FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed 5 June, 2026. The amendments have been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Specification
The abstract, presented with amendments on 5 June, 2026, remains objected for exceeding 150 words in length. See Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11 March, 2026 at page 3.
Claim Interpretation
The claims remain interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the recitation of “phase separating intake device” as set forth at pages 3-6 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11 March, 2026.
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 9-12 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.
With regards to claim 9, the amended claim limitations remain to recite:
“the intake port” is recited in amended lines 4-5, 7, 15-16, and 19, which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as being an intake port for the initial recitation in line 4, so as to provide antecedent basis for the subsequent recitations.
Claims 11-12 depend from rejected claim 9, and thereby, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency, at least.
With regards to claim 10, the amended claim limitations remain to recite:
“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.
With regards to claim 12, the amended claim limitations remain to recite:
“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 liquid propellant to a propulsion system (col.1, lines 14-36; col.2, lines 18-26 and 55-68), the propellant tank comprising:
a propellant tank body (figures 1-7) having an inner surface (interior surface of the tank shown in figures 1-7) configured to be wetted by the liquid propellant (col. 3, lines 46-51), the propellant tank body having 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) extending along the convex edge (figure 4) and an intake port (11) located on one of these convex edges (figure 4 at edge, 41);
wherein the corner capillary is configured to retain the liquid propellant by capillary forces and to provide a capillary flow path toward the intake port (col.1, lines 14-21, col. 3, lines 27-51, and col. 6, lines 25-31 due to the capillary structure); and
wherein, during discharge of the liquid propellant through the intake port, a reduction of liquid propellant adjacent the intake port reduces a local radius of curvature of a meniscus within the corner capillary adjacent the intake port, thereby creating a local pressure drop relative to another portion of the corner capillary and causing liquid to flow through the corner capillary toward the intake port ( MPEP §2111.04 – II – “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.”, and MPEP §2114 – II – “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”, such that these limitations are capable of being performed by the device of PAYNTER, as PAYNTER disclose the structural requirements of the claimed invention should the conditions exist for the device to operate in the manner claimed).
As to claim 2, PAYNTER discloses wherein the propellant tank body 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 further discloses wherein, when the tank body includes a plurality of corner capillaries (figure 4), the plurality of corner capillaries interest directly or are interconnected by one or more additional corner capillaries (figure 4).
As to claim 4, PAYNTER discloses wherein the intake port (11) is located at the apex of the propellant tank body 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 wherein 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 operating a propellant tank of a spacecraft (col.1, lines 14-36; col.2, lines 18-26 and 55-68) for storing and supplying a liquid propellant to a propulsion system(col.1, lines 14-36; col.2, lines 18-26 and 55-68), comprising:
filling the propellant tank (T) with the liquid propellant and pressurizing gas (col.2, lines 41-45 and col.3, lines 1-5) through an intake port(11) prior to launch of the spacecraft(col.2, lines 20-26);
after the spacecraft is placed in orbit (col.2, lines 20-26; col.3, lines 27-30), supplying the liquid propellant from 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);
retaining the liquid propellant within at least one corner capillary formed by a convex edge of the tank body(col.1, lines 14-21, col. 3, lines 27-51, and col. 6, lines 25-31 due to the capillary structure); and
wherein discharge of the liquid propellant through the intake port reduces an amount of liquid propellant adjacent the intake port and thereby reduces a local radius of curvature of a meniscus within the corner capillary adjacent the intake port (MPEP §2112.02 – I – “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”, wherein the liquid propellant is discharged through the intake port, 11, such that the prior art device structurally defines the same invention, in addition to provides the operation of discharging the liquid propellant through the intake port during its normal and usual operation, col. 8, lines 50-51 and col. 8, line 70-col.9, line 22); and
wherein the reduced local radius of curvature creates a local pressure drop relative to another portion of the corner capillary, thereby causing the liquid propellant to flow through the corner capillary toward the intake port(MPEP §2112.02 – I –wherein the liquid propellant is discharged through the intake port, 11, such that the prior art device structurally defines the same invention, in addition to provides the operation of discharging the liquid propellant through the intake port during its normal and usual operation 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; col.2, lines 41-45 and col.3, lines 1-5, 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, PAYNTER discloses wherein the liquid 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, PAYNTER, as interpreted under the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), sets forth the requirements of claim 11. Particularly, providing “wherein, when a plurality of corner capillaries are present, the liquid propellant is supplied to the propulsion system through a plurality of corner capillaries intersecting directly or connecting by means of other capillaries, if more than one corner capillary is present”, as the limitations are not required. See MPEP §2111.04 – II with respect to method claims which do not require steps that are not required by be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
As to claim 12, PAYNTER discloses wherein the liquid 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 2-3 and 5-6, filed 5 June, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 3 and 7-8, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), has been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the claim amendments. The rejection of claims 3 and 7-8, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), has been withdrawn.
It will be noted the rejection of claims 9-12, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been maintained, as submitted herein for the reasons provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 5 June, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 7-9, Applicant argues, with regards to claim 1, (1) PAYNTER does not disclose “during discharge of the liquid propellant through the intake port, a reduction of liquid propellant adjacent the intake port reduces a local radius of curvature of a meniscus within the corner capillary adjacent the intake port, thereby creating a local pressure drop relative to another portion of the corner capillary and causing liquid propellant to flow through the corner capillary toward the intake port”, (2) “Paynter’s cited structures are separate internal capillary-management members positioned within the tank and are not convex edges of the tank body”, (3) “Paynter does not teach or suggest that withdrawal of liquid propellant through an intake port reduces a local radius of curvature of a meniscus within a corner capillary and thereby increase a localized pressure differential that drives liquid propellant toward the intake port”.
However, the evidence of record supports the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claim 9, and the dependents thereof based on the disclosure of PAYNTER, at least.
First, the limitation of “during discharge of the liquid propellant through the intake port, a reduction of liquid propellant adjacent the intake port reduces a local radius of curvature of a meniscus within the corner capillary adjacent the intake port, thereby creating a local pressure drop relative to another portion of the corner capillary and causing liquid propellant to flow through the corner capillary toward the intake port” is a manner of operation of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2111.04 – II – “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.”, and MPEP §2114 – II – “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”. With regards to the method claim of claim 9, see MPEP §2112.02 – I (wherein the liquid propellant is discharged through the intake port, 11, such that the prior art device structurally defines the same invention, in addition to provides the operation of discharging the liquid propellant through the intake port during its normal and usual operation 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; col.2, lines 41-45 and col.3, lines 1-5, 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). In this case, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is based on the structure of PAYNTER and mere capability of PAYNTER to operate as claimed to disclose the claimed invention. Among the other teachings of PAYNTER to disclose the other requirements of the claimed invention, PAYNTER discloses convex edges which define at least one corner capillaries (see figure 4, at least of PAYNTER which provides a cylindrical tank body, shown and expressly disclosed by PAYNTER to include at least two convex edges with capillary structures, at the locations of 45 and 47 connected to portions, 43-44 and 47, similarly shaped to the tank body; see claim 1 of the instant application which states expressly, “at least one convex edge forming a corner capillary extending along the convex edge”). More so, PAYNTER discloses wherein the corner capillary provides the fluid to the intake port (col.1, lines 14-21, col. 3, lines 27-51, and col. 6, lines 25-31 due to the capillary structure). As such, providing the manner of operation of the claimed invention does not differentiate the prior art from the claimed invention, as PAYNTER discloses the claimed invention. For this reason, the argument is not persuasive. It will be noted this explanation extends to Applicant’s assertion at pages 8-9 which states “Paynter contains no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to utilize a localized reduction in meniscus curvature adjacent an intake port as a mechanism for generating a pressure differential that transports propellant through a corner capillary”, in addition to “(iii) a reduction in meniscus curvature radius adjacent the intake port during propellant withdrawal, and (iv) a resulting localized pressure differential that causes propellant flow toward the intake port”, as this is directed to the manner of operating the claimed structural invention set forth in claim 1.
Second, the claim states, “the propellant tank body having at least one convex edge forming a corner capillary, extending along the convex edge” for which the capillary component along the tank body inner surface of PAYNTER necessarily defines this structure. In other words, the capillary structure of PAYNTER (43-47) is a structure of the propellant tank body defining an inner surface thereof (col. 5, lines 22-36; col. 8, line 61 – col.9, line 22). Further, PAYNTER discloses the intake port (11) being at one of the convex edges (see figure 4, wherein the intake port, 11, is positioned at the convex edge, of 45). For this reason, the arguments are not persuasive. It will be noted this explanation extends to Applicant’s assertion at page 9 which states, “the claims require a specific physical relationship between (i) the corner capillary formed by a convex edge of the tank body, (ii) the location of the intake port on the convex edge”.
Lastly, Arguments related to “the present invention achiev[ing] technical advantages not contemplated by Paynter” and “The disclosure repeatedly identifies these advantages as principal objectives and technical results of the invention” does not overcome the disclosure and teachings of PAYTNER which anticipate and/or render obvious the claimed invention as set forth by the claims.
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 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 8/25/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights