DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the reply of 08/19/2025 in the application filed on 09/06/2024 which is a 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/JP2023/008638. Claims 1-11 are pending.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of allowed Claim 11.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claim 9, “the rocket combustion mode” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. It remains unclear if this mode refers to aforementioned elements (worded differently) and/or constitutes the previously recited “a combustion mode” in which the combustion space is switched in accordance with. As such, the claim is not clear.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-3240010-A
“MORRISON”
US-9816463-B2
“FALEMPIN”
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MORRISON.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, MORRISON teaches a rotary detonation engine (FIGS. 1-2) comprising:
an outer cylinder [annotated in Image 1] (external cylinder of casing 10) extending in an axial direction (direction of 14, Fig. 1);
a base [annotated in Image 1] (internal portion of casing 10) connected to the outer cylinder, the base including a plurality of fuel injection ports 21 located in an annular shape and configured to jet fuel and a plurality of oxidant jet ports located in an annular shape and configured to jet oxidant (Figs. 1-2; 3:19-31; from 3:19-31 “orifices 21 extend from a peripheral fuel supply duct 24, and orifices 23 extend from radially directed oxidizer supply ducts 25”);
an inner cylinder 12 located inside the outer cylinder and installed in the axial direction with respect to the base (Fig. 1); and
a mechanism [39, 41] configured to switch a combustion space (between starter duct 37 and chamber 17; 3:70 to 4:24), wherein the combustion space is switched in accordance with a combustion mode (startup or not startup; 3:70 to 4:35).
Re Claim 10, MORRISON teaches a rotary detonation engine (FIGS. 1-2) comprising:
an outer cylinder [annotated in Image 1] (external cylinder of casing 10) extending in an axial direction (direction of 14, Fig. 1);
a base [annotated in Image 1] (internal portion of casing 10) connected to the outer cylinder, the base including a plurality of fuel injection ports 21 located in an annular shape and configured to jet fuel, and a plurality of oxidant jet ports located in an annular shape and configured to jet oxidant (Figs. 1-2; 3:19-31; “orifices 21 extend from a peripheral fuel supply duct 24, and orifices 23 extend from radially directed oxidizer supply ducts 25”);
an inner cylinder 12 located inside the outer cylinder and installed in the axial direction with respect to the base (Fig. 1); and
a mechanism [39, 41] configured to switch a direction of a combustion flow (from along starter duct 37 to along annular chamber 17; 3:70 to 4:24), wherein the direction of the combustion flow is switched in accordance with a combustion mode (at fire-up along starter duct 37 duct 17; after fire up around 17).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORRISON
In view of FALEMPIN.
Re Claim 4, MORRISON teaches the rotary detonation engine according to claim 1 and further notes the engine may be modified to accept fresh air as oxidizer (this, as will be understood, indicates supplying fresh air to the oxidizer ports; MORRISON 6:60-72), but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the base includes: a plurality of air supply passages connected to the plurality of oxidant jet ports, and an air chamber connected to the plurality of air supply passages, and including an air intake port with an opening area larger than a passage area of each of the plurality of air supply passages.
FALEMPIN teaches a rotary detonation engine that forms a ramjet (Figure 3) wherein the base includes a plurality of air supply passages connected to the plurality of oxidant jet ports (annotated), and an air chamber connected to the plurality of air supply passages, and including an air intake port with an opening area larger than a passage area (see Fig. 3) of each of the plurality of air supply passages (See Image 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
669
949
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine of MORRISON such that the base further includes a plurality of air supply passages connected to the plurality of oxidant jet ports, and an air chamber connected to the plurality of air supply passages, and including an air intake port with an opening area larger than a passage area of each of the plurality of air supply passages, in order to utilize the rotary detonation engine in a ramjet supplied with fresh air (MORRISON 6:60-72) and/or to provide ability to adjust fuel richness (FALEMPIN 6:5-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) except as noted above (Claim 9 was not fully corrected).
Applicant’s arguments to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (addressed below) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.01.
CLAIM 1:
Re Applicant’s assertion 1: Examiner notes “relative axial movement of an inner cylinder with respect to the base” and other aspects Applicant argues are not part of Claim 1, but rather dependent claims. The combustion space in MORRISON is ‘switched’ between duct 37 and chamber 17. A change in geometry of a single space is not required by the claim. Nevertheless, Applicant’s argument that combustion chamber 17 “remains fixed” appears to overlook express teachings of MORRISON (e.g., see 2:68 to 3:6 “the plug is adjusted to the left (FIG. 1) during start-up and is adjusted back and forth to the right and left during normal operation”).
Re Applicant’s assertion 2: “rocket” and “jet” combustion modes do not form part of claim 1 and are not read into the claims. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, duct 37 is used during starting. A “structural change” is not required by the claims, but chamber 17 does change as noted above.
Re Applicant’s assertion 3: Plug 12 constitutes an inner cylinder as claimed as shown and described in MORRISON. The claims do not require the inner cylinder be “designed for continuous operation movement to reconfigure the combustion space between distinct modes”, but again in MORRISON this is the case as explained above with respect to chamber 17 (2:68 to 3:6 “the plug is adjusted to the left (FIG. 1) during start-up and is adjusted back and forth to the right and left during normal operation”.
Re Applicant’s assertion 4: Applicant acknowledges fuel injection ports 21 and oxidizer injection ports 23 are present in MORRISON (Remarks page 10 “While Morrison has ports 21 and 23 arranged for fuel and oxidant”). It is apparent from Figures 1-2 that the same are annular arranged. The claims do not require the ports not be “fixed” and “rocket” and “jet” combustion modes do not form part of the claim 1. The mechanisms/switching/configurations required by the claims are as set forth in the rejections.
CLAIM 10:
Re Applicant’s assertions 1 & 2: Examiner notes the specific modes argued (rocket, jet) are not claimed. The starting mode and operation modes of MORISSON qualify as modes under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a combustion mode”. See MPEP § 2111. Combustion is present during startup and it is therefore a combustion mode. Moreover, the direction of the combustion flow is switched in accordance with a combustion mode (at fire-up along starter duct 37 duct 17; after fire up around 17). This is switched in accordance with closure 39, shaft 41 (e.g., see 3:70 to 4:24).
Re Applicant’s assertion 3: Plug 12 constitutes an inner cylinder as claimed as shown and described in MORRISON. The claim does not require the inner cylinder be configured for “oxidant route switching” and MORRISON teaches a mechanism [39, 41] configured to switch a direction of a combustion flow (from along starter duct 37 to along annular chamber 17; 3:70 to 4:24).
CLAIM 4:
Re Applicant’s assertion 1: the structural relationship claimed is taught by FALEMPIN.
Re Applicant’s assertion 2: Applicant argues MORRISON does not teach (a) features that are not claimed and (b) claim limitations MORRISON was not relied upon to teach. It is noted that examiner agrees that MORRISON suggests using fresh air. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, a ram jet as taught by MORRISON at the cited portion does not suggest “direct supply arrangement from oxidizer tank to oxidizer ports”. A ram jet as taught by MORRISON by definition indicates ambient air will utilized and compressed at the inlet (compressor/diffuser) utilizing forward motion. See MORRISON 6:60-72.
Re Applicant’s assertion 3: FALEMPIN is consonant with the ram jet in MORRISON. The claims do not require the “air chamber” to be intermediate, nor the “air intake port” of the air chamber to be an entrance to the air chamber itself (in the rejections they are part of the chamber but form an entrance intake port to the air passages). The bulleted features described by Applicant do not form part of the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments to dimensions do not appear responsive to the rejections as articulated. FALEMPIN teaches the air chamber (annotated in Image 2) connected to the plurality of air supply passages (annotated in Image 2), and including an air intake port (annotated in Image 2) with an opening area (annotated in Image 2) larger than a passage area (see Fig. 3) of each of the plurality of air supply passages (See Image 2 below). Notably, it is this arrangement in FALEMPIN which facilitates the supply and compression of ambient air for the ramjet.
PNG
media_image2.png
669
949
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Applicant’s assertion 4: The rejections rely on the combined teachings of the prior art. In MORRISON, a ramjet is expressly suggested. See 6:60-72. Examiner disagrees that MORRISON lacks any air chamber upstream of the oxidant ports (This appears to disregard the express teachings of MORRISON at 3:19-31). In this case, the applicable rationale was explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand. Applicant has not shown that the Office erred in these findings or provided other evidence to show that the claimed subject matter would have been nonobvious. See MPEP § 2141 (IV-V).The aspects of “a single air chamber” and “precise area ratio” are not claimed but with respect to the modification facilitate use of the rotary detonation engine in a ramjet supplied with fresh air (MORRISON 6:60-72) and ability to adjust fuel richness (FALEMPIN 6:5-45). It has been held that “recogniz[ing] another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See MPEP § 2145 (II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to correct all outstanding objections. NOTE Claim 2 is and will remain objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of allowed Claim 11 unless the objection is corrected. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
NOTE: Rotary detonation engine has been construed as an engine which uses pressure gain combustion in which combustion detonation(s) (as opposed to deflagrative combustion) continuously travel(s) around an annular flowpath.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art fails to teach or suggest, in combination with the other limitations of the claim 2 and claim 11, the inner cylinder is configured to be relatively movable in the axial direction with respect to the base so as to form a first combustion space between the inner cylinder and the outer cylinder when the inner cylinder is in contact with the base, and form a second combustion space inside the inner cylinder when the inner cylinder is separated from the base.
Examiner Comment: With respect to Claim 2 and the prior art, US 2011/0036067 is deemed the closest art of record because ‘067 teaches an inner cylinder 28 configured to be relatively movable in the axial direction into and out of contact with respect to a base in a rotary detonation engine. However, US 2011/0036067 fails to teach forming a first combustion space between the inner cylinder and the outer cylinder when the inner cylinder is in contact with the base, and forming a second combustion space inside the inner cylinder when the inner cylinder is separated from the base.
PNG
media_image3.png
1274
906
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30a to 4:30p Monday through Friday.
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 on (571) 272-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
November 24, 2025
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights