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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s Restriction election of Group I filed on 10/28/2025. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 are examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18, 20, 21, 23, 26 – 29, 33, 40, 42, 46, 47, 49, 52, and 54 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, Group III, and Group IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/28/2025.
Drawings
Figures 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A – 3E, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). See the Figures 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A – 3E, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, and 6B in U.S. Patent No. 10,889,892.
Figures 7A – 7I should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). See the Figures 15A – 15I in U.S. Patent No. 10,889,892.
Figs. 6A and 6B are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607
Figs. 10 and 11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(1) and 1.84(o) because the same line type, in this case a solid line, was used to illustrate control lines (from 100) and power lines (from 200). Applicant is required to illustrate the control lines (from 100) and power lines using different line types. Control lines were typically represented by a dashed line. The power lines should be changed to different line type to distinguish the power lines from the fuel and oxidant lines. For example, the power lines (from 200) could be changed to one of a heavy solid line, double lines, dot-dashed line, and dot-dot-dashed line. The different line types would allow a reader to distinguish between the fluid flow lines, power lines, and control lines without having to read the entire specification in order to figure out Figs. 10 and 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention ENGINE SYSTEMS AND USES THEREOF is generic and not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, ll. 5 – 6 “one or more RAs sand further in” is believed to be in error for --one or more RAs [[sand]] and further in--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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:
Claim 1, l. 5 “fuel intake system” interpreted as ‘system for fuel intake’ and the functional limitation Claim 1, ll. 6 - 7 “fuel intake system delivers the fuel into the combustion chamber”. In MPEP2181(I)(A) “system for…” was among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) when coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 1, l. 8 “oxidant delivery system” interpreted as ‘system for oxidant delivery’ and the functional limitation Claim 1, ll. 9 - 10 “oxidant delivery system delivers an oxidizing agent into the combustion chamber”. In MPEP2181(I)(A) “system for…” was among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) when coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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 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.
Claim 1 limitation “fuel intake system” interpreted as ‘system for fuel intake’ and “oxidant delivery system” interpreted as ‘system for oxidant delivery’ invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Original Specification Paras. [0068] and [0077], from PG Pub 2024/0410327A1 of the instant application, merely repeats “fuel intake system” (similar to Claim 1) without any further details. Original Specification Paras. [0069] and [0073], from PG Pub 2024/0410327A1 of the instant application, merely repeats “oxidant delivery system” (similar to Claim 1) without any further details. None of the original figures have reference characters associated in the original Specification as showing the “fuel intake system” or the “oxidant delivery system”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 4, 5, 8, 11, and 12 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gotzig et al. (10,968,865).
Regarding Claim 1, Gotzig discloses, in Figs. 1 – 7, all the claimed limitations including an expulsive combustion engine (10 - shown in Fig. 1) energized by combustion of a fuel to produce thrust [Designed and intended use of bi-propellant rocket engines, i.e., expulsive combustion engine], comprising: (a) a set of one or more reactor assemblies (RAs) (34) that produces the fuel (hydrogen - Col. 8, ll. 55 - 65); (b) a source (24) of an oxidizing agent (oxygen - Col. 8, ll. 55 - 65); (c) a fuel intake system (16 and/or 42-30-32-28) [As discussed above ‘fuel intake system’ invokes 112(f) interpretation. The broadest reasonable interpretation reads on pipes/conduits, storage tanks, and valves fluidly connecting 34 to 12.] in fluid communication with the set of one or more RAs (34) sand further in fluid communication with a combustion chamber (12), wherein the fuel intake system (42-30-32-28) delivers the fuel into the combustion chamber (12 - Col. 8, ll. 30 - 35); (d) an oxidant delivery system (14 and/or 40-24-26-22) [As discussed above ‘fuel intake system’ invokes 112(f) interpretation. The broadest reasonable interpretation reads on pipes/conduits, storage tanks, and valves fluidly connecting 34 to 12.] in fluid communication with the source (24) of the oxidizing agent, wherein the oxidant delivery system (14 and/or 40-24-26-22) delivers an oxidizing agent into the combustion chamber (12 - Col. 8, ll. 15 - 20); (e) a control system (20) operatively coupled (dashed lines from 20 to 26 and 32) to the fuel intake system (14 and/or 40-24-26-22) and the oxidant delivery system (14 and/or 40-24-26-22), wherein the control system (20) regulates delivery of a preselected fuel amount (Col. 8, ll. 40 – 45 “The control unit 20 is configured to control the hydrogen mass flow to be supplied to the combustion chamber 12 via the hydrogen supply valve 32.”) and a preselected oxidizing agent amount (Col. 8, ll. 25 – 30 “The control unit 20 is configured to control the oxygen mass flow to be supplied to the combustion chamber 12 via the oxygen supply valve 26.”) into the combustion chamber (12), and wherein the control system (20) controls the combustion of the fuel and the oxidizing agent when the preselected fuel amount and the preselected oxidizing agent amount are present in the combustion chamber (12 - Col. 8, ll. 5 – 20), thereby producing energy and exhaust gases [Inherent result of combustion of fuel and oxidizing agent in the combustion chamber.]; and (f) a nozzle (44) in fluid communication with the combustion chamber (12), through which the exhaust gases exit the combustion chamber (12) in a preselected direction to produce the thrust (Col. 8, l. 64 to Col. 9, l. 6).
Re Claim 4, Gotzig discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the fuel comprises hydrogen (Col. 8, ll. 55 - 65).
Re Claim 8, Gotzig discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including a method of producing thrust (Col. 8, l. 64 to Col. 9, l. 6) to propel a vehicle (rocket, see Title), comprising: (a) operatively associating the vehicle (rocket) with the expulsive combustion engine of claim 1; (b) activating the set of one or more RAs (34) to produce the fuel (hydrogen - Col. 8, ll. 55 - 65); (c) directing (Col. 8, ll. 30 - 45) the fuel produced by the set of one or more RAs (34) to enter the fuel intake system (14 and/or 40-24-26-22) in fluid communication with the combustion chamber (12), wherein the fuel intake system (14 and/or 40-24-26-22) directs the fuel into the combustion chamber (12); (d) providing a source (24) of the oxidizing agent (oxygen - Col. 8, ll. 55 - 65); (e) directing the oxidizing agent (oxygen - Col. 8, ll. 55 - 65) from the source (24) of the oxidizing agent into the combustion chamber (12 - Col. 8, ll. 15 - 20); (f) mixing the fuel and the oxidizing agent to form a combustion mixture (Col. 8, l. 64 to Col. 9, l. 6); (g) igniting (18) the combustion mixture to produce a combustion (Col. 7, l. 65 to Col. 8, l. 5), wherein the combustion produces energy and exhaust gases (Col. 8, ll. 64 - 67); and (h) directing the exhaust gases to exit (46 - Col. 9, ll. 1 - 6) the combustion chamber (12) in a preselected direction (toward the bottom of Fig. 1), thereby producing the thrust to propel the vehicle (Col. 9, ll. 1 - 6).
Re Claim 11, Gotzig discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the fuel comprises hydrogen (Col. 8, ll. 55 - 65).
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 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotzig et al. (10,968,865) in view of MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts.
Re Claim 5, Gotzig teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the source of the oxidizing agent is a second set of RAs that produces the oxidizing agent.
MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts cites In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (…Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gotzig by duplicating the reactor assembly (RA) (34) into a plurality of reactor assemblies (RAs) which are consecutively numbered from 1 to n, where n = total number of reactor assemblies, for example, n = 6 or 10, where the even numbered RAs are the ‘first set’ that produces the fuel and the odd numbered RAs are the ‘second set’ that produces the oxidizing agent because it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Applicant’s original Specification failed to recite a new and unexpected result from a second set of RAs producing the oxidizing agent.
Re Claim 12, Gotzig teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the source of the oxidizing agent is a second set of RAs.
MPEP2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts cites In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (…Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gotzig by duplicating the reactor assembly (RA) (34) into a plurality of reactor assemblies (RAs) which are consecutively numbered from 1 to n, where n = total number of reactor assemblies, for example, n = 6 or 10, where the even numbered RAs are the ‘first set’ that produces the fuel and the odd numbered RAs are the ‘second set’ that produces the oxidizing agent because it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Applicant’s original Specification failed to recite a new and unexpected result from a second set of RAs producing the oxidizing agent.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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