DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the claims use the abbreviation ppm without first establishing what the abbreviation stands for. The first use of an abbreviation in a line of claims should be as follows “part per million (ppm)” after which the abbreviation may be used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5-20 are 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " as the compound salt sources for the stabilizer at least in part" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the salt sources are related to the initial components of the stabilizer or different components. For the purposes of this examination the claim will be interpreted as “the stabilizer comprises at least in part Sodium Nitrate (NaNO3), Sodium phosphate dibasic dodecahydrate (Na2HPO4 12H2O) and Potassium Stannate Trihydrate (K2SnO3 3H2O).”
Regarding Claim 6, the claim is directed towards “A rocket propellant management system” render the claim indefinite since the only limitations claimed are for a stabilizing solution used with hydrogen peroxide. Thus it is unclear how the stabilizing solution makes up a part of the structure of the propellant management system. For the purposes of this examination the claim will be interpreted as being directed towards the stabilizing solution and include the limitations defining the composition of the solution.
Claims 7-19 depend from Claim 6 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claims 7-19, the limitations of the claims render the claims indefinite, particularly in light of the interpretation of claim 6 since Claims 7-19 include limitations not directed toward the composition of the stabilizing solution. Thus it is unclear how to interpret Claims 7-19 since it is unclear how a stabilizing solution includes structure that is not a stabilizing solution. Since it is unclear how to apply prior art to the claimed limitations to a stabilizing solution a proper prior art reject cannot be made on Claims 7-19.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations of the claim render the claim indefinite since Claim 20 include limitations directed towards a structure of a rocket engine and not directed toward the method of stabilizing hydrogen peroxide. Thus it is unclear how to interpret Claim 20 since it is unclear how a structure of a rocket engine implies any limitation on the method of stabilizing hydrogen peroxide. Since it is unclear how to apply prior art to the claimed limitations of structure of a rocket engine when the base claim is directed towards a method of stabilizing hydrogen peroxide a proper prior art rejection cannot be made on Claim 20.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kibbel (U.S. Patent No. 3,681,022), hereinafter Kibbel.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Kibbel discloses a method of stabilizing propellant grade hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (Title) for use as an oxidizer in a rotating detonating rocket engine (It is noted that the limitations “propellant grade” and “for use as an oxidizer in a rotating detonating rocket engine” are an intended use of the hydrogen peroxide that does not imply additional limitations on the method of stabilizing hydrogen peroxide thus if the steps of stabilizing the hydrogen peroxide are disclosed then the steps of stabilizing a hydrogen peroxide that is used as a propellant in a rotating detonating rocket engine would also be disclosed) comprising adding to the H2O2 a stabilizing composition of nitrate (NO3-), phosphate (PO4-3) and tin (Sn) (Column 1, Lines 33-36, 60-61, Column 2, Lines 1-5 and Column 3, Lines 24-25 – the hydrogen peroxide is stabilized using a composition that includes a nitrate, phosphate and tin), wherein
a. a concentration of nitrate (NO3-) is 5 ppm or more (Column 4, Lines 34-35 – the concentration of nitrate provided is 548 ppm which is more than 5 ppm);
b. a concentration of phosphate (PO4-3) is 1 ppm or more (Column 2, Lines 10-18 – the concentration of phosphate is up to 1000 ppm which is more than 1 ppm); and
c. a concentration of tin (Sn) is 4 ppm or more (Column 2, Lines 10-18 – the concentration of tin is 300 ppm which is more than 4 ppm).
Regarding Independent Claim 6, Kibbel discloses a stabilizing composition for hydrogen peroxide comprising a composition of nitrate (NO3-), phosphate (PO4-3) and tin (Sn) (Column 1, Lines 33-36, 60-61, Column 2, Lines 1-5 and Column 3, Lines 24-25 – the hydrogen peroxide is stabilized using a composition that includes a nitrate, phosphate and tin), wherein
a. a concentration of nitrate (NO3-) is 75 ppm or more (Column 4, Lines 34-35 – the concentration of nitrate provided is 548 ppm which is more than 75 ppm);
b. a concentration of phosphate (PO4-3) is 20 ppm or more (Column 2, Lines 10-18 – the concentration of phosphate is up to 1000 ppm which is more than 20 ppm); and
c. a concentration of tin (Sn) is 20ppm or more (Column 2, Lines 10-18 – the concentration of tin is 300 ppm which is more than 20 ppm).
