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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the length of the abstract and numerous recitations of implied phrases through the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
“phase separating intake device” in claims 1 and 10. The claim limitation is interpreted as the structure defined within paragraph 4, and the equivalents thereof.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
“a tank body” in line 2, which should be corrected to clear, concise, and consistent language (37 CFR 1.71(a)) to be - - a propellant tank body - -.
“the tank is made hydrophilic” in lines 3-4, which should be corrected to clear, concise, and consistent language (37 CFR 1.71(a)) to be - - the propellant tank body - -.
Claim 2 recites:
“the tank” in line 1, which should be corrected to clear, concise, and consistent language (37 CFR 1.71(a)) to be - - the propellant tank body - -.
Claim 4 recites:
“the propellant tank” in line 2, which should be corrected to clear, concise, and consistent language (37 CFR 1.71(a)) to be - - the propellant tank body - -.
Claim 8 recites:
“the propellant” in lines 4 and 7, which should be corrected to clear, concise, and consistent language (37 CFR 1.71(a)) to be - - the liquid propellant - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 7-12 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.
As to claim 3, it is unclear the metes and bounds of the claimed invention in view of the recitation, “characterized in that additionally, if more than one corner capillary is present, all corner capillaries intersect directly or are interconnected by other capillaries”. It is unclear whether or not the invention of claim 3 is required to include more than one corner capillary, such that all corner capillaries intersect directly or are interconnected by other capillaries, or is not required to include more than one corner capillary. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted that the claimed language of claim 3 is not positively recited, and thereby, not required by the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites, “characterized in that it further comprises internal V-shaped channels leading to the intake port”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear to what “it” refers to. Does “it” refer to the propellant tank body, the at least one convex edge forming the corner capillary, or some other feature not defined clearly by the claim? Looking at the originally-filed specification, it appears “it” refers to the propellant tank, and particularly, the inner surface of the propellant tank, which further forms additional capillary paths for the propellant (par. 56 of the originally-filed specification). As such, it is being interpreted that “it” refers to the propellant tank, and particularly, the inner surface of the propellant tank, in light of the originally-filed specification.
Claim 8 recites, “additionally at least one corner capillary”, which renders the claim indefinite, in view of claim 1 only reciting “at least one convex edge forming a corner capillary”. The claimed invention originally only recites one corner capillary (claim 1), such that it is not clear whether the corner capillary now requires one corner capillary or one or more than one corner capillaries (i.e., at least one). While the disclosed invention includes one or more than one corner capillary is possible within the design of the propellant tank, it is not clear to which scenario the claimed invention is directed, in light of the only one corner capillary positively recited by claim 1 and the one or more corner capillaries positively recited in claim 8. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted that the claim at issue is directed to the one corner capillary leading to the intake port being tapered.
At to claim 9, is it recited:
“the spacecraft propellant tank” in line 1, which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a spacecraft propellant tank.
“the propellant tank” is recited in lines 2 and 4, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as being the subsequent recitations of a “spacecraft propellant tank” in line 1.
“the intake port” is recited in lines 2, 5, 7, and 9, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as being an intake port for the initial recitation in line 2, so as to provide antecedent basis for the subsequent recitations.
“the pressure” is recited in lines 6-7, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as being a pressure for the initial recitation in line 6 and a pressure for the second recitation in line 7, so as to provide antecedent basis for each of the recitations that are directed to different fluids.
“the pressurizing gas” in line 6, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as being a pressurizing gas.
“the local pressure drop” in line 6, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as being a local pressure drop.
“the area” in line 7, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as being an area.
“the corner capillary” in line 6, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as being a corner capillary. Furthermore, the claim recites, “at least one corner capillary” in line 8 and “the corner capillaries” in lines 8-9, which further render the claim indefinite, as it is not clear if the claim requires more than one corner capillary or not, when the claim initially recites only one corner capillary. While the disclosed invention includes one or more than one corner capillary is possible within the design of the propellant tank, it is not clear to which scenario the claimed invention is directed, in light of the only one corner capillary positively recited by the initial recitation and the one or more corner capillaries later recited. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted that the claim at issue is directed to the one corner capillary, wherein the above interpretation of the initial recitation provides antecedent basis for the following recitations in the same claim.
“the propulsion system” in lines 4-5, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as being a local pressure drop.
Claim 10 recites:
“the propellant” in line 2 and “the propulsion system” in line 2, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. However, based on the interpretated under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with regards to claim 9, for which claim 10 directly depends, these are provided antecedent basis for this interpretation of claim 9, for examination purposes
“an intake port”, which renders the claim indefinite, in light of the recitations and interpretation of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for which claim 10 directly depends. It is unclear if the “intake port” is the same or different from the intake port of claim 9. Looking at the originally-filed specification, it appears there is only one intake port within the disclosed system (2 as shown in the corresponding figures; par. 42). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted that the intake port of claim 10 is directed to the same intake port of claim 9.
Claim 11 recites:
“the propulsion system” in line 2, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. However, based on the interpretated under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with regards to claim 9, for which claim 11 directly depends, these are provided antecedent basis for this interpretation of claim 9, for examination purposes
“a plurality of corner capillaries intersecting directly or connected by means of other capillaries, if more than one corner capillary is presented” which renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear the metes and bounds of the claimed invention in view of the recitation. It is unclear whether or not the invention of claim 11 is required to include more than one corner capillary, such that all corner capillaries intersect directly or are connected by means of other capillaries, or is not required to include more than one corner capillary. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted that the claimed language at issue of claim 11 is not positively recited, and thereby, not required by the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites:
“the propellant” in line 2 and “the propulsion system” in line 2, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. However, based on the interpretated under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with regards to claim 9, for which claim 12 directly depends, these are provided antecedent basis for this interpretation of claim 9, for examination purposes.
“an intake port”, which renders the claim indefinite, in light of the recitations and interpretation of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for which claim 12 directly depends. It is unclear if the “intake port” is the same or different from the intake port of claim 9. Looking at the originally-filed specification, it appears there is only one intake port within the disclosed system (2 as shown in the corresponding figures; par. 42). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted that the intake port of claim 12 is directed to the same intake port of claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PAYNTER (US 3,486,302 – published 30 December, 1969).
As to claim 1, PAYNTER disclose a propellant tank (T) of a spacecraft for storing and supplying a propellant to a propulsion system (col.1, lines 14-36; col.2, lines 18-26 and 55-68) including a tank body (figures 1-7) that is made with at least one convex edge forming a corner capillary (see figure 4 of which includes convex edges 41 and/or 42, of the cylindrical tank body, combination of 40-42, in addition to the convex edges including a corner capillary, 45-47, thereat) and an intake port (11) located on one of these convex edges (figure 4 at edge, 41); the interior surface of the tank is made hydrophilic (col.32, lines 34-36; col.5, lines 3-4 with capillary structure).
As to claim 2, PAYNTER discloses the tank is additionally equipped with a phase separating intake device (43/44; col.1, lines 14-17; col.8, lines 73-75 and col.9, line 1).
As to claim 3, PAYNTER, as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), discloses the requirements of the claimed invention.
As to claim 4, PAYNTER discloses the intake port (11) is located at the apex of the propellant tank formed by at least two convex edges forming corner capillaries (figure 4).
As to claim 5, PAYNTER discloses wherein the propellant tank body is made of hydrophilic materials (col.32, lines 34-36; col.5, lines 3-4 with capillary structure).
As to claim 6, PAYNTER discloses wherein the inner surface of the propellant tank body is coated with a hydrophilic material (col.10, lines 61-71).
As to claim 8, PAYNTER disclose the corner capillary leading to the intake port is tapered (col.9, lines 1-4; figure 4).
As to claim 9, PAYNTER discloses a method of application of the spacecraft propellant tank (col.1, lines 14-36; col.2, lines 18-26 and 55-68), wherein:
the propellant tank (T) is filled with liquid propellant and pressurizing gas (col.2, lines 41-45 and col.3, lines 1-5) through an intake port(11) before spacecraft launch (col.2, lines 20-26);
after the spacecraft is placed in orbit (col.2, lines 20-26; col.3, lines 27-30), the propellant is supplied form the propellant tank to the propulsion system through the intake port(11; col.6, lines 30-34, in view of col.2, lines 20-26; col.3, lines 27-30) with the liquid propellant moved into the intake port by the pressure of the pressurizing gas and the local pressure drop in the corner capillary (col.2, lines 41-45 and col.3, lines 1-5, and wherein capillary wicking structures necessary cause a pressure drop based on characteristics of the container and liquid column exhibiting the capillary action along the foraminous means, such that the liquid must overcome forces resisting liquid flow, which results in the pressure drop) created during propellant discharge in the area of the intake port relative to the pressure of the propellant in other areas of at least one corner capillary, thereby forming a propellant flow through the corner capillaries in to the area of the intake port (col.5, lines 22-36, col.5, line 68- col.6, line 3 and col.6, lines 30-34, in view of col.2, lines 20-26; col.3, lines 27-30).
As to claim 10, KOKORICH discloses wherein the propellant is supplied to the propulsion system through an intake port equipped with a phase separating intake device (43/44; col.1, lines 14-17; col.8, lines 73-75 and col.9, line 1).
As to claim 11, KOKORICH, as interpreted under the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), sets forth the requirements of claim 11.
As to claim 12, KOKORICH discloses the propellant is supplied to the propulsion system through an intake port(11) located at an apex of the propellant tank formed by at least two convex edges forming corner capillaries (figure 4).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAYNTER (US 3,486,302 – published 30 December, 1969), in view of YEH (US 4,743,278 – published 10 May, 1988).
As to claim 7, PAYNTER does not expressly disclose wherein the capillary paths at the inner surface of the propellant tank (see rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) are internal V-shaped channels leading to the intake port.
YEH, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a propellant tank (abstract). YEH teaches wherein the system includes capillary paths at the inner surface of the propellant tank (11 and/or 10;figures 1-4) which include V-shaped channels leading to the intake port (8). YEH teaches wherein V-shaped channels are easier to fabricate, less expensive, and exhibit better propellant acquisition (ocl.3, lines 62-65). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify PAYNTER, in view of YEH, to include the V-shaped channels leading to the intake port, as taught by YEH, for these reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/6/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763