DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 01/02/2026 adding new Claims 12 – 15 and amending Claims 1 – 3, 5, 8, 10, and 11. Claims 1 – 15 are examined.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/02/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, l. 1 “The rocket engine system of claim one wherein” is believed to be in error for --The rocket engine system of claim [[one]] 1 wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Amended Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended Claim 11 recites “…the subsystem statuses selected from the group consisting of: fuel flow, oxidizer flow, combustion chamber pressure, combustion chamber temperature, pump revolutions per minute (RPM), turbine RPM, valve position, electric motor temperature, battery charge level, [[and]] generator power output, turbine fuel flow[[.]], turbine pressure, electric motor power input, and combinations thereof.” A review of the original Specification failed to reveal any description of said power management system monitoring any one of the “oxidizer flow”, “generator power output”, “turbine fuel flow”, “turbine pressure”, “electric motor power input”, and “combinations thereof”. In fact, none of the new amended limitations were explicitly recited in original Specification. The word “monitoring” only appeared a single time in the eleven (11) page Specification and only as a general statement that the “…control computer would be capable of …monitoring and controlling other systems and subsystems”. Para. [0046] failed to explicitly describe the control computer monitoring any one of the “oxidizer flow”, “generator power output”, “turbine fuel flow”, “turbine pressure”, “electric motor power input”, and “combinations thereof”. Amended Claim 11 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelmann (9,166,510) in view of Kwak et al. (11,060,482) in view of Ovens et al. (2014/0065954) in view of Eick et al. (4,926,629) in view of Wilton et al. (6,897,629) in view of Hussain et al. (2013/0096749).
Regarding Claim 1, Himmelmann teaches, in Fig. 3, the invention as claimed, including a rocket engine system comprising: one or more rocket engines (12-13-14) comprising a combustion chamber (13) and a nozzle (diverging end where the combustion gases flow out of the rocket engine); a turbine (102) configured to power an electric generator (103) via a power source (6); an electric motor (part of each “electric motor pump” 105 - Col. 4, ll. 5 – 25 and ll. 60 - 67) configured to power an oxidizer pump (4 – Col. 4, ll. 45 - 60) and a fuel pump (3 – Col. 4, ll. 45 - 60); a power management system (113 - Col. 4, ll. 10 - 45) electrically and communicatively connected (power lines and data lines) to said electric generator (103), said electric motor (3, 4, and 105), and a plurality of valves (7, 8, 9, 10); said power management system (113 - Col. 4, ll. 10 - 45) configured to direct and control power to and from said turbine (102), said electric generator (103), and said electric motor (3, 4, and 105), said power management system (113) further configured to control output of said oxidizer pump (4, 105) and said fuel pump (3, 105) to said combustion chamber (13, Col. 3, ll. 15 – 20 “The systems and methods disclosed herein can be used to control fuel and/or oxidizer supply in a rocket engine independent of turbine speed.”)
Kwak teaches, in Figs. 1B and 1D, a similar rocket engine system comprising: one or more rocket engines (101 - Figs. 1B and 1D, 11 – Fig. 4, and 210 – Fig. 5) having an electric motor (150 - Col. 5, ll. 50 – 60) configured to power an oxidizer pump (140) and a fuel pump (145).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Himmelmann, with the electric motor configured to power an oxidizer pump and a fuel pump, taught by Kwak, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket engine system, the rocket engine comprising a combustion chamber and a nozzle, and an electric motor configured to power an oxidizer pump and a fuel pump, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the electric motor configured to power an oxidizer pump and a fuel pump arrangement, taught by Kwak, for the electric motor/oxidizer pump/fuel pump arrangement of Himmelmann, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., electrical power would have been supplied to the electric motor to generate rotational mechanical power to drive both the oxidizer pump and the fuel pump resulting in pumping of oxidizer and fuel, respectively. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, is silent on said power management system comprising a processor.
Himmelmann further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 10 – 15, ll. 20 – 25, ll. 40 – 45, that said power management system (113) included both the pump controller (109) and the generator controller (111) which were implemented as software modules and that the electric motor and pumps were controlled by software. Ovens teaches, in Para. [0015], a power management system (22 – flight control computer) comprising a processor (any suitable number of individual microprocessors). Ovens teaches, in Para. [0015], “The flight control computer 22 may include or cooperate with any number of software programs (e.g., flight management programs) or instructions designed to carry out the various methods, process tasks, calculations, and control/display functions necessary for operation of the aircraft 10.”
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, with the power management system/flight control computer comprising a processor, taught by Ovens, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket engine system, the rocket engine comprising a combustion chamber and a nozzle, and a power management system/ flight control computer comprising a processor, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the power management system/flight control computer comprising a processor, taught by Ovens, for the power management system of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the processor would have run the software modules of the pump controller and the generator controller to facilitate the power management system/flight control computer controlling the operation of the rocket engine(s) during flight of a rocket, i.e., when the rocket engine(s) were generating propulsive thrust by burning a mixture of the fuel and oxidizer. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak and Ovens, as discussed above, is silent on said power management system further configured to control output of said oxidizer pump and said fuel pump to said combustion chamber and to direct and control power from said power source to said turbine via said plurality of valves.
Himmelmann further teaches, in Fig. 3, said plurality of valves (7, 8, 9, 10) with a valve (10) located in the oxidizer line that flowed to the combustion chamber (13), a valve (9) located in the fuel line that flowed to the combustion chamber (13), a valve (8) located in the oxidizer line that flowed to the power source (6), and a valve (7) located in the fuel line that flowed to the power source (6). Kwak further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 25 – 30 and prior art Fig. 5, a similar rocket engine system (200) having a plurality of valves (represented symbolically as a pair of triangles with connected apexes, some of the connected apexes are inside a circle) where a control valve (260 – “a thrust control valve 260 to adjust the amount of the oxidant supplied to the gas generator”) directed and controlled oxidizer flow to a power source (240) that drove a turbine (250). Kwak further teaches, in Col. 6, ll. 5 – 35 and Figs. 1B and 1D, a similar rocket engine system having a plurality of valves (115 and 121) that controlled the output of an oxidizer pump (140) and the output of a fuel pump (145) to a rocket engine combustion chamber (101) and a plurality of valves (118 and 128) that directed and control power from a power source (190) to a turbine (195). Eick teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2 and Col. 4, ll. 44 – 65, controlling the output of a pump (10) by using a valve (41) controlled by electric signals (46).
Thus, improving a particular device (rocket engine system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Kwak and Ovens, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the rocket engine system of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak and Ovens, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that configuring said power management system, i.e., computer that received input data from sensors and output control signals to controllable devices like actuated valves, to control a plurality of valves located in various fluid flow lines between various components would have facilitated said power management system controlling said oxidizer pump output and said fuel pump output to said combustion chamber and to facilitated said power management system directing and controlling power from said power source to said turbine. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, and Eick, teach a rocket engine system, i.e., base system, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, and Eick, as discussed above, are silent on said power management system further configured to monitor a temperature of said electric motor and a status of said electric generator and said power management system processor configured to automatically operate and optimize efficiency of power output by said one or more rocket engines.
Wilton teaches, in Fig. 17, a power management system (Col. 5, ll. 25 - 35) configured to monitor (Col. 6, ll. 48 - 55) a temperature of an electric motor (S860 and S865 – Fig. 17, Col. 2, ll. 25 – 30, Col. 15, ll. 5 – 35, and Col. 16, ll. 45 - 55) and a status of an electric generator (S835 and S840 – Fig. 17, Col. 2, ll. 25 – 30, and Col. 16, ll. 25 - 40). Wilton teaches, in Col. 2, l. 66 to Col. 3, l. 12, automatically and adaptively controlling the safety status of a hybrid electric vehicle including an energy generation system, an energy storage system receiving electric current at least from the energy generating system, and at least one electric drive motor receiving current from the energy storage system, includes monitoring the status of at least the energy generation system, the energy storage system and the drive motor systems to determine if any components are operating incorrectly or are in a fault state or a failure state, attempting to reset or correct the fault cause, disabling or isolating the component if unable to reset or correct the cause, and altering the control of other components to compensate for the failed component.
Hussain teaches, in Figs. 1 – 16, a power management system (Paras. [0044] – [0047]) configured to monitor (Paras. [0054] – [0056], [0091]) a temperature of an electric motor (105 – drive motor – Para. [0086]) and a status of an electric generator (Paras. [0064] – [0069], [0091], and Claim 1, step b.). Hussain teaches, in Paras. [0045] - [0047], a power management system processor (106 – Fig. 1, VCU – vehicle control unit) configured to automatically operate a power management system (107 – Fig. 1, Para. [0086]) to optimize efficiency of power output. Hussain teaches, in Para. [0045], “The VCU continuously monitors various vehicle and driver inputs and controls the operation of the main vehicle systems with a goal of maximizing efficiency of operation”. Hussain teaches, in Para. [0047], “…the VCU must have information about the vehicle, the driver inputs, and other supplemental information that is used to operate at optimum efficiency”.
Thus, improving a particular system (rocket engine system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Wilton and Hussain, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the rocket engine system of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, and Eick, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that utilizing said power management system to monitor a temperature of said electric motor and a status of said electric generator would have facilitated optimizing efficiency of power output of said rocket engine by allowing said power management system processor to automatically operate said power management system. As discussed above, Hussain teaches in Paras. [0045], [0047], and [0086], continuously supplying the power management system processor with various input data facilitated generating optimal control outputs for the various components thereby operating the system at optimum efficiency. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 2, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, teaches the invention as claimed; except, wherein said power management system is further electrically connected to a battery, said battery being [The following was the designed and intended use of a battery.] configured to selectively store energy for an instant electrical response. However, Kwak further teaches, in Figs. 1A and 1B and Col. 5, ll. 55 – 60, using a battery (151) as a power supply to the electric motor (150) that drove the oxidizer pump (140) and the fuel pump (145). Ovens further teaches, in Para. [0015], “The flight control computer 22 may include or be associated with, any suitable number of individual microprocessors, power supplies, storage devices, interface cards, auto flight systems, flight management computers, and other standard components.”
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, with a battery power supply configured to selectively store energy for an instant electrical response (supplying electricity when demanded by an electrically connected load/device), further taught by Kwak, and said power management system processor/flight control computer associated with, any suitable number of power supplies, further taught by Ovens, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket engine system, the rocket engine comprising a combustion chamber and a nozzle, and a battery configured to selectively store energy for an instant electrical response to an electrically connected load/device and said power management system processor/flight control computer associated with, any suitable number of power supplies, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., electrically connecting a battery to said power management system would have facilitated said battery instantly supplying store electrical energy to said power management system when demanded. For example, before said rocket engine(s) had been started said battery would have facilitated said battery instantly supplying store electrical energy to said power management system so that said power management system processor could boot up and achieve an operational state where said power management system processor would have been able to control the start up and operation of said one or more rocket engines. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the battery Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, would have been configured to selectively store energy for an instant electrical response because the designed and intended purpose of a battery was to store electrical energy and supply said stored electrical energy for an instant electrical response when a closed electrical circuit was connected to both the positive and negative poles of said battery.
Re Claims 7 and 8, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, teaches the invention as claimed and Himmelmann further teaches, in Fig. 3, (Claim 7) wherein said one or more rocket engines include a cooling system (regenerative cooling around the nozzle and combustion chamber) and (Claim 8) wherein said cooling system comprise a heat exchanger (the regenerative cooling channels within the walls of the rocket engine were a heat exchanger).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 10, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, teaches the invention as claimed including further comprising: said at least one rocket engine associated with a vehicle (a rocket) comprising a flight computer; and wherein said power management system processor is integrated into said flight computer (see Claim 1 rejection). As discussed above, Ovens taught, in Para. [0015], “The flight control computer 22 may include or be associated with, any suitable number of individual microprocessors, power supplies, storage devices, interface cards, auto flight systems, flight management computers, and other standard components. The flight control computer 22 may include or cooperate with any number of software programs (e.g., flight management programs) or instructions designed to carry out the various methods, process tasks, calculations, and control/display functions necessary for operation of the aircraft 10.”
Re Claim 12, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, teaches the invention as claimed and Himmelmann further teaches, in Fig. 3, wherein said power source (6) comprises a gas generator (shown in Fig. 3).
Re Claim 13, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, teaches the invention as claimed and Himmelmann further teaches, in Fig. 3, further comprising: said at least one rocket engine (12-13-14) associated with a vehicle (Abstract and Col. 1, ll. 10 – 15 teaches a “rocket propelled vehicle”) comprising a flight computer, (Refer to Claim 1 rejection above).
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, as discussed above, is silent on wherein said power management system is connected to said flight computer via a communications network.
As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Ovens teaches, in Para. [0015], “The flight control computer 22 may include or be associated with, any suitable number of individual microprocessors, power supplies, storage devices, interface cards, auto flight systems, flight management computers, and other standard components. The flight control computer 22 may include or cooperate with any number of software programs (e.g., flight management programs) or instructions designed to carry out the various methods, process tasks, calculations, and control/display functions necessary for operation of the aircraft 10.” Ovens further teaches, in Para. [0015], “The computer 22 may receive inputs from any number of aircraft systems 20 or software programs responsible for managing the acquisition and storage of data. The computer 22 may also be connected with other controllers of the aircraft 10.” Ovens further teaches, in Para. [0011], “A data network 26 over which the plurality of aircraft systems 20 may communicate with each other and provide information to a crew of the aircraft 10 may be included.” Ovens further teaches, in Para. [0016], “The first near-field communication interface 40 may be communicably coupled to the computer 22 or other processors of the aircraft 10 as well as any number of the plurality of aircraft systems 20 to transfer information on and off the aircraft 10. The first near-field communication interface 40 may include a near-field communication mechanism capable of wirelessly linking with other near-field enabled systems and devices.” Ovens further teaches, in Fig. 3 and Paras. [0017] and [0018], a handheld device (70) that can be a smartphone, tablet PC (personal computer), or other suitable device that contained a controller (82 – Para. [0020]) which was remote from the vehicle (20). Ovens further teaches, in Fig. 4 and Para. [0019], various wireless communication networks.
Thus, improving a particular system (rocket engine system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Ovens, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the rocket engine system of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that utilizing a communications network to facilitate communications of data and commands between said power management system and said flight computer would have facilitated optimizing efficiency of power output of said rocket engine by allowing said power management system processor to automatically operate said power management system after receiving data and/or commands from the flight computer. As discussed above, Hussain teaches in Paras. [0045], [0047], and [0086], continuously supplying the power management system processor with various input data facilitated generating optimal control outputs for the various components thereby operating the system at optimum efficiency. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Re Claim 15, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, teaches the invention as claimed and Himmelmann further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 40 - 45, wherein: said electric generator (103) and said power management system (113) are further electrically connected to subsystems (109 and 111) of the rocket engine system such that said power management system is configured to direct and control power from said electric generator to said subsystems, wherein said subsystems are selected from the group consisting of: pressure sensors (204 and 206 - Col. 5, ll. 5 - 10), flow sensors (Col. 4, ll. 10 - 15), and communications systems (Fig. 2 lines connecting 113 to 103 and 105, Fig. 3 lines connecting 103 to 3, 4, 109, and 111). Himmelmann further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 10 - 15, “The speed of the AC electric motor pump 105 can be monitored and/or limited by a pump controller 109 that is operatively connected to the pump 105 and/or one or more sensors (e.g., flow sensor, speed sensor) disposed therein via any suitable circuitry, hardware, and/or software.” Himmelmann further teaches, in Col. 5, ll. 5 - 10, “As shown in FIG. 4, pump controller 109 can also be configured to also receive signals from a first pressure sensor 204 and/or a second pressure sensor 206 to determine a pressure of a fluid flow provided by the pumps 105, 205 (e.g, a fuel pressure and/or and oxidizer pressure).”
As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Ovens taught, in Para. [0015], a power management system (22 – flight control computer) comprising a processor (any suitable number of individual microprocessors). Ovens teaches, in Para. [0015], “The flight control computer 22 may include or cooperate with any number of software programs (e.g., flight management programs) or instructions designed to carry out the various methods, process tasks, calculations, and control/display functions necessary for operation of the aircraft 10.”
As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Eick taught, in Fig. 1 and Col. 3, ll. 55 – 60, an electrically actuated valve, i.e., solenoid valve actuated by electrical pulses (44).
As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Wilton taught, in Fig. 17, a power management system (Col. 5, ll. 25 - 35) configured to monitor (Col. 6, ll. 48 - 55) a temperature of an electric motor (S860 and S865 – Fig. 17, Col. 2, ll. 25 – 30, Col. 15, ll. 5 – 35, and Col. 16, ll. 45 - 55) and a status of an electric generator (S835 and S840 – Fig. 17, Col. 2, ll. 25 – 30, and Col. 16, ll. 25 - 40). Wilton teaches, in Col. 2, l. 66 to Col. 3, l. 12, automatically and adaptively controlling the safety status of a hybrid electric vehicle including an energy generation system, an energy storage system receiving electric current at least from the energy generating system, and at least one electric drive motor receiving current from the energy storage system, includes monitoring the status of at least the energy generation system, the energy storage system and the drive motor systems to determine if any components are operating incorrectly or are in a fault state or a failure state, attempting to reset or correct the fault cause, disabling or isolating the component if unable to reset or correct the cause, and altering the control of other components to compensate for the failed component.
Hussain teaches, in Figs. 1 – 16, a power management system (Paras. [0044] – [0047]) configured to monitor (Paras. [0054] – [0056], [0091]) a temperature of an electric motor (105 – drive motor – Para. [0086]) and a status of an electric generator (Paras. [0064] – [0069], [0091], and Claim 1, step b.). Hussain teaches, in Paras. [0045] - [0047], a power management system processor (106 – Fig. 1, VCU – vehicle control unit) configured to automatically operate a power management system (107 – Fig. 1, Para. [0086]) to optimize efficiency of power output. Hussain teaches, in Para. [0045], “The VCU continuously monitors various vehicle and driver inputs and controls the operation of the main vehicle systems with a goal of maximizing efficiency of operation”. Hussain teaches, in Para. [0047], “…the VCU must have information about the vehicle, the driver inputs, and other supplemental information that is used to operate at optimum efficiency”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Wilton and Hussain had a temperature sensor to monitor the temperature of the electric motor.
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, as discussed above, is silent on said subsystems are selected from the group consisting of: hydraulic pumps and pneumatic compressors
MPEP2144.04(IV)(B) Duplication of Parts cited “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)”
As discussed in the Claim 1 rejection above, Himmelmann already taught said power management system was configured to direct and control power from said electric generator (103) to said electric motor that drove the fuel pump (3) and the oxidizer pump (4). Configuring said power management system to direct and control power from said electric generator to one or more hydraulic pumps and/or to one or more pneumatic compressors would have been mere duplication of parts because a hydraulic pump and a pneumatic compressor were functionally and structurally similar to the electric motor driven pump that pumped fuel or oxidizer. The only difference was the fluid or gas being pumped or compressed. An electric motor driven pump that pumped hydraulic fluid was a “hydraulic pump” while an electric motor driven pump that pumped fuel was a “fuel pump”. Similarly, an electric motor driven compressor that pumped/compressed air was a “pneumatic compressor”. A pump pumped a liquid while a compressor pumped/compressed a gas. It has been held that “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, to include hydraulic pumps and pneumatic compressors because it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, as discussed above, is silent on said subsystems are selected from the group consisting of: gyros and combinations thereof.
Ovens further teaches, in Para. [0010] and [0013], navigation systems as part of the aircraft systems including “…an electrical system, an oxygen system, hydraulics and/or pneumatics system, a fuel system, a propulsion system, navigation systems, flight controls, audio/video systems, an Integrated Vehicle Health Management (IVHM) system, and systems associated with the mechanical structure of the aircraft 10.” Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the art at the time of applicant’s invention that gyros, i.e., gyroscopes, were rotation sensors in inertial navigation systems of aircraft, rockets, ships, submarines, and other vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, with the gyros in the navigation systems, further taught by Ovens, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket engine system, the rocket engine comprising a combustion chamber and a nozzle, turbopump, and gyros in navigation systems, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., using electricity generated by said electric generator to power the gyros in the navigation systems and combinations of other electricity powered subsystems would have facilitated reducing cost and weight of the rocket engine system by using said single electric generator to power the combinations of all the selected subsystems. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelmann (9,166,510) in view of Kwak et al. (11,060,482) in view of Ovens et al. (2014/0065954) in view of Eick et al. (4,926,629) in view of Wilton et al. (6,897,629) in view of Hussain et al. (2013/0096749) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Beck et al. (11,408,373) in view of Johnson et al., “Evolution of KSC EGS Post Space Shuttle - Success Factors and Lessons Learned”, Kennedy Space Center - Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) Program Office, May 2018, hereinafter “Johnson”.
Re Claims 3 and 5, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, teach a rocket engine system, i.e., base system, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, is silent on (Claims 3 and 5) wherein said power management system is further electrically connected to (Claim 3) an external electric generator or (Claim 5) an external electrical power source (Claims 3 and 5) configured for initially powering said power management system and said electric motor.
Beck teaches, in Figs. 1 – 18 and Col. 1, ll. 50 - 60, a similar rocket engine system having an oxidizer pump (112 – Fig. 3) driven by an electric motor and a fuel pump (110 – Fig. 3) driven by an electric motor wherein the electric motor was supplied with electric power stored on-board in one or more batteries or generated on-board using an electric generator. Beck further teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 40 – 45, “…batteries, have commonly been used to provide power to various onboard systems, such as guidance, navigation, engine control, communications, etc.”. Beck further teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 5 – 15, “The electric energy stored in the battery cells, units and packs is used to drive electrical components such as electric turbopumps on the vehicle.”. Beck further teaches, in Col. 7, ll. 30 – 40, “The first turbopump 110 and the second turbopump 112 may be powered via power supplied from a controller 108, which is, in turn, provided with power from one or more battery units 114 that are each part of proper subsets 116.” Beck further teaches, in Col. 12, ll. 4 – 15, starting the rocket engine and electric motors driving the pumps using an external power supply, i.e., external electrical power source, and then switching to electrical power supplied by the on-board batteries after the rocket engine has been started.
Johnson teaches, on Pg. 13, bottom of second paragraph, that a twin turbo-charged Cummins diesel engine driving an electric generator provided electrical power to the crawler transporter (CT), mobile launcher, mini portable purge units (MPPU), and the launch vehicle, i.e., rocket like the Apollo Saturn V, Space Shuttle, and now the Space Launch System (SLS) that is planned to launch American astronauts back to the moon. Johnson further teaches, on Pg. 13, second paragraph, that umbilical arms of the mobile launcher provided electrical power and other services to the launch vehicle, i.e., rocket, before launch.
Thus, improving a particular system (rocket engine system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Beck and Johnson, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the rocket engine system of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that electrically connecting an external electric generator or an external electrical power source, e.g., electricity from the local power grid, to said power management system would have facilitated initially powering said power management system and said electric motor before said rocket engine(s) were started and the rocket launched of a launch site. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that supplying an external electrical power, e.g., electricity from the local power grid or diesel electric generator(s), as the electrical power source to start the rocket engine and the electric motors driving the pumps and then switching to electrical power supplied by the on-board batteries after the rocket engine was started would have facilitated maximizing the amount of battery power available during flight of the rocket after launch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a rocket engine system of a rocket typically spent several hours to several days sitting on a launch pad while a plurality of pre-flight tests were conducted to ensure that the rocket would be safe to launch. During the plurality of pre-flight test, electricity from the local power grid or diesel electric generator(s) would have been supplied from the launch pad to the rocket engine system via an umbilical arm/cord to power all the electrical systems and devices onboard the rocket to avoid draining all the electrical power stored in the onboard batteries and to maintain the onboard batteries in a 100% charged state. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelmann (9,166,510) in view of Kwak et al. (11,060,482) in view of Ovens et al. (2014/0065954) in view of Eick et al. (4,926,629) in view of Wilton et al. (6,897,629) in view of Hussain et al. (2013/0096749) as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Pinera et al. (9,964,073) and in view of Vermeersch et al. (2014/0208750).
Re Claim 9, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, teaches the invention as claimed; except, further comprising: a regulator valve connecting said cooling system to said turbine; said regulator valve configured to provide power to said electrical generator via said turbine.
Pinera teaches, in Col. 5, ll. 15 – 40 and Figs. 2 and 11, a similar rocket engine having a cooling system (regenerative cooling heat exchanger of the rocket engine) wherein the heated cooling fluid flowed out of the cooling system to drive a turbine (12) that drove an electric generator (21) that generated electrical power.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, with the heated cooling fluid flowing out of the cooling system as the power source driving the turbine, taught by Pinera, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket engine system, the rocket engine comprising a combustion chamber and a nozzle, and a cooling system supplying heated cooling fluid to drive a turbine that drives an electric generator that generated electrical power, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the heated cooling fluid as the power source that drove the turbine, taught by Pinera, for the power source of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the heated cooling fluid would have driven the turbine to rotate the electric generator to generate electricity to power the electric motor that drove the oxidizer pump and a fuel pump. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, Hussain, and Pinera, teaches the invention as claimed; except, further comprising: a regulator valve connecting said cooling system to said turbine; said regulator valve configured to provide power to said electrical generator via said turbine.
Vermeersch teaches, in Para. [0055], a regulator valve (263) connecting a cooling system (heat exchanger) to said turbine (264); said regulator valve (263) configured to provide power to said electrical generator via said turbine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, Hussain, and Pinera, with the regulator valve connecting said cooling system to said turbine; said regulator valve configured to provide power to said electrical generator via said