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 .
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.
Claims 79-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (2017/0073280) in view of Danforth (2019/0002362).
Regarding claim 79 and 86-94, Jones discloses a fuel grain for a hybrid rocket engine (abstract), the fuel grain comprising: multiple, concentric layers of fuel grain material defining a combustion port extending through a body of the fuel grain (para [0032], [0082]: An exemplary solid fuel grain suitable for use in a hybrid rocket engine and made in accordance with the present invention has a generally cylindrical shape and defines a center port that runs linearly through its length. The solid fuel grain is formed as a fused stack of layers with each layer comprising a plurality of abutting, fused concentric generally circular, disposed beads of material suitable as a hybrid rocket fuel maintain combustion along the exposed surface area of the center port 46 wall), in which each layer comprises multiple beads of fuel grain material, in which the multiple beads in a given layer are disposed adjacent to one another and bonded together, in which adjacent concentric layers are bonded together (para [0058], [0072]: layer formed as a series of abutting fused concentric ring-shaped beads additive manufacturing process has commenced form small diameter concentric ring-shaped beads of material; para [0074]: As each ring-shaped beaded structure cools and solidifies, a fusion bond develops between the concentric ring-shaped beaded structure, and as each plurality of such ring-shaped beaded structures forming layers cool and solidify, likewise a fusion bond develops between the layers), in which each bead of fuel grain material comprises a polymer based rocket fuel material para [0034]: a thermoplastic fuel formulation such as 95% by mass Acrynotrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) and 5% NmX-01 nanocomposite aluminum). Jones does not specifically disclose in which a composition of the fuel grain material varies along a radius of the fuel grain. However, Danforth discloses a fuel grain for a hybrid rocket engine (para [0003], [0009], [0012]: the fuel includes a first thermoplastic continuous material, with a metal additive oxidizer additive includes droplets of oxidizer material (it is noted that in a hybrid rocket engine oxidizer is typically in liquid or vapor state and fuel is in solid or semi-solid state per Applicant's current specification at para [002])) in which a composition of the fuel grain material varies along a radius of the fuel grain (para [0044]: variations in the regions 12 and 14 throughout the element 10. The relative amounts of fuel and oxidizer may be varied at different locations within the element 10 by varying the size, composition, and/or placement of the regions 12 and 14. For example, at different longitudinal (axial) and/or radial locations within the element). Since the prior art discloses that the composition can be varied at different locations, this would inherently be the same since there is no degree that is described by the term “gradually” and thus the change between locations in Danforth can also be described as “gradually” different from the one location to the next.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composition of the fuel grain material that varies along a radius of the fuel grain of Danforth in the fuel grain of Jones to produce desired burn characteristics at different times during the burning, or at different locations in the combustible element (see Danforth, para [0033]).
Regarding claim 80, Jones in view of Danforth discloses the fuel grain of claim 49. Jones further discloses in which at least some of the beads comprise a metallic or polymer additive material (para [0034], [0064]: 5% NmX-01 nanocomposite aluminum nanocomposite aluminum additive).
Regarding claim 81, Jones in view of Danforth discloses the fuel grain of claim 80. Jones further discloses in which the metallic or polymer additive material comprises nanoscale or microscale metal or polymer particles (para [0034], [0064]: 5% NmX-01 nanocomposite aluminum nanocomposite aluminum additive).
Regarding claim 82, Jones in view of Danforth discloses the fuel grain of claim 81. Jones further discloses in which the metallic or polymer additive material comprises nanoscale aluminum particles (para [0034]: 5% NmX-01 nanocomposite aluminum).
Regarding claim 83, Jones in view of Danforth discloses the fuel grain of claim 82. Jones further discloses in which the nanoscale aluminum particles are passivated with a polymer (para [0069], [0084]: Ultra-high energetic nano particle size aluminum, especially aluminum powder produced without an aluminum oxide shell and passivated (by encapsulating or 'capping' the particle in a polymer shell)).
Regarding claim 84 and 85, Jones in view of Danforth discloses the fuel grain of claim 82 or 83. Jones further discloses in which the nanoscale aluminum particles have an average diameter of between 5 nm and 20 nm (para [0084]: the size of which measures 100 nanometers (nm) or less).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 79-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “gradually” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since the prior art discloses that the composition can be varied at different locations, this would inherently be the same since there is no degree that is described by the term “gradually” and thus the change between locations in Danforth can also be described as “gradually” different from the one location to the next.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AILEEN BAKER FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday 9-5:30, Thursday 11-3, Friday 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/AILEEN B FELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights