at the time of ignition by greatly reducing or eliminating the propellant grain’s internal stress when the propellant grain contracted, i.e., shrink, during chill down.
Therefore, the mechanical strength of the metallic liner structure relative to the mechanical strength of the propellant grain was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that having the mechanical strength of the metallic liner structure be less than or around the mechanical strength of the propellant grain facilitated preventing crack formation by greatly reducing or eliminating the propellant grain’s internal stress when the propellant grain expanded or contracted due to changes in temperature. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the liner structure had a mechanical strength that was less than or around the mechanical strength of the propellant grain, were disclosed in the prior art by Kobbeman and Martin, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the metallic liner structure taught by Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, and Hutter, to have a mechanical strength that is within 50% and 400% of a mechanical strength of the propellant grain.
Note 1: It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) the Supreme Court held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent". It was held that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.", In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Claiming that the metallic liner structure has a mechanical strength that is within 50% and 400% of a mechanical strength of the propellant grain involved only a change of degree and is therefore not such an invention as will sustain a patent.
Regarding Claim 11, Wilson teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 5, l. 55 to Col. 6, l. 5, the invention as claimed, including a method for making a rocket motor (Fig. 1), the method comprising: forming a combustion chamber (space inside motor case) configured to carry a propellant grain (16); and forming a motor case (12) enclosing the combustion chamber (shown in Fig. 1), the motor case (12) having a longitudinal body (along the longitudinal axis) having a head end (labeled) and a nozzle end (labeled) towards the nozzle (labeled), the motor case (12) comprising an external wall (12, best seen in the enlarged portion of Fig. 1) and an internal wall (14) configured to be in contact with the propellant grain (16, shown in the enlarged portion of Fig. 1).
Wilson is silent on said external wall and said internal wall being an external metallic wall and an internal metallic wall formed as a monolithic piece, the internal metallic wall in a metallic liner structure that is part of the monolithic piece.
Beck teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Abstract, Col. 2, ll. 25 - 36, Col. 3, l. 60 to Col. 4, l. 5, Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, and Col. 10, ll. 1 – 5, a similar rocket motor (100) having an external metallic wall (106) and an internal metallic wall (107) that were formed as a monolithic piece (single piece) motor case (102, 103) by additive manufacturing, in this case direct laser metal sintering (DLMS). Beck further teaches the internal metallic wall in a metallic liner structure (structure of the wall) that was part of the monolithic piece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson to have the external wall and the internal wall be metallic walls formed as part of a monolithic piece using an additive manufacturing process, the internal metallic wall in a metallic liner structure that is part of the monolithic piece, taught by Beck, because Beck teaches, in the Abstract and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, that additive manufacturing greatly simplified the overall design and assembly of rocket motors since a rocket motor could be manufactured as a single monolithic piece having complex geometries that were difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional, subtractive machining techniques, e.g., milling, turning, drilling, grinding, etcetera.
Wilson, i.v., Beck, as discussed above, is silent on said internal metallic wall being an internal metallic sacrificial wall, i.e., configured to be sacrificial during combustion of the propellant.
Fite teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 3, ll. 1 – 15, and Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, a similar rocket motor having a combustion chamber (11) configured to carry propellant (12) for propelling the rocket; a motor case (10-15) enclosing the combustion chamber (11), the motor case comprising an external wall (10) and an internal wall (15) configured to be sacrificial during combustion of the propellant. Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 45 – 50, that during combustion of the propellant the inner surface of the internal wall was consumed, i.e., sacrificed, but retained its form due to the short burning duration of the solid propellant. Fite teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 55 – 60, that combustion of solid propellant generated temperatures in excess of 4,900 °F. Examiner takes Official Notice that metals such as stainless steel and copper alloys, cited by Beck, had melting points that were significantly lower than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant. For example, stainless steel had a melting point of 2,500 °F to 2785 °F (1375 °C to 1530 °C) depending on the specific grade and copper alloys had a melting point of 1,650 °F to 1,900 °F (900 °C to 1,030 °C) which were significantly less than the at least 4,900 °F combustion temperature of solid propellant.
Thus, improving a particular method (for making a rocket motor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Fite, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the method for making a rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that during combustion of solid propellant in the combustion chamber of the rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, a portion of the thinner internal metallic wall would have been consumed, i.e., sacrificed, due to the extremely high combustion temperatures while the thicker external metallic wall provided the mechanical strength necessary to contain the high temperature and high pressure combustion gases within the combustion chamber. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Wilson, i.v., Beck and Fite, as discussed above, is silent on said metallic liner (interpreted as ‘metallic liner structure’) being in a corrugated geometry that creates a plurality of spaces between the propellant grain and the metallic liner to improve airflow of the combustion chamber, wherein the corrugated geometry defines a plurality of longitudinal channels as part of the plurality of spaces, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor.
Kobbeman teaches, in Figs. 1 - 3, Col. 4, ll. 1 – 5, and Col. 4, ll. 45 – 60, a similar rocket motor (11) having a motor case (12) comprising a metallic liner structure (45 – Col. 4, ll. 1 – 5 “aluminum, or like resilient material”) being in a corrugated geometry (shown in Figs. 2 and 3, Col. 4, ll. 1 – 5 “Corrugated material 45”) that creates a plurality of spaces (bell-shaped open spaces defined between 31 and 45, best seen in Fig. 3) between a propellant grain (31) and the metallic liner (45) [Examiner notes that the phrase “to improve airflow of the combustion chamber” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Kobbeman can perform the function because, as shown in Fig. 1, the upper and lower ends (around 36 and 37) appear open to the open space around igniter (27) and combustion chamber (18), respectively. ] to improve airflow of the combustion chamber, wherein the corrugated geometry defines a plurality of longitudinal channels (open white space shown in Fig. 3, which was a cross-sectional view of Fig. 1 along section line 2-2) as part of the plurality of spaces, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end (As shown in Fig. 6, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversed the head end to the nozzle end of the propellant grain (31).) [Examiner notes that the phrase “to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Kobbeman can perform the function because high pressure fluids naturally flowed to regions of lower pressure. When combustion of the propellant grain starts, the pressure of the combustion gases would be highest at the nozzle inlet end, i.e., the nozzle end, so high pressure combustion gases at the nozzle end would have naturally flowed through the channels to the head end until the pressure in the two ends equalized.] to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor. Hutter teaches, in Figs. 1 – 3 and Col. 3, ll. 30 – 40, a similar rocket motor (20) having a motor case (1) comprising a plurality of spaces (6, best seen in Figs. 2 and 3) between a propellant grain (2) and a liner (5) to improve airflow of the combustion chamber (3). Hutter teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 30 – 40, utilizing the plurality of spaces (6) to equalize the internal pressure and external pressure around the propellant grain (2), i.e., the pressure in the plurality of spaces (6) would match the pressure in the combustion chamber (3).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck and Fite, with the metallic liner structure having a corrugated geometry that creates a plurality of spaces between the propellant grain and the metallic liner to improve airflow of the combustion chamber, wherein the corrugated geometry defines a plurality of longitudinal channels as part of the plurality of spaces, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor, taught by Kobbeman and Hutter, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket motor comprising a motor case enclosing a combustion chamber configured to carry a propellant grain, the motor case comprising a metallic liner structure having a corrugated geometry that creates a plurality of spaces between the propellant grain and the metallic liner to improve airflow of the combustion chamber, wherein the corrugated geometry defines a plurality of longitudinal channels as part of the plurality of spaces, the plurality of longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end to direct combustion gases toward the head end of the rocket motor, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the metallic liner structure being in a corrugated geometry that creates a plurality of spaces, i.e., longitudinal channels traversing the head end to the nozzle end, between the propellant grain and the metallic liner structure would have facilitated improved airflow of the combustion chamber (equalize the pressures around the propellant grain - Hutter - Col. 3, ll. 30 – 40) and would have facilitated cushioning the propellant grain when the rocket motor was subjected to shocks or vibrations resulting in less likelihood that the propellant grain would have cracked or broken up during storage, handling, or operation, Kobbeman - Col. 4, ll. 45 – 65. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, and Hutter, is silent on the metallic liner structure has a mechanical strength that is within 50% and 400% of a mechanical strength of the propellant grain.
Kobbeman further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 13 – 17 and Col. 4, ll. 45 – 65, that the resilient metallic liner structure effectively compensated for thermal expansion and thermal contraction of the propellant grain due to changes in temperature by concurrently contracting or expanding, respectively resulting in a lower likelihood that the propellant grain would have cracked or broken up during storage, handling, or operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the mechanical strength of the resilient metallic liner structure of Kobbeman was about equal to or less than (around 100% or less) the mechanical strength of the propellant grain since propellant grain thermal expansion was compensated for by said resilient metallic liner structure contracting and since propellant grain thermal contraction was compensated for by said resilient metallic liner structure expanding. Martin teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Col. 1, ll. 30 – 42, and Col. 2, ll. 5 - 20, a similar rocket motor (Fig. 6) having a rigid metal motor case (30) comprising a liner structure (10) that was configured to be in contact with the propellant grain (35) where the liner structure had a mechanical strength that was less than or around the mechanical strength of the propellant grain (35). Martin teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 30 – 42 and Col. 2, ll. 5 - 20, that the liner structure facilitated avoiding destruction of the rocket motor due to cracks in the propellant grain at the time of ignition by greatly reducing or eliminating the propellant grain’s internal stress when the propellant grain contracted, i.e., shrink, during chill down.
Therefore, the mechanical strength of the metallic liner structure relative to the mechanical strength of the propellant grain was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that having the mechanical strength of the metallic liner structure be less than or around the mechanical strength of the propellant grain facilitated preventing crack formation by greatly reducing or eliminating the propellant grain’s internal stress when the propellant grain expanded or contracted due to changes in temperature. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the liner structure had a mechanical strength that was less than or around the mechanical strength of the propellant grain, were disclosed in the prior art by Kobbeman and Martin, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the metallic liner structure taught by Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, and Hutter, to have a mechanical strength that is within 50% and 400% of a mechanical strength of the propellant grain. See Note 1 above.
Re Claims 2 and 12, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the metallic liner structure is part of a monolithic piece of the motor case that is formed by additive manufacturing, see the rejections of independent Claims 1 and 11 above.
Re Claims 3 and 13, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the metallic liner structure has a reduced mechanical strength compared to a metallic wall without a metallic liner structure.
Martin further teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 15 – 20 and Col. 4, ll. 8 – 12, that the rocket motor had a rigid metal case (30) which was ordinarily made out of steel. As discussed in the rejections of independent Claims 1 and 11 above, Kobbeman taught, in Col. 4, ll. 1 – 5, that the metallic liner structure (45) was made out of aluminum, or like resilient material.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, with the metallic wall without a liner structure being made out of a rigid metal like steel, further taught by Martin, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket motor comprising a motor case enclosing a combustion chamber configured to carry a propellant grain and the motor case being a metallic wall made out of a rigid metal like steel, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the rigid metal case wall, further taught by Martin, for the unknown case material of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the rigid metal case wall without a metallic liner structure would have facilitated providing structural strength to the rocket motor during operation to contain the high pressure and high temperature combustion gases generated by combustion of the propellant grain inside the motor case so that propulsive thrust would be generated by only expelling said high pressure and high temperature combustion gases through a nozzle end of the rocket motor. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, the metallic liner structure (corrugated aluminum or like resilient material) would have had a reduced mechanical strength (flexible/resilient versus rigid) compared to a metallic wall without a liner structure (rigid metal motor case) because the metallic liner structure had to be flexible to allow the propellant grain to thermally expand and contract without inducing severe internal stresses that would have caused cracks to form in the propellant grain.
Re Claims 4 and 14, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the internal metallic sacrificial wall is spaced apart (shown in the enlarged portion of Wilson Fig. 1) from said external metallic wall (12) to form a passage space (space for the ablative layer), and an ablative layer (10 – Col. 5, ll. 55 – 60 “the ablative and insulation materials can be used as a chamber internal insulation liner, as shown in FIG. 1.”) is located in the passage space. As discussed in the Claim 1 and Claim 11 rejections above, Beck taught, in Figs. 4, 6, and 7, and Col. 10, ll. 30 – 45, a similar rocket motor (100) having a motor case (102, 103) having an external wall (106) and an internal wall (107) that is spaced apart from the external wall (106) to form a passage space (108 - gap shown in Figs. 4, 6, and 7) between the internal wall (107) and the external wall (106) formed as a monolithic piece by additive manufacturing.
Thus, improving a particular device/method (rocket motor/method of making a rocket motor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Beck, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the rocket motor/method of making a rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that utilizing additive manufacturing to form a monolithic motor case comprising an external metallic wall and an internal metallic sacrificial wall that is spaced apart from said external metallic wall to form a passage space, said ablative layer is located in the passage space would have facilitated strengthening the motor casing, i.e., double walled, while still protecting the external wall from the high temperatures of the combusting propellant grain by locating the insulating ablative layer in the passage space between the internal metallic sacrificial wall and said external metallic wall, Kobbeman – Col. 4, ll. 55 - 65. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claims 5 and 15, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the metallic liner structure has a Young’s modulus between 100 PSI and 1000 PSI.
[Note: The following well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant failed to traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the Office Action mailed on 09/11/2025 in Applicant’s reply filed on 01/23/2026. MPEP 2144.03(C)] Examiner takes Official Notice that it was a scientific fact that the Young’s modulus was defined as the ratio of stress (σ) to strain (ε), in the linear elastic region of a material, where stress was the amount of force applied per unit area (σ = F/A) and strain was the displacement or deformation per unit length (ε = dl/l).
Therefore, the Young’s modulus of the metallic liner structure was recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the Young’s modulus facilitated the calculation of the strain (displacement or deformation per unit length) when a known stress (force applied per unit area) was applied to the metallic liner structure. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the metallic liner structure had a Young’s modulus, was inherently disclosed in the prior art (every engineering material had a Young’s modulus), it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the metallic liner structure taught by Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, to have a Young’s modulus between 100 PSI and 1000 PSI so that the metallic liner structure would have deformed to match the deformation of the propellant grain. See Note 1 above.
Re Claim 16, [Refer to the 112(d) rejection above.] Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the motor case comprises an internal wall (interpreted as “internal metallic sacrificial wall”) and an external wall (interpreted as “external metallic wall”) and the metallic liner structure is located on the internal wall (interpreted as “internal metallic sacrificial wall”), refer to the Claim 11 rejection above.
Re Claims 9 and 19, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the external metallic wall and the internal metallic sacrificial wall are formed from an additive manufacturing process.
Beck further teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Abstract, Col. 3, l. 60 to Col. 4, l. 5, Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, and Col. 10, ll. 1 – 5, a similar rocket motor (100) having a monolithic piece (single piece) of a motor case (102, 103) having an external metallic wall (106) and an internal metallic wall (107) that was formed by additive manufacturing, in this case direct laser metal sintering (DLMS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, to have the external metallic wall and the internal wall are formed by additive manufacturing process, further taught by Beck, because Beck teaches, in the Abstract and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, that additive manufacturing greatly simplified the overall design and assembly of rocket motors since a rocket motor could be manufactured as a single monolithic piece having complex geometries that were difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional, subtractive machining techniques, e.g., milling, turning, drilling, grinding, etcetera.
Re Claims 10 and 20, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the metallic liner structure has a Young’s modulus that is comparable to a Young’s modulus of the propellant grain.
[Note: The following well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because Applicant failed to traverse Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the Office Action mailed on 09/11/2025 in Applicant’s reply filed on 01/23/2026. MPEP 2144.03(C)] Examiner takes Official Notice that it was a scientific fact that the Young’s modulus was defined as the ratio of stress (σ) to strain (ε), in the linear elastic region of a material, where stress was the amount of force applied per unit area (σ = F/A) and strain was the displacement or deformation per unit length (ε = dl/l).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, the metallic liner structure would have had a Young’s modulus that was comparable to a Young’s modulus of the propellant grain because the metallic liner structure facilitated avoiding destruction of the rocket motor due to cracks in the propellant grain at the time of ignition by greatly reducing or eliminating the propellant grain’s internal stress when the propellant grain contracted, i.e., shrink, during chill down. In other words, comparable Young’s moduli meant that the metallic liner structure and the propellant grain had similar ratios of stress to strain, so the metallic liner structure and the propellant grain would have similar deformations when they experienced the same stress. As discussed in the rejections of independent Claims 1 and 11 above, Kobbeman taught, in Col. 2, ll. 13 – 17 and Col. 4, ll. 45 – 65, that the resilient metallic liner structure effectively compensated for thermal expansion and thermal contraction of the propellant grain due to changes in temperature by concurrently contracting or expanding, respectively resulting in a lower likelihood that the propellant grain would have cracked or broken up during storage, handling, or operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the resilient metallic liner structure would have had a Young’s modulus that was comparable to the Young’s modulus of the propellant grain since propellant grain thermal expansion was compensated for by said resilient metallic liner structure contracting and since propellant grain thermal contraction was compensated for by said resilient metallic liner structure expanding.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (6,235,359) in view of Beck et al. (10,527,003) in view of Fite, Jr. (3,056,171) in view of Kobbeman (2,957,309) in view of Hutter (3,483,703) in view of Martin (3,802,346) as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Liu (5,151,216).
Re Claim 18, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the ablative layer is formed of an ablative material that is injection molded into the passage space.
Liu teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 20 – 25, Col. 14, l. 64 to Col. 15, l. 5, and Claim 18, an ablative material that was injection molded into a passage space (open space inside a closed mold) for use on the solid fuel rockets, i.e., rocket motors with solid propellent grains, of the space shuttle.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, with the ablative layer is formed of an ablative material that is injection molded into a passage space, taught by Liu, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket motor comprising a motor case enclosing a combustion chamber configured to carry a propellant grain and an ablative layer formed from an ablative material that is injection molded into a passage space, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the injection moldable ablative material, taught by Liu, for the ablative material of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the injection moldable ablative material would have been injected into the passage space defined between the external wall and the internal wall to form an ablative layer between the external wall and the internal wall. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 21 - 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (6,235,359) in view of Beck et al. (10,527,003) in view of Fite, Jr. (3,056,171) in view of Kobbeman (2,957,309) in view of Hutter (3,483,703) in view of Martin (3,802,346) and further in view of Lawrynowicz et al. (9,763,791).
Re Claims 21 and 23, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Wilson further teaches an insulator-carrying surface (external metallic wall surface facing and in contact with the ablative and insulator material 10, Col. 5, l. 55 to Col. 6, l. 10) of the external metallic wall (12). Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, as discussed above, is silent on a set of surface structures on said insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall.
Lawrynowicz teaches, in Fig. 2, Col. 6, ll. 5 – 30, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 67, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 20, a set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) on an insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18) of an external metallic wall (16, Col. 4, ll. 60 - 65), the set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) radially protruding from said insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18), wherein the set of surface structures (T-shaped – 24, 32) are shaped to provide mechanical retention of the insulator [18 - a polymer such as polyetherether ketone (PEEK) was an insulator]. Lawrynowicz teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 25 – 30, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 67, and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 10, that the T-shaped surface structures provided mechanical retention, i.e., mechanical interlocking, between the PEEK insulator (18) and the wall (16) with the insulator-carrying surface (interior side of 16 facing 18). Lawrynowicz further teaches, in Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, that additive manufacturing processes can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures.
Thus, improving a particular device/method (rocket motor/method of making a rocket motor), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Lawrynowicz, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the rocket motor/method of making a rocket motor of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that integrating a set of surface structures on the insulator-carrying surface of the external metallic wall and formed as part of the monolithic piece (i.e., single piece formed by an additive manufacturing process) would have resulted in the set of surface structures radially protruding from the insulator-carrying surface into the passage space, and the set of surface structures would have been shaped to facilitate providing mechanical retention of the ablative/insulator layer. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claims 22 and 24, Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, Martin, and Lawrynowicz, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the set of surface structures is formed as part of an additive manufacturing process. As discussed above, Lawrynowicz taught, in Col. 8, ll. 50 – 55, that additive manufacturing processes can generate any three-dimensional (3D) interlocking structure, i.e., surface structures. As discussed above, Beck teaches, in the Abstract and Col. 9, ll. 1 – 40, that additive manufacturing greatly simplified the overall design and assembly of rocket motors since a rocket motor could be manufactured as a single monolithic piece having complex geometries that were difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional, subtractive machining techniques, e.g., milling, turning, drilling, grinding, etcetera.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, Martin, and Lawrynowicz, the set of surface structures would have been formed as part of an additive manufacturing process because Beck taught that additive manufacturing greatly simplified the overall design and assembly of rocket motors since a rocket motor could be manufactured as a single monolithic piece having complex geometries that were difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional, subtractive machining techniques, e.g., milling, turning, drilling, grinding, etcetera.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 7 – 8 that none of the cited and applied references individually teach all of the claim limitations. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The independent claims were rejected based on the combination of Wilson, i.v., Beck, Fite, Kobbeman, Hutter, and Martin. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in KSR that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.“ KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.“ Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.“ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2141(II)(C) and MPEP 2141.03(I). The rejections are maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741