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 arguments and amendments filed on 04/14/2026 canceling Claims 18, 20, 21, 23, 26 – 29, 33, 40, 42, 46, 47, 49, 52, and 54 amending Claim 1, and adding new Claims 56 – 69. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 56 - 69 are examined.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/14/2026. These drawings are not acceptable. The --Prior Art-- legend in replacement Figures 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A – 3E, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, and 7A – 7I should be located in the body of the figure, e.g., near the “FIG. #”, so that when the Printer crops the image off the page the --Prior Art-- legend will be included with the cropped image. Furthermore, the --Prior Art-- legend should have the same orientation as the other text of the figure so all the text can be read without having to rotate the figure. The location of the --Prior Art-- legend in the header region (top right-hand corner of the page) of Figures 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A – 3E, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, and 7A – 7I would require the Printer to crop the entire page to include the --Prior Art—legend and then remove the extraneous text, like REPLACEMENT SHEET. Then the cropped entire page will be reduced by approximately 1/3 to fit within the margins of the published patent page which means the actual body of the figures (which might have only occupied half of the original drawing page) could have its size unnecessarily reduced in the published patent.
Figs. 6A and 6B are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) because the line and text quality are “fuzzy”, i.e., too light. Compare solid reference character “102” to fuzzy reference characters “601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607”. 37 CFR 1.84(l) stated “Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views.”
Figures 8A, 8B, and 8C 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 17A, 17B, and 17C in U.S. Patent No. 11,332,825.
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, like signal bus (140, 180, 300, and 300’ from 100) were typically represented by a dashed line. The power lines (120, 400, and 400’ from 200) should be changed to different line type to distinguish the power lines from the fuel and oxidant lines. For example, the power lines (120, 400, and 400’ 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.
Figs. 10 and 11 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “120” has been used to designate both coil (120 – Fig. 1) and power line (120 – Fig. 10 and 11).
Figs. 10 and 11 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
710 and 720
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, both the “computer processing unit configured to control the power supply, frequency generator, lamps, and the optional x-ray source and lasers” and the “a control system operatively coupled to the fuel intake system and the oxidant delivery system” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 1. None of the original figures showed both the “computer processing unit configured to control the power supply, frequency generator, lamps, and the optional x-ray source and lasers” and the “a control system operatively coupled to the fuel intake system and the oxidant delivery system”. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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. 26 “fuel intake system” interpreted as ‘system for fuel intake’ and the functional limitation Claim 1, ll. 27 - 28 “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. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, published in 1990 defined system as “1d: a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network esp. for distributing something or serving a common purpose <a telephone ~> <a heating ~> <a highway ~> <a data processing ~>”.
Claim 1, l. 29 “oxidant delivery system” interpreted as ‘system for oxidant delivery’ and the functional limitation Claim 1, ll. 30 - 31 “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. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, published in 1990 defined system as “1d: a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network esp. for distributing something or serving a common purpose <a telephone ~> <a heating ~> <a highway ~> <a data processing ~>”.
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, 12, and 56 - 69 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 56 - 69 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. Claim 1, l. 13 recites “an optional foil”. Claim 1, l. 15 recites “an optional x-ray source”. Claim 1, l. 16 recites “one or more optional lasers”. Claim 1, l. 24 recites “optional x-ray source and lasers”. MPEP 2111.04(I) stated “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure”. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention because it is unclear if each one of the “optional” foil, x-ray source, and one or more lasers are included in the scope of the clamed invention or not. Claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 56 - 69 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 56 - 69 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. Claim 1, ll. 23 - 24 recites “a computer processing unit configured to control the power supply, frequency generator, lamps, and the optional x-ray source and lasers”. Claim 1, ll. 32 - 37 recites “a control system operatively coupled to the fuel intake system and the oxidant delivery system wherein the control system regulates delivery of a preselected fuel amount and a preselected oxidizing agent amount into the combustion chamber, and wherein the control system 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, thereby producing energy and exhaust gases”. As discussed in the Drawing Objection section above, none of the original figures showed both the “computer processing unit configured to control the power supply, frequency generator, lamps, and the optional x-ray source and lasers” and the “a control system operatively coupled to the fuel intake system and the oxidant delivery system…”. Applicant’s Specification (PG Pub 2024/0410327A1) merely repeats the claim limitation “computer processing unit configured to control …” in Paragraphs [0017], [0060], [0093], [0199], [0210], [0218], and [0272] without any additional details and without identifying a figure number and reference character for the disclosed “computer processing unit configured to control …”. Applicant’s Specification (PG Pub 2024/0410327A1) merely repeats the claim limitation “control system operatively coupled to the fuel intake system and the oxidant delivery system” in Paragraphs [0070] and [0072]; however, Paragraphs [0289] and [0337]; describe details of the “control system operatively coupled…”. Paragraph [0337] disclosed “The engine systems depicted in FIG. 11 illustrates certain features of these control systems, some of which have been described in connection with FIG. 10. As shown in FIG. 11, a computer processor 100 can act as an electronic controller to integrate other aspects of the control system, and it is connected as needed to various components to receive sensor input signals, send control signals and the like. Computer processor 100 can be operatively coupled to a non-transitory storage device that stores executable instructions. The computer processor 100 can include a CPU(s)…”. The acronym for “computer processing unit” was CPU. The MPEP 608.01(o) states "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted”. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention because it is unclear if “computer processing unit configured to control…” and “control system operatively coupled…” are just different names for the same structure or are two completely different structures or if the “computer processing unit” is a sub-component of the “control system”. Consequently, the scope of the claimed invention is unclear. Claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 56 - 69 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 66 - 69 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. Claim 66, l. 12 recites “an optional short wave lamp and/or a long wave lamp”. Claim 66, l. 13 recites “an optional E/MEE coil”. MPEP 2111.04(I) stated “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure”. Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention because it is unclear if each one of the “optional” foil, x-ray source, and one or more lasers are included in the scope of the clamed invention or not. Claims 67 – 69 depend from Claim 66 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 56 - 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotzig et al. (10,968,865) in view of Nagel (10,889,892).
Regarding Claim 1, Gotzig teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, the invention as claimed 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: (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 and valves that the fuel flowed through to flow into 12.] in fluid communication with and 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 and valves that the oxidant flowed through to flow into 12.] in fluid communication with the source (24) of the oxidizing agent and the combustion chamber (12), wherein the oxidant delivery system (14 and/or 40-24-26-22) delivers the 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).
Gotzig is silent on (a) a set of one or more reactor assemblies (RAs) that produces the fuel, wherein said reactor assembly comprising: a gas inlet and one or more gas outlets; a reactor chamber, containing a nanoporous carbon material or powder disposed within a reactor cup and covered with a reactor cap; a first porous frit defining a floor of the reactor chamber, and a second porous frit defining the ceiling of the reactor chamber and disposed below the reactor cap; wherein each porous frit has a porosity that is sufficient to allow a gas to permeate into the reactor chamber and contain a nanoporous carbon material or powder; a reactor head space disposed above the reactor cap; an optional foil disposed between the reactor chamber and reactor cup, wherein the foil envelops the reactor cup; an optional x-ray source configured to expose the reactor head space to x-rays; one or more optional lasers configured to direct a laser towards a frit and/or through the reactor chamber; 2, 3, 4, 5 or more RA coils surrounding the reactor chamber and/or reactor head space operably connected to an RA frequency generator and power supply; 2, 3, 4, 5 or more pairs of lamps wherein the pairs of lamps are disposed circumferentially around the RA coils and define a space between the pairs of lamps and the RA coils; and a computer processing unit configured to control the power supply, frequency generator, lamps, and the optional x-ray source and lasers.
Nagel teaches, in Figs. 1 – 15I, Col. 1, l. 50 to Col. 2, l. 15, Col. 20, l. 25 to Col. 21, l. 15, and Col. 26, ll. 10 - 20, (a) a set of one or more reactor assemblies (RAs) that produces the fuel (hydrogen - Col. 13, ll. 10 – 20 and Col. 17, ll. 30 – 50), wherein said reactor assembly comprising: a gas inlet (1520 – Fig. 15B) and one or more gas outlets (1519 – Fig. 15B); a reactor chamber (1534), containing a nanoporous carbon material or powder (204 – Col. 2, ll. 20 – 30 “the nanoporous carbon powder charged to the reactor assembly”) disposed within a reactor cup (206 – Figs. 2B, 6A, and 6B) and covered with a reactor cap (205 – Figs. 2B, 6A, and 6B); a first porous frit (203, 1535 – bottom frit below 204) defining a floor of the reactor chamber, and a second porous frit (203, 1533 – top frit above 204) defining the ceiling of the reactor chamber and disposed below the reactor cap (205 – Figs. 2B, 6A, and 6B); wherein each porous frit (Col. 1, ll. 60 – 65 and Col. 20, ll. 30 – 40) has a porosity that is sufficient to allow a gas to permeate into the reactor chamber and contain a nanoporous carbon material or powder; a reactor head space (shown in Figs. 2B, 6A, and 6B) disposed above the reactor cap (205 – Figs. 2B, 6A, and 6B); an optional foil (Col. 20, ll. 40 – 45) disposed between the reactor chamber and reactor cup, wherein the foil envelops the reactor cup (Col. 24, ll. 10 – 20 “a foil can optionally encase the chamber containing the charge material on the inside and/or outside of the frits and/or cup, thereby creating a metal boundary surrounding the starting material.”); an optional x-ray source (Col. 20, ll. 45 – 50) configured to expose the reactor head space to x-rays; one or more optional lasers (Col. 20, ll. 45 – 50) configured to direct a laser towards a frit and/or through the reactor chamber; 2, 3, 4, 5 or more RA coils (Col. 20, l. 65 to Col. 21, l. 10 and Col. 39, ll. 30 – 50) surrounding the reactor chamber and/or reactor head space operably connected to an RA frequency generator and power supply; 2, 3, 4, 5 or more pairs of lamps (Col. 20, l. 65 to Col. 21, l. 10 and Col. 39, ll. 30 – 50) wherein the pairs of lamps are disposed circumferentially around the RA coils and define a space between the pairs of lamps and the RA coils; and a computer processing unit (Col. 20, ll. 50 – 55, Col. 21, ll. 5 – 15, and Col. 39, ll. 45 – 50) configured to control the power supply, frequency generator, lamps, and the optional x-ray source and lasers.
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, with the (a) a set of one or more reactor assemblies (RAs) that produces the fuel, wherein said reactor assembly comprising: a gas inlet and one or more gas outlets; a reactor chamber, containing a nanoporous carbon material or powder disposed within a reactor cup and covered with a reactor cap; a first porous frit defining a floor of the reactor chamber, and a second porous frit defining the ceiling of the reactor chamber and disposed below the reactor cap; wherein each porous frit has a porosity that is sufficient to allow a gas to permeate into the reactor chamber and contain a nanoporous carbon material or powder; a reactor head space disposed above the reactor cap; an optional foil disposed between the reactor chamber and reactor cup, wherein the foil envelops the reactor cup; an optional x-ray source configured to expose the reactor head space to x-rays; one or more optional lasers configured to direct a laser towards a frit and/or through the reactor chamber; 2, 3, 4, 5 or more RA coils surrounding the reactor chamber and/or reactor head space operably connected to an RA frequency generator and power supply; 2, 3, 4, 5 or more pairs of lamps wherein the pairs of lamps are disposed circumferentially around the RA coils and define a space between the pairs of lamps and the RA coils; and a computer processing unit configured to control the power supply, frequency generator, lamps, and the optional x-ray source and lasers, taught by Nagel, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the expulsive combustion engine energized by combustion of a fuel to produce thrust, comprising (b) a source of an oxidizing agent; (c) a fuel intake system in fluid communication with combustion chamber, wherein the fuel intake system delivers the fuel into the combustion chamber; (d) an oxidant delivery system in fluid communication with the source of the oxidizing agent and the combustion chamber, wherein the oxidant delivery system delivers the oxidizing agent into the combustion chamber; (e) a control system operatively coupled to the fuel intake system and the oxidant delivery system, and the (a) a set of one or more reactor assemblies (RAs) that produces the fuel, wherein said reactor assembly comprising: a gas inlet and one or more gas outlets; a reactor chamber, containing a nanoporous carbon material or powder disposed within a reactor cup and covered with a reactor cap; a first porous frit defining a floor of the reactor chamber, and a second porous frit defining the ceiling of the reactor chamber and disposed below the reactor cap; wherein each porous frit has a porosity that is sufficient to allow a gas to permeate into the reactor chamber and contain a nanoporous carbon material or powder; a reactor head space disposed above the reactor cap; an optional foil disposed between the reactor chamber and reactor cup, wherein the foil envelops the reactor cup; an optional x-ray source configured to expose the reactor head space to x-rays; one or more optional lasers configured to direct a laser towards a frit and/or through the reactor chamber; 2, 3, 4, 5 or more RA coils surrounding the reactor chamber and/or reactor head space operably connected to an RA frequency generator and power supply; 2, 3, 4, 5 or more pairs of lamps wherein the pairs of lamps are disposed circumferentially around the RA coils and define a space between the pairs of lamps and the RA coils; and a computer processing unit configured to control the power supply, frequency generator, lamps, and the optional x-ray source and lasers, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating the set of one or more reactor assemblies in line (28) would have fluidly communicated the set of one or more reactor assemblies to the fuel intake system that delivered the fuel into the combustion chamber. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 4, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the fuel comprises hydrogen (Gotzig - Col. 8, ll. 55 – 65 and Nagel - Col. 13, ll. 10 – 20 and Col. 17, ll. 30 – 50).
Re Claim 5, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, 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. Nagel further teaches, in Col. 13, ll. 10 – 20 and Col. 17, ll. 30 – 50, a set of RAs that produces an oxidizing agent, e.g., oxygen.
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, i.v., Nagel, by duplicating the reactor assembly (RA) 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 8, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including a method of producing thrust (Gotzig - 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 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 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, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the fuel comprises hydrogen (Gotzig - Col. 8, ll. 55 – 65 and Nagel - Col. 13, ll. 10 – 20 and Col. 17, ll. 30 – 50).
Re Claim 12, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the source of the oxidizing agent is a second set of RAs. Nagel further teaches, in Col. 13, ll. 10 – 20 and Col. 17, ll. 30 – 50, a set of RAs that produces an oxidizing agent, e.g., oxygen.
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, i.v., Nagel, by duplicating the reactor assembly (RA) 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 56, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the oxidizing agent is selected from the group consisting of oxygen, halogen, and hydrogen peroxide, Nagel - Col. 13, ll. 10 – 20 and Col. 17, ll. 30 – 50.
Re Claim 57, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the cup is composed of graphite, Nagel - Col. 23, ll. 40 – 45.
Re Claim 58, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the foil, when present, is composed of platinum, Nagel - Col. 24, ll. 15 – 20.
Re Claim 59, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including further comprising a pole (Nagel - Col. 27, ll. 15 – 50) disposed below the reactor chamber and above the gas inlet (1520 – Fig. 15B).
Re Claim 60, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the pole is composed of quartz, Nagel - Col. 27, ll. 15 – 50.
Re Claim 61, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein: (Nagel - Col. 17, ll. 30 – 40 and Claim 2, Col. 40, ll. 25 – 35) the gas inlet is in fluid connection with at least one gas supply selected from the group consisting of air, oxygen, hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and mixtures thereof; the gas supply is free of metal salts and vaporized metals; and the gas supply is directed through a gas manifold controlled by mass flow meters.
Re Claim 62, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein (Nagel - Claim 4, Col. 40, ll. 40 – 50) a first RA coil comprises a copper wire winding, a second RA coil comprises a braiding of copper wire and silver wire, and a third RA coil is a platinum wire winding and each RA coil is configured to create a magnetic field and wherein each power supply independently provides AC and/or DC current.
Re Claim 63, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Nagel - Claim 5, Col. 40, ll. 45 – 60) 5 RA coils surrounding the reactor chamber and/or reactor head space operably connected to one or more RA frequency generators and one or more power supplies; wherein a first RA coil is aligned with the first frit, a second RA coil is aligned with the reactor chamber, a third RA coil is aligned with the second frit, a fourth RA coil is disposed between the first RA and the second RA coil and a fifth RA coil is disposed between the second RA coil and third RA coil.
Re Claim 64, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Nagel - Claim 6, Col. 40, ll. 55 – 60) at least two lasers and wherein each laser is characterized by a different wavelength.
Re Claim 65, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Nagel - Claim 7, Col. 40, ll. 60 – 67) wherein a first pair of RA lamps are configured in a first plane defined by a center axis and a first radius of the reactor chamber, a second pair of RA lamps are configured in a second plane defined by the center axis and a second radius of the reactor chamber and a third pair of RA lamps are configured in a third plane defined by the center axis and a third radius of the reactor chamber.
Re Claim 66, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Nagel - Claim 1, Col. 39, l. 45 to Col. 40, l. 25) further comprising an electromagnetic embedding apparatus (E/MEE) located upstream of the gas inlet comprising: one or more gas supplies; a housing having a housing inlet and housing outlet; an upstream gas line that is in fluid connection with each gas supply and the housing inlet; an internal gas line in fluid connection with the housing inlet and housing outlet; a downstream gas line in fluid connection with the housing outlet and the RA gas inlet; at least one E/MEE pencil lamp positioned below the internal gas line, at least one E/MEE pencil lamp positioned above the internal gas line and at least one E/MEE pencil lamp positioned to the side of the internal gas line; an optional short wave lamp and/or a long wave lamp; and an optional E/MEE coil wrapped around the internal gas line; wherein each E/MEE pencil lamp is independently rotatably mounted, located along the length of the internal gas line, and powered by the power supply; wherein the computer processing unit independently controls powering each E/MEE pencil lamp and the rotation position of each E/MEE pencil lamp.
Re Claim 67, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Nagel - Claim 8, Col. 41, ll. 1 – 5) wherein the housing is closed and opaque, the internal gas line is transparent and external gas line in fluid connection with the housing outlet and gas inlet is opaque.
Re Claim 68, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Nagel - Claim 1, Col. 39, l. 55 to Col. 40, l. 10) wherein: at least 5 E/MEE pencil lamps are located along the internal gas line; each E/MEE pencil lamp is independently placed such that its longitudinal axis is (i) parallel to the internal gas line, (ii) disposed radially in a vertical plane to the internal gas line, or (iii) perpendicular to the plane created along the longitudinal axis of the internal gas line or along the vertical axis of the internal gas line; and each E/MEE pencil lamp is independently affixed to one or more pivots that permit rotation between about 0 and 360 degrees with respect to the x, y, and/or z axis wherein (i) the x- axis is defined as the axis parallel to the gas line and its vertical plane, (ii) the y-axis defining the axis perpendicular to the gas line and parallel to its horizontal plane, and (iii) the z-axis is defined as the axis perpendicular to the gas line and parallel to its vertical plane.
Re Claim 69, Gotzig, i.v., Nagel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including (Nagel - Claims 10 and 11, Col. 41, ll. 5 – 15) wherein at least one E/MEE pencil lamp is a neon lamp, at least one E/MEE pencil lamp is a krypton lamp, and at least one E/MEE pencil lamp is an argon lamp.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered. To the extent possible they have been addressed in the rejections above at the appropriate locations, and furthermore they were found not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant’s arguments on Pgs. 10 – 11 regarding the 112(b) rejections based on the 112(f) interpretation are not persuasive. Page 9 of the Office Action mailed on 11/21/2025 listed the five methods that Applicant could take to address the 112(b) rejection; however, Applicant’s reply failed to follow any one of the listed five methods. Applicant’s reply failed to (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. Applicant’s reply failed to (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)). Applicant’s reply failed to (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)). Applicant’s reply failed to (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)). Applicant’s reply failed to (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. Merely citing various different pages and lines of the original Specification is insufficient because none of the cited sections explicitly and clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions of the “fuel intake system” and/or the “oxidant delivery system”. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, published in 1990 defined system as “1d: a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network esp. for distributing something or serving a common purpose <a telephone ~> <a heating ~> <a highway ~> <a data processing ~>”. Applicant’s arguments failed to define the group of devices for forming a network especially for distributing something, in this case fuel and/or oxidant. The rejections are maintained.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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
Prosecution Insights