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 .
This is the first office action in response to the above identified patent application filed on 09/12/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Specification/Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
ROCKET MOTOR FEED SYSTEM COMPRISING AT LEAST ONE SONIC CHOKE IN EACH PROPELLANT FEED LINE
Note: title does not determine or define the meets and bounds of patentability, the title is mainly a description of the invention which serves the examiners at the USPTO during the searching process.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9-11 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,116,958 (hereinafter referencing US Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the referencing US Patent fully encompass the subject matter of the instant application claims and therefore anticipate the claims of the instant application. Since the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of the referencing US Patent, the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the referencing US Patent.
The comparison of the claims is as follows:
Instant Application
Patent 12,116,958
Claim [ 1 ] oxidizer gas supply, injector, feed line, oxidizer gas, sonic choke.
Claim [ 13 ] feed line/fuel feed line, gaseous propellant/fuel, gaseous fuel propellant supply, sonic choke, injector, injection plate, plurality of orifices, combustor, second feed line/oxidizer feed line, a second gaseous propellant/oxidizer, second gaseous propellant supply/oxidizer gas supply, second choke.
Instant Application
Patent 12,116,958
Claim [ 11 ] oxidizer gas supply, injector, feed line, oxidizer gas, one or more sonic orifices.
Claim [ 13 ] feed line/fuel feed line, gaseous propellant/fuel, gaseous fuel propellant supply, sonic choke “sonic orifice”, injector, injection plate, plurality of orifices, combustor, second feed line/oxidizer feed line, a second gaseous propellant/oxidizer, second gaseous propellant supply/oxidizer gas supply, second choke “sonic orifice”.
Instant Application
Patent 12,116,958
Claim [ 18 ] feed line, gaseous propellant/fuel, gaseous fuel propellant supply, sonic choke, injector.
Claim [ 1 ] feed line/fuel feed line, gaseous propellant/fuel, gaseous fuel propellant supply, sonic choke, injector, injection plate, plurality of orifices, combustor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 3, 9, 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Holzman (US 4,424,679).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
587
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to marked-up Figure 1 shown immediately above, Holzman discloses a rocket motor feed system comprising:
an oxidizer gas supply 24;
an injector (refer to marked-up figure 1 above showing the injection plate “injector” for injecting the propellant into the combustor 12);
a feed line (22/34/22/18) configured to supply oxidizer gas (col. 3 line 22-23 teaches any suitable oxidizer, for example gaseous oxygen) from the oxidizer gas supply 24 to the injector;
a sonic choke 36 provided in the feed line 22/34/22 upstream of the injector, the sonic choke 36 being configured to passively regulate the mass flow rate of the oxidizer gas flowing from the oxidizer gas supply 24 to the injector (the sonic choke 36 is dimensioned to passively set mass flow rate based on upstream conditions so as to provide a regulated mass flow rate of oxidizer 24 to the combustor 12 only as a function of upstream pressure and temperature without being influenced by downstream pressure variations, that is, decouples the mass flow rate of the oxidiser gas from changes in gas flow conditions downstream of the sonic choke; refer to abstract, col. 3 lines 56-57, col. 4 lines 2-4 and 7-8 in Holzman).
Regarding Dependent Claims 3 and 14, Holzman further teaches wherein the system is configured such that, during operation, the sonic choke decouples the mass flow rate of the oxidiser gas from changes in gas flow conditions downstream of the sonic choke (the sonic choke 36 provides a regulated mass flow rate of oxidizer 24 to the combustor 12 only as a function of upstream pressure and temperature without being influenced by downstream pressure variations, that is, decouples the mass flow rate of the oxidiser gas from changes in gas flow conditions downstream of the sonic choke; refer to abstract, col. 3 lines 56-57, col. 4 lines 2-4 and 7-8 in Holzman).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Holzman further teaches wherein the rocket motor feed system includes a combustor 12 downstream of the injector (as shown in marked-up figure 1 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Holzman further teaches wherein the sonic choke 36 comprises one sonic orifice or a plurality of sonic orifices (col. 3 lines 56-57 teaches the sonic choke 26 has a fixed size orifice).
In regards to Independent Claim 11, and with particular reference to marked-up Figure 1 shown immediately above, Holzman discloses a rocket motor feed system comprising:
an oxidizer gas supply 24;
an injector (refer to marked-up figure 1 above showing the injection plate “injector” for injecting the propellant into the combustor 12);
a feed line (22/34/22/18) configured to supply oxidizer gas (col. 3 line 22-23 teaches any suitable oxidizer, for example gaseous oxygen) from the oxidizer gas supply 24 to the injector at a first mass flow rate (at whatever mass flow rate the oxidizer flow is delivered to the injector);
one or more sonic orifices “sonic choke” 36 provided in the feed line 22/34/22 between the oxidizer gas supply 24 and the injector and configured such that, in use, the oxidizer gas flows through the one or more orifices 36 at the first mass flow rate (the sonic choke 36 is dimensioned to passively set mass flow rate based on upstream conditions so as to provide a regulated mass flow rate of oxidizer 24 to the combustor 12 only as a function of upstream pressure and temperature without being influenced by downstream pressure variations, that is, decouples the mass flow rate of the oxidiser gas from changes in gas flow conditions downstream of the sonic choke; refer to abstract, col. 3 lines 56-57, col. 4 lines 2-4 and 7-8 in Holzman).
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzman in view of Besnard (US 2018/0171933; reference listed in the IDSs submitted by applicant).
Holzman teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except using nitrous oxide as the oxidizer. However, Holtzman teaches that any suitable oxidizer can be used (col. 3 lines 22-23).
Besnard teaches that commonly used propellants include oxygen, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, propylene, propane among others are typical for rocket pressure-fed systems (par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a propellant for a particular application since it has been held that the selection of a known material (in the present nitrous oxide as the oxidizer for the rocket system of Holzman) based on its suitability for its intended use (as taught by Besnard, a well-known propellant having a particular vapour pressure at typical operating temperatures) 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.
Claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzman in view of Fisher et al. (US 2013/0340407; reference listed in the IDSs submitted by applicant).
Holzman teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above but do not teach wherein the gaseous propellant supplied from the gaseous propellant supply is self-pressurized (claims 5 and 16), wherein the gaseous propellant supplied from the gaseous propellant supply is the vapour phase of a liquefied gas (claims 6 and 17).
Fisher teaches that propellant tanks can be self-pressurized by the vapor pressure of the fluid therein so that no additional pressurizing tank/gas is required (par. 32).
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 configured the system of Holzman so that the gas supplied from the gas supply is self-pressurized and the gas supplied from the gas supply is the vapour phase of a liquefied gas, as taught by Fisher, in order to avoid having additional pressurizing tanks (par. 32 in Fisher).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzman in view of Besnard (US 2018/0171933; reference listed in the IDSs submitted by applicant).
Holzman teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above but do not teach the gaseous propellant supplied from the gaseous propellant supply has a pressure of at least 5 bar across a range of operating temperatures and the range of operating temperatures includes -10*C to 35*C.
Besnard teaches that commonly used propellants (oxygen, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, propylene, propane) with vapour pressures in the claimed range (50psi/0.34 bar to 2000psi/137.89 bars; 5 bars is within this range) at operating temperatures within claimed range (35 degrees Celsius is included since the max is 100 degrees); are typical for rocket pressure-fed systems (par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a propellant for a particular application since it has been held that the selection of a known material (in the present case a propellant for the rocket system of Holzman) based on its suitability for its intended use (as taught by Besnard, a well-known propellant having a particular vapour pressure at typical operating temperatures) 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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (US 5,063,734) view of Wright (US 3,172,254; reference listed in the IDSs submitted by applicant).
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to marked-up Figure 3, Morris discloses a rocket motor feed system comprising:
an oxidizer gas supply 12;
a feed line (piping 15 connecting the oxidizer supply 12 to the rocket engine 11) configured to supply oxidizer gas (gaseous oxygen; col. 4 lines 10-12) from the oxidizer gas supply 12 to be injected into the combustion chamber 14 of the rocket engine 11;
a sonic choke 26 provided in the feed line 15 upstream of the combustion chamber 14, the sonic choke 26 being configured to passively regulate the mass flow rate of the oxidizer gas flowing from the oxidizer gas supply 12 to be injected into the combustion chamber 14 (typical sonic venturi flow meters 26 and 27 “sonic chokes” are provided to passively (without moving parts) set mass flow rate based on upstream conditions without being influenced by downstream pressure variations, that is, decouples the mass flow rate of the oxidiser gas from changes in gas flow conditions downstream of the sonic choke; refer to col. 5 lines 7-25, col. 11 lines 17-18).
Morris does not schematically show an injector for injecting the gaseous oxidiser 12 into the combustion chamber 14.
Wright teaches (particularly figure 1) a rocket motor feed system similar to Morris comprising injectors (19, 19a) for injecting an oxidizer and fuel respectively into the combustion chamber D of the rocket engine.
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 provided the system of Morris with oxidizer and fuel injectors, as taught by Wright, in order to inject the regulated oxidizer and fuel into the combustion chamber (col. 4 lines 50-54).
Regarding Dependent Claims 2 and 13, Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed and Morris further teaches wherein the system is configured to regulate the mass flow rate of oxidiser gas 12 from the oxidiser gas supply to the to the injector without the need for closed-loop feedback controls (no feedback control is mentioned by Morris).
Regarding Dependent Claims 3 and 14, Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed and Morris further teaches wherein the system is configured such that, during operation, the sonic choke decouples the mass flow rate of the oxidiser gas from changes in gas flow conditions downstream of the sonic choke (typical sonic venturi flow meters 26 and 27 “sonic chokes” are provided to passively (without moving parts) set mass flow rate based on upstream conditions without being influenced by downstream pressure variations, that is, decouples the mass flow rate of the oxidiser gas and gaseous fuel from changes in gas flow conditions downstream of the sonic choke; refer to col. 5 lines 7-25, col. 11 lines 17-18).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed and Morris further teaches wherein the rocket motor feed system includes a combustor 14 downstream of the injector (refer to the rejection of claim 1 above for the injector).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed and Morris further teaches wherein the sonic choke 26 comprises one sonic orifice or a plurality of sonic orifices (orifices in the respective sonic venturi meters 26, 27).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view Wright and further in view of Besnard (US 2018/0171933; reference listed in the IDSs submitted by applicant).
Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed including using an oxidizer and a fuel (for example oxygen and hydrogen col, 4 lines 8). The recitation “for example” in Morris is taken/implies that any suitable oxidizer and or fuel can be used.
Besnard teaches that commonly used propellants include oxygen, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, propylene, propane among others are typical for rocket pressure-fed systems (par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a propellant for a particular application since it has been held that the selection of a known material (in the present nitrous oxide for the rocket system of Morris-Wright) based on its suitability for its intended use (as taught by Besnard, a well-known propellant having a particular vapour pressure at typical operating temperatures) 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.
In regards to Independent Claim 11, and with particular reference to marked-up Figure 3, Morris discloses a rocket motor feed system comprising:
an oxidizer gas supply 12;
a feed line (piping 15 connecting the oxidizer supply 12 to the rocket engine 11) configured to supply oxidizer gas (gaseous oxygen; col. 4 lines 10-12) from the oxidizer gas supply 12 to be injected at a first mass flow rate (at whatever mass flow rate the oxidizer flow is delivered to the combustion chamber) into the combustion chamber 14 of the rocket engine 11;
one or more sonic orifices “sonic choke” 26 provided in the feed line 15 between the oxidizer gas supply 12 and the combustion chamber 14 and configured such that, in use, the oxidizer gas flows through the one or more orifices 26 at the first mass flow rate (typical sonic venturi flow meters 26 and 27 “sonic chokes” are provided to passively (without moving parts) set mass flow rate based on upstream conditions without being influenced by downstream pressure variations, that is, decouples the mass flow rate of the oxidiser gas from changes in gas flow conditions downstream of the sonic choke; refer to col. 5 lines 7-25, col. 11 lines 17-18).
Morris does not schematically show an injector for injecting the gaseous oxidiser 12 into the combustion chamber 14.
Wright teaches (particularly figure 1) a rocket motor feed system similar to Morris comprising injectors (19, 19a) for injecting an oxidizer and fuel respectively into the combustion chamber D of the rocket engine.
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 provided the system of Morris with oxidizer and fuel injectors, as taught by Wright, in order to inject the regulated oxidizer and fuel into the combustion chamber (col. 4 lines 50-54).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above including a sonic orifice 26 in the feed line 15.
Morris in view of Wright does not teach plural orifices in the feed line 15, particularly, wherein the feed line 15 comprises a plurality of feed branches 26 with at least one of the sonic orifices in each feed branch, and wherein the first mass flow rate is the total mass flow rate of oxidiser gas through the plurality of feed branches.
It has been held that "the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI(B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Morris in view of Wright with plural sonic orifices on a feed line because to do so would be simply duplicating the components already present in the prior art with the expected result of redundancy in case failure of one of the orifices.
In regards to Independent Claim 18, and with particular reference to marked-up Figure 3, Morris discloses a rocket motor feed system comprising:
a feed line 16 configured to supply a gaseous propellant (gaseous hydrogen; col. 4 lines 10-12) from a gaseous propellant supply 13;
a sonic choke 27 provided in the feed line, the sonic choke being configured to passively regulate the mass flow rate of the gaseous propellant passing therethrough (typical sonic venturi flow meters 26 and 27 “sonic chokes” are provided to passively (without moving parts) set mass flow rate based on upstream conditions without being influenced by downstream pressure variations, that is, decouples the mass flow rate of the oxidiser gas or the gaseous fuel from changes in gas flow conditions downstream of the sonic choke; refer to col. 5 lines 7-25, col. 11 lines 17-18); and
wherein: the gaseous propellant (gaseous hydrogen) supplied from the gaseous propellant supply 13 is a fuel (gaseous hydrogen; col. 4 lines 10-12, 14)
Morris does not schematically show an injector for injecting the gaseous oxidiser 12 into the combustion chamber 14, particularly an injector provided in the feed line, the injector being downstream of the sonic choke.
Wright teaches (particularly figure 1) a rocket motor feed system similar to Morris comprising injectors (19, 19a) for injecting an oxidizer and fuel respectively into the combustion chamber D of the rocket engine, the injectors 19 and 19a provided in the feed line and being downstream of the sonic choke 8;
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 provided the system of Morris with oxidizer and fuel injectors, as taught by Wright, in order to inject the regulated oxidizer and fuel into the combustion chamber (col. 4 lines 50-54).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view Wright and further in view of Besnard (US 2018/0171933; reference listed in the IDSs submitted by applicant).
Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed including using an oxidizer and a fuel (for example oxygen and hydrogen col, 4 lines 8). The recitation “for example” in Morris is taken/implies that any suitable oxidizer and or fuel can be used.
Besnard teaches that commonly used propellants include oxygen, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, propylene, propane among others are typical for rocket pressure-fed systems (par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a propellant for a particular application since it has been held that the selection of a known material (in the present propane for the rocket system of Morris-Wright) based on its suitability for its intended use (as taught by Besnard, a well-known propellant having a particular vapour pressure at typical operating temperatures) 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Wright and further in view of Fisher et al. (US 2013/0340407; reference listed in the IDSs submitted by applicant).
Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above but do not teach wherein the gaseous propellant supplied from the gaseous propellant supply is self-pressurized.
Fisher teaches that propellant tanks can be self-pressurized by the vapor pressure of the fluid therein so that no additional pressurizing tank/gas is required (par. 32).
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 configured the system of Morris-Wright so that the gas supplied from the gas supply is self-pressurized and the gas supplied from the gas supply is the vapour phase of a liquefied gas, as taught by Fisher, in order to avoid having additional pressurizing tanks (par. 32 in Fisher).
Alternative Rejection for Dependent Claim 12.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Wright and further in view of Kim et al (KR 20120062288).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above including a sonic orifice 26 in the feed line 15.
Morris in view of Wright does not teach plural orifices in the feed line 15, particularly, wherein the feed line 15 comprises a plurality of feed branches 26 with at least one of the sonic orifices in each feed branch, and wherein the first mass flow rate is the total mass flow rate of oxidiser gas through the plurality of feed branches.
It has been held that "the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 VI(B).
Kim teaches (particularly figure 2) a rocket feed system similar to Morris and Wright comprising multiple orifices (30, 40) in a feed line.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Morris in view of Wright with plural sonic orifices on a feed line, as taught by Kim, because to do so would be simply duplicating the components already present in the prior art with the expected result of redundancy in case failure of one of the orifices.
Claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Wright and further in view of Fisher et al. (US 2013/0340407; reference listed in the IDSs submitted by applicant).
Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above but do not teach wherein the gaseous propellant supplied from the gaseous propellant supply is self-pressurized (claims 5 and 16), wherein the gaseous propellant supplied from the gaseous propellant supply is the vapour phase of a liquefied gas (claims 6 and 17).
Fisher teaches that propellant tanks can be self-pressurized by the vapor pressure of the fluid therein so that no additional pressurizing tank/gas is required (par. 32).
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 configured the system of Morris-Wright so that the gas supplied from the gas supply is self-pressurized and the gas supplied from the gas supply is the vapour phase of a liquefied gas, as taught by Fisher, in order to avoid having additional pressurizing tanks (par. 32 in Fisher).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Wright and further in view of Besnard (US 2018/0171933; reference listed in the IDSs submitted by applicant).
Morris in view of Wright teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above but do not teach the gaseous propellant supplied from the gaseous propellant supply has a pressure of at least 5 bar across a range of operating temperatures and the range of operating temperatures includes -10*C to 35*C.
Besnard teaches that commonly used propellants (oxygen, hydrogen, nitrous oxide, methane, propylene, propane) with vapour pressures in the claimed range (50psi/0.34 bar to 2000psi/137.89 bars; 5 bars is within this range) at operating temperatures within claimed range (35 degrees Celsius is included since the max is 100 degrees); are typical for rocket pressure-fed systems (par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a propellant for a particular application since it has been held that the selection of a known material (in the present case a propellant for the rocket system of Morris-Wright) based on its suitability for its intended use (as taught by Besnard, a well-known propellant having a particular vapour pressure at typical operating temperatures) 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following reference(s) are also relevant for at least claims 1, 11 and 18.
Kim et al. (KR 20120062288). Refer to marked-up figure 2 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
856
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The following reference(s) are also relevant for at least claims 1, 11 and 18.
Cai et al. (CN 107587954). Refer to marked-up figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
944
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4831. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30.
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.
/William H Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights