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 01/03/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings (particularly figures 1, 2, 4A, 6, 7, 9, 10) are objected to because solid black shading is not permitted. See 37CFR 1.84 (m). Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings (particularly figures 2, 7, 10, 11) are objected to because lines, numbers and letters are not uniformly thick and well defined (poor line quality). See 37CFR 1.84 (l). Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. 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 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 1-4, 9, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Brees (US 3,040,516).
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Brees discloses a detonation engine (title), comprising:
a detonation chamber (chamber where the detonation wave occurs; refer to figure 1) in fluidic communication with a source of an oxidizer (air; col. 3 line 70) and a source of a fuel (hydrogen; col. 3 line 70);
an oxidizer inlet (air inlet shown in figure 1) configured to direct the oxidizer to the detonation chamber;
a fuel injector 36 configured to deliver fuel to the detonation chamber;
wherein the fuel injector and oxidizer inlet are configured to deliver the fuel and the oxidizer to the detonation chamber in a stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio of about 0.1 to about 3.0 (col. 3 line 70 teaches stoichiometric combustion of hydrogen and air; Figure 8 and col. 4 teaches equivalence ratio of 1.000 for the invention which is between 0.1 to about 3.0) to create a detonation wave (refer to figure 1 schematically showing the detonation wave; col. 1 lines 11-12 teaches a detonation wave is stabilized);
wherein the oxidizer inlet is configured to direct the oxidizer to the detonation chamber at a speed that is equal to [or about 10 percent greater than] a CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave (col. 2 lines 65-68, col. 3 lines 51-53, col. 3 lines 61-66, col. 4 lines 61-62, col. 5 lines 60-75, col. 6 lines 58-60, 64-68 teaches the incoming engine air is reduced [implying incoming at a speed greater than] in Mach number ….to the detonation wave propagation Mach number….equalization of Mach numbers between the combustible fuel-air velocity and the detonation propagation velocity; a stable detonative combustion occur when a detonation wave is initiated in a combustible mixture having a flow velocity equal to the detonation wave propagation velocity);
whereby the resulting detonation in the detonation chamber is a standing detonation wave (col. 5 lines 72-75 teaches Since the detonation wave will stand in a region which possesses a flow velocity equal to the detonation wave propagation velocity, the detonation will be stable) in a generally normal orientation (col. 2 lines 60-63 for a Chapman-Jouguet detonation….can be described in terms of a flow model consisting of a normal shock wave; refer to figure 1) relative to a longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Brees discloses wherein the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave is between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 (col. 4 lines 6-14, 33-39 teaches that a stable detonation wave can be achieved at Mach numbers of about 6 and above as well as for Mach numbers lower than 6 by adjusting the fuel-air ratio).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Brees discloses wherein the oxidizer is oxygen (oxygen from the ambient air; col. 3 line 70, col. 4 lines 14-17).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Brees discloses wherein the oxidizer is ambient air (oxygen from the ambient air; col. 3 line 70, col. 4 lines 14-17) and the Stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio is between about 0.5 and 2.0 (col. 3 line 70 teaches stoichiometric combustion of hydrogen and air; Figure 8 and col. 4 teaches equivalence ratio of 1.000 for the invention which is between 0.5 to 2.0).
In regards to Independent Claim 9, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Brees discloses a method of producing a standing normal detonation wave (col. 5 lines 72-75 teaches Since the detonation wave will stand in a region which possesses a flow velocity equal to the detonation wave propagation velocity, the detonation will be stable; col. 2 lines 60-63 for a Chapman-Jouguet detonation….can be described in terms of a flow model consisting of a normal shock wave; refer to figure 1) in an engine (title), comprising:
injecting an oxidizer (air; col. 3 line 70) and a fuel (hydrogen; col. 3 line 70) into a detonation chamber (chamber where the detonation wave occurs; refer to figure 1) at a stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio of 0.1 to 3.0 (col. 3 line 70 teaches stoichiometric combustion of hydrogen and air; Figure 8 and col. 4 teaches equivalence ratio of 1.000 for the inventio which is between 0.1 to about 3.0 );
igniting the fuel to create a detonation wave (col. 5 lines 72-75 teaches Since the detonation wave will stand in a region which possesses a flow velocity equal to the detonation wave propagation velocity, the detonation will be stable) in the detonation chamber;
directing the oxidizer into the detonation wave at a speed that is equal to or 10% greater than a CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave (col. 2 lines 65-68, col. 3 lines 51-53, col. 3 lines 61-66, col. 4 lines 61-62, col. 5 lines 60-75, col. 6 lines 58-60, 64-68 teaches the incoming engine air is reduced [implying incoming at a speed greater than] in Mach number….to the detonation wave propagation Mach number….equalization of match numbers between the combustible fuel-air velocity and the detonation propagation velocity; a stable detonative combustion occur when a detonation wave is initiated in a combustible mixture having a flow velocity equal to the detonation wave propagation velocity); and
maintaining the oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio and the speed of the oxidizer relative to the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave thereby causing the detonation wave to reside in a generally normal orientation (col. 2 lines 60-63 for a Chapman-Jouguet detonation….can be described in terms of a flow model consisting of a normal shock wave; refer to figure 1) relative to a longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber.
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Brees discloses wherein the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave is between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 (col. 4 lines 6-14, 33-39 teaches that a stable detonation wave can be achieved at Mach numbers of about 6 and above as well as for Mach numbers lower than 6 by adjusting the fuel-air ratio).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Brees discloses further including adjusting the oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio until the CJ consumption speed is between about Mach 4 and about Mach 6 (col. 3 line 70 teaches stoichiometric combustion of hydrogen and air; Figure 8 and col. 4 teaches equivalence ratio of 1.000 for the invention which is between 0.1 to about 3.0; col. 4 lines 6-14, 33-39 teaches that a stable detonation wave can be achieved at Mach numbers of about 6 and above as well as for Mach numbers lower than 6 by adjusting the fuel-air ratio).
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Brees discloses further including adjusting the speed of the oxidizer until the detonation wave becomes a normal standing detonation wave relative to the longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber (col. 2 lines 60-63 for a Chapman-Jouguet detonation….can be described in terms of a flow model consisting of a normal shock wave; refer to figure 1).
In regards to Independent Claim 15, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Brees discloses a method of producing a standing normal detonation wave (col. 5 lines 72-75 teaches Since the detonation wave will stand in a region which possesses a flow velocity equal to the detonation wave propagation velocity, the detonation will be stable; col. 2 lines 60-63 for a Chapman-Jouguet detonation….can be described in terms of a flow model consisting of a normal shock wave; refer to figure 1) in an engine (title), comprising:
injecting an oxidizer (air; col. 3 line 70) and a fuel (hydrogen; col. 3 line 70) into a detonation chamber (chamber where the detonation wave occurs; refer to figure 1);
igniting the fuel to create a detonation wave (col. 5 lines 72-75 teaches Since the detonation wave will stand in a region which possesses a flow velocity equal to the detonation wave propagation velocity, the detonation will be stable) in the detonation chamber;
adjusting a stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio between 0.1 to 3.0 until the detonation wave has a CJ consumption speed between about Mach 4 and about Mach 6 (col. 3 line 70 teaches stoichiometric combustion of hydrogen and air; Figure 8 and col. 4 teaches equivalence ratio of 1.000 for the inventio which is between 0.1 to about 3.0; col. 4 lines 6-14, 33-39 teaches that a stable detonation wave can be achieved at Mach numbers of about 6 and above as well as for Mach numbers lower than 6 by adjusting the fuel-air ratio);
directing the oxidizer into the detonation wave at a speed ratio that is between 1 and 1.1, wherein the speed ratio is a ratio of a speed of the oxidizer relative to the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave (col. 2 lines 65-68, col. 3 lines 51-53, col. 3 lines 61-66, col. 4 lines 61-62, col. 5 lines 60-75, col. 6 lines 58-60, 64-68 teaches the incoming engine air is reduced [implying incoming at a speed greater than] in Mach number….to the detonation wave propagation Mach number….equalization of match numbers between the combustible fuel-air velocity and the detonation propagation velocity; a stable detonative combustion occur when a detonation wave is initiated in a combustible mixture having a flow velocity equal to the detonation wave propagation velocity; ratio of 1 when the speed of the oxidizer/air is equal to the speed of the detonation wave “matching/equalization of speeds”); and
maintaining the oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio and the speed ratio to cause the detonation wave to maintain a generally normal orientation (col. 2 lines 60-63 for a Chapman-Jouguet detonation….can be described in terms of a flow model consisting of a normal shock wave; refer to figure 1) relative to a longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber.
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Brees discloses wherein the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave is between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 (col. 4 lines 6-14, 33-39 teaches that a stable detonation wave can be achieved at Mach numbers of about 6 and above as well as for Mach numbers lower than 6 by adjusting the fuel-air ratio).
Regarding dependent Claim 18, Brees discloses further including adjusting the speed of the oxidizer until the detonation wave becomes a normal standing detonation wave relative to the longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber (col. 2 lines 60-63 for a Chapman-Jouguet detonation….can be described in terms of a flow model consisting of a normal shock wave; refer to figure 1).
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Brees discloses wherein the oxidizer is oxygen (oxygen from the ambient air; col. 3 line 70, col. 4 lines 14-17).
Regarding dependent Claim 20, Brees discloses wherein the oxidizer is ambient air (oxygen from the ambient air; col. 3 line 70, col. 4 lines 14-17) and the Stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio is between about 0.5 and 2.0 (col. 3 line 70 teaches stoichiometric combustion of hydrogen and air; Figure 8 and col. 4 teaches equivalence ratio of 1.000 for the invention which is between 0.5 to 2.0).
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Rosato et al. (Stabilized detonation for hypersonic propulsion).
In regards to Independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1-8, Rosato discloses a detonation engine (title, page 1 right column paragraph 1 line 12-13), comprising:
a detonation chamber (chamber where the detonation wave occurs; refer to figures 2A, 8) in fluidic communication with a source of an oxidizer (air in the incoming hydrogen-air mixture entering the detonation chamber, see page 2 left column paragraph 2 line 12; air is provided from a pressure source tank, see page 6 left column paragraph 2 last two lines) and a source of a fuel (hydrogen; page 6 left column paragraph 2 last two lines);
an oxidizer inlet (oxidizer inlet shown in figures 2A, 8) configured to direct the oxidizer to the detonation chamber;
a fuel injector (fuel injector/device for injecting fuel is shown but not labeled in figures 2A, 8) configured to deliver fuel to the detonation chamber;
wherein the fuel injector and oxidizer inlet are configured to deliver the fuel and the oxidizer to the detonation chamber in a stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio of about 0.1 to about 3.0 (equivalence ratio of about 0.44 shown in figure 4 as a blue dot; equivalence ratio of 0.7 to 1.2 in regime III as shown in figure 6, also refer to page 5 right column paragraph 1 lines 1-2) to create a detonation wave (refer to figure 6 regime III showing the oblique detonation wave, page 5 right column paragraph 1 lines 1-2; the equivalence ratios in this document fall within the claimed range of 0.1 to 3.0);
wherein the oxidizer inlet is configured to direct the oxidizer to the detonation chamber at a speed that is equal to or about 10 percent greater than a CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave (page 2 left column paragraph 2 lines 12-14 teaches matching/equalization of the inflow Mach Number to the M_CJ conditions, where M_CJ is the Chapman-Jouguet Mach Number);
whereby the resulting detonation in the detonation chamber is a standing detonation wave (page 1 left column paragraph 1 line 22, page 1 right column paragraph 1 line 12 teaches a standing oblique detonation wave) in a generally normal orientation relative to a longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber (oblique detonation wave is substantially normal)).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Rosato discloses wherein the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave is between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 (refer to figure 4 showing that stable detonation waves can occur within the claimed range between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Rosato discloses wherein the oxidizer is oxygen (oxygen content in the incoming hydrogen-air mixture entering the detonation chamber, see page 2 left column paragraph 2 line 12;).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Rosato discloses wherein the oxidizer is ambient air (air in the incoming hydrogen-air mixture entering the detonation chamber, see page 2 left column paragraph 2 line 12; ambient air when actual engine is exposed to the atmosphere) and the Stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio is between about 0.5 and 2.0 (equivalence ratio of 0.7 to 1.2 in regime III as shown in figure 6, also refer to page 5 right column paragraph 1 lines 1-2).
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Rosato discloses further including an annular wedge disposed in or upstream of the detonation chamber, wherein the annular wedge has an angle of about 5 degrees to about 50 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber (refer to figure 8 showing an angle of 30 degrees, which is within the claimed range of 5 to 50 degrees).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Rosato discloses wherein the fuel injector includes a plurality of fuel injector ports each having a diameter of about 0.010 inches (0.254 mm) to about 0.050 inches (1.27 mm) [page 6 left column paragraph 3 line 5-6 from bottom teaches fuel orifices between 0.56 mm to 1.57 mm which are within the claimed range of 0.254 mm to 1.27 mm].
In regards to Independent Claim 9, and with particular reference to Figures 1-8, Rosato discloses a method of producing a standing normal detonation wave (page 1 left column paragraph 1 line 22, page 1 right column paragraph 1 line 12 teaches a standing oblique detonation wave) in an engine (title, page 1 right column paragraph 1 line 12-13), comprising:
injecting an oxidizer (air in the incoming hydrogen-air mixture entering the detonation chamber, see page 2 left column paragraph 2 line 12; air is provided from a pressure source tank, see page 6 left column paragraph 2 last two lines) and a fuel (hydrogen; page 6 left column paragraph 2 last two lines) into a detonation chamber (chamber where the detonation wave occurs; refer to figures 2A, 8) at a stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio of 0.1 to 3.0 (equivalence ratio of about 0.44 shown in figure 4 as a blue dot; equivalence ratio of 0.7 to 1.2 in regime III as shown in figure 6, also refer to page 5 right column paragraph 1 lines 1-2)
igniting the fuel to create a detonation wave (refer to figure 6 regime III showing the oblique detonation wave, page 5 right column paragraph 1 lines 1-2; the equivalence ratios in this document fall within the claimed range of 0.1 to 3.0) in the detonation chamber;
directing the oxidizer into the detonation wave at a speed that is equal to or 10% greater than a CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave (page 2 left column paragraph 2 lines 12-14 teaches matching/equalization of the inflow Mach Number to the M_CJ conditions, where M_CJ is the Chapman-Jouguet Mach Number); and
maintaining the oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio and the speed of the oxidizer relative to the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave thereby causing the detonation wave to reside in a generally normal orientation (page 1 left column paragraph 1 line 22, page 1 right column paragraph 1 line 12 teaches a standing oblique detonation wave, oblique detonation wave is substantially normal) relative to a longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber.
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Rosato discloses wherein the fuel injector includes a plurality of fuel injector ports each having a diameter of about 0.010 inches (0.254 mm) to about 0.050 inches (1.27 mm) [page 6 left column paragraph 3 line 5-6 from bottom teaches fuel orifices between 0.56 mm to 1.57 mm which are within the claimed range of 0.254 mm to 1.27 mm].
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Rosato discloses further including an annular wedge disposed in or upstream of the detonation chamber, wherein the annular wedge has an angle of about 5 degrees to about 50 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber (refer to figure 8 showing an angle of 30 degrees, which is within the claimed range of 5 to 50 degrees).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Rosato discloses wherein the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave is between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 (refer to figure 4 showing that stable detonation waves can occur within the claimed range between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6).
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Rosato discloses further including adjusting the oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio until the CJ consumption speed is between about Mach 4 and about Mach 6 (refer to figure 4 showing that stable detonation waves can occur within the claimed range between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 by adjusting the fuel-air ratio).
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Rosato discloses further including adjusting the speed of the oxidizer until the detonation wave becomes a normal standing detonation wave relative to the longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber (refer to figure 4 showing that stable detonation waves can occur within the claimed range between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 by adjusting the fuel-air ratio resulting in a substantially normal detonation wave “oblique detonation wave “ODW”).
In regards to Independent Claim 15, and with particular reference to Figures 1-8, Rosato discloses a method of producing a standing normal detonation wave (page 1 left column paragraph 1 line 22, page 1 right column paragraph 1 line 12 teaches a standing oblique detonation wave) in an engine (title, page 1 right column paragraph 1 line 12-13), comprising:
injecting an oxidizer (air in the incoming hydrogen-air mixture entering the detonation chamber, see page 2 left column paragraph 2 line 12; air is provided from a pressure source tank, see page 6 left column paragraph 2 last two lines) and a fuel (hydrogen; page 6 left column paragraph 2 last two lines) into a detonation chamber (chamber where the detonation wave occurs; refer to figures 2A, 8);
igniting the fuel to create a detonation wave (page 1 left column paragraph 1 line 22, page 1 right column paragraph 1 line 12 teaches a standing oblique detonation wave) in the detonation chamber;
adjusting a stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio between 0.1 to 3.0 until the detonation wave has a CJ consumption speed between about Mach 4 and about Mach 6 (equivalence ratio of about 0.44 shown in figure 4 as a blue dot; equivalence ratio of 0.7 to 1.2 in regime III as shown in figure 6, also refer to page 5 right column paragraph 1 lines 1-2; refer to figure 4 showing that stable detonation waves can occur within the claimed range between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 by adjusting the fuel-air ratio);
directing the oxidizer into the detonation wave at a speed ratio that is between 1 and 1.1, wherein the speed ratio is a ratio of a speed of the oxidizer relative to the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave (page 2 left column paragraph 2 lines 12-14 teaches matching/equalization of the inflow Mach Number to the M_CJ conditions, where M_CJ is the Chapman-Jouguet Mach Number; ratio of 1 when the speed of the oxidizer/air is equal to the speed of the detonation wave “matching/equalization of speeds”); and
maintaining the oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio and the speed ratio to cause the detonation wave to maintain a generally normal orientation (page 1 left column paragraph 1 line 22, page 1 right column paragraph 1 line 12 teaches a standing oblique detonation wave, oblique detonation wave is substantially normal) relative to a longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber.
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Rosato discloses further including an annular wedge disposed in or upstream of the detonation chamber, wherein the annular wedge has an angle of about 5 degrees to about 50 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber (refer to figure 8 showing an angle of 30 degrees, which is within the claimed range of 5 to 50 degrees).
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Rosato discloses wherein the CJ consumption speed of the detonation wave is between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 (refer to figure 4 showing that stable detonation waves can occur within the claimed range between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6).
Regarding dependent Claim 18, Rosato discloses further including adjusting the speed of the oxidizer until the detonation wave becomes a normal standing detonation wave relative to the longitudinal axis of the detonation chamber (refer to figure 4 showing that stable detonation waves can occur within the claimed range between about Mach 4 to about Mach 6 by adjusting the fuel-air ratio resulting in a substantially normal detonation wave “oblique detonation wave “ODW”).
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Rosato discloses wherein the oxidizer is oxygen (oxygen content in the incoming hydrogen-air mixture entering the detonation chamber, see page 2 left column paragraph 2 line 12;).
Regarding dependent Claim 20, Rosato discloses wherein the oxidizer is ambient air (air in the incoming hydrogen-air mixture entering the detonation chamber, see page 2 left column paragraph 2 line 12; ambient air when actual engine is exposed to the atmosphere) and the Stoichiometric oxidizer/fuel equivalence ratio is between about 0.5 and 2.0 (equivalence ratio of 0.7 to 1.2 in regime III as shown in figure 6, also refer to page 5 right column paragraph 1 lines 1-2).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosato.
Rosato teaches the invention as claimed and as disclosed above except wherein a mass flow rate ratio of fuel to oxidizer is between about 0.126 and about 0.214.
However, Rosato teaches that fuel and air mass flow rates are metered through precision chocked orifices that are vary in size to accommodate the broad range of fueling flow rates needed to cover the extent of conditions tested. Fuel orifice sizes used range from 0.56 to 1.57 mm in diameter depending on the mixture fraction (page 6 left column paragraph 3). Further, figure 4 shows that the mixture equivalence ratio is also variable/optimizable in order to maintain a stable detonation wave.
The mass flow rates, as taught by Rosato, is found to be a result-effective variable which achieves the recognized result of optimizing the fuel-air mixture to obtain a stable detonation wave. It has been held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routing experimentation." In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
It has also been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the mass flow rate ratio of fuel to oxidizer as taught by Rosato, in order to maintain a stable detonation (page 6 left column paragraph 3; figure 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
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