Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/734,533

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SPRAY QUENCHING AN IN-SPACE PROPELLANT STORAGE TANK

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 05, 2024
Examiner
ZEC, FILIP
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
649 granted / 998 resolved
-5.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1029
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.1%
+12.1% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 998 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 9, 11-15 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/742,196 (‘196). In reference to Claim 1, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same method for conducting a chilldown process for a propellant storage tank in microgravity, comprising providing a propellant storage tank that has a low thermal conductivity thin-filmed coating layer as an inner surface, wherein the low thermal conductivity thin-filmed coating layer has a thermal conductivity in a range of 0.1 Watt per meter-Kelvin to 1.0 Watt per meter- Kelvin; determining a temperature of the propellant storage tank in a microgravity environment; spraying, by a feed system that uses a pulsing flow, liquid propellant fluid against the inner surface of a wall of the propellant storage tank; and terminating the pulsing flow and the chilldown process upon the temperature of the propellant storage tank meeting a liquid propellant temperature (all claim 11). In reference to claim 2, ‘196 claims the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the low thermal conductivity thin-filmed coating layer comprises fluorinated ethylene propylene (claim 13). In reference to claim 3, ‘196 claims the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the low thermal conductivity thin-filmed coating layer has a thickness in a range from 20 micrometers to 100 micrometers (claim 14). In reference to claim 4, ‘196 claims the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the feed system uses a spray nozzle for spraying the propellant fluid against the wall (claim 11, line 6 and all claim 12). In reference to claim 5, ‘196 claims the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the feed system is configured to execute the pulse flow with a duty cycle of less than 20% by a solenoid valve in the feed system (claim 15). In reference to claim 7, ‘196 claims the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the feed system comprise a plurality of spray nozzles that are positioned within an interior, the plurality of spray nozzles are oriented to spray the propellant fluid against a different portion of the wall (claim 12). In reference to claim 9, ‘196 claims the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the propellant storage tank comprising a thermal couple attached to the wall of the propellant storage tank for measuring the temperature the propellant storage tank (claim 18). In reference to claim 11, ‘196 claims a propellant storage apparatus for a chilldown process of a propellant fluid storage tank for a rocket engine in microgravity, comprising: a propellant storage tank that comprises a low thermal conductivity thin-filmed coating layer as an inner surface, wherein the low thermal conductivity thin-filmed coating layer has a thermal conductivity in a range of 0.1 Watt per meter-Kelvin to 1.0 Watt per meter- Kelvin, the propellant storage tank being configured to supply liquid propellant fluid to a combustion chamber of a rocket engine; a temperature senor that measures a temperature of the propellant storage tank; and a spray nozzle that is configured to spray the liquid propellant against the inner surface of a wall of the propellant storage tank using a pulsing flow until the temperature of the wall meets a liquid propellant temperature (all claim 1). In reference to claim 12, ‘196 claims the propellant storage tank as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the low thermal conductivity thin-filmed coating layer comprises fluorinated ethylene propylene (claim 3). In reference to claim 13, ‘196 claims the propellant storage tank as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the low thermal conductivity thin-filmed coating layer has a thickness in a range from 20 micrometers to 100 micrometers (claim 4). In reference to claim 14, ‘196 claims the propellant storage tank as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the feed system uses a spray nozzle for spraying the propellant fluid against the wall (claim 2). In reference to claim 15, ‘196 claims the propellant storage tank as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the feed system is configured to execute the pulse flow with a duty cycle of less than 20% by a solenoid valve in the feed system (claim 5). In reference to claim 17, ‘196 claims the propellant storage tank as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the feed system comprise a plurality of spray nozzles that are positioned within an interior, the plurality of spray nozzles are oriented to spray the propellant fluid against a different portion of the wall (claim 2). In reference to claim 19, ‘196 claims the propellant storage tank as explained in the rejection of claim 11 above, and ‘196 additionally claims wherein the propellant storage tank comprising a thermal couple attached to the wall of the propellant storage tank for measuring the temperature the propellant storage tank (claim 9). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6, 8, 10, 16, 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5. 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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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. /FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 05, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601536
REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599861
Impinging Gas Sample Water Condenser
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601540
Device and method for recovering carbon dioxide and nitrogen from flue gas
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595117
DELIVERY UNIT AND DELIVERY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590739
ROTATING MAGNETIC FIELD GENERATION DEVICE, MAGNETIC REFRIGERATION DEVICE, AND HYDROGEN LIQUEFACTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+14.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 998 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month