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kibbel in view of Young (U.S Patent No. 3,333,925), hereinafter Young.
Regarding Claim 2, Kibbel discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kibbel does not explicitly disclose the said tin (Sn) to phosphate (PO4-3) ratio is 10 to 0.5.
However, Young teaches a method of stabilizing hydrogen peroxide (Title) that uses a ratio of tin and phosphate of 1 (Column 3, Lines 4-29 – the method uses tin/stannate and phosphate where the ratio of tin to phosphate is 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kibbel by making the tin to phosphate ratio 1, as taught by Young, in order to provide a worthwhile stabilizing effect (Young – Column 3, Lines 7-8) and provide a desired pH level (Young – Column 3, Lines 26-35).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kibbel in view of Carnine (U.S. Patent No. 3,383,174), hereinafter Carnine.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Kibbel discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kibbel does not disclose said concentration of nitrate (NO3-), phosphate (PO4-3) & tin (Sn) is 800 ppm, 50 ppm & 500 ppm respectively or in the same proportion.
However, Kibbel teaches the amount of phosphate (PO4-3) effects the pH level of the hydrogen peroxide (Column 2, Lines 1-5).
Therefore concentration of phosphate is recognized as a result effective variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is adjusting the pH level of the hydrogen peroxide.
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a stabilization method includes using a concentration of phosphate, were disclosed in the prior art by Kibbel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum concentration of phosphate by routine experimentation (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kibbel to have a concentration of phosphate that is 50 ppm in order to provide a desired pH level.
Kibbel further teaches the amount of tin effects the level of stabilization of hydrogen peroxide (Column 1, Lines 13-23).
Therefore concentration of tin is recognized as a result effective variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is adjusting the stabilizing effect on the hydrogen peroxide.
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a stabilization method includes using a concentration of tin, were disclosed in the prior art by Kibbel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum concentration of tin by routine experimentation (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kibbel to have a concentration of tin that is 500 ppm (Claim 4 – 500 ppm is less than a maximum of 2000 ppm) in order to provide a desired level of hydrogen peroxide stabilization.
Kibbel does not disclose the concentration of nitrate (NO3-) is 800 ppm.
However, Carnine teaches a stabilization of hydrogen peroxide (Title) that uses nitrate (Column 3, Lines 72-75 – sodium nitrate is used), where the amount of nitrate effects the corrosion of metallic surfaces by the hydrogen peroxide (Column 3, Lines 72-75).
Therefore concentration of nitrate is recognized as a result effective variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is adjusting the amount of metallic corrosion of the hydrogen peroxide.
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a stabilization method includes using a concentration of nitrate, were disclosed in the prior art by Kibbel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum concentration of nitrate by routine experimentation (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kibbel to have a concentration of nitrate that is 800 ppm in order to provide a desired level of metallic corrosion of the hydrogen peroxide.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kibbel in view of Millard (U.S. Patent No. 8,932,646), hereinafter Millard, as evidenced by Kattoum (Non-Patent Literature – Hydrates), hereinafter Kattoum.
Regarding Claim 5, Kibbel discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kibbel further discloses the stabilizer comprises at least in part Sodium Nitrate (NaNO3) (Column 4, Line 34-35 – the stabilizer uses Sodium Nitrate), and Potassium Stannate Trihydrate (K2SnO3 3H2O) (Column 2, Lines 66-67 – the stabilizer is an aqueous potassium stannate, i.e. Potassium Stannate Trihydrate).
Kibbel does not explicitly disclose Sodium phosphate dibasic dodecahydrate (Na2HPO4 12H2O).
However, Millard teaches the use of Sodium phosphate dibasic with stabilized hydrogen peroxide for pH control (Column 6, Lines 20-21, Column 12, Lines 33-36 and 48-54).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kibbel by making the method include using Sodium phosphate dibasic dodecahydrate, since Sodium phosphate dibasic dodecahydrate is the hydrated, i.e. water added, version of the compound, as evidenced by Kattoum in sections “Introduction” and “Properties of Hydrates”, and Sodium phosphate dibasic is taught by Millard and since it has been held that the selection of a known material (in the present case Sodium phosphate dibasic) based on its suitability for its intended use (providing a substance for pH level control in stabilized hydrogen peroxide) would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Duggleby (U.S. Patent No. 11,970,995) shows a rotating detonation rocket engine that uses hydrogen peroxide).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, 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.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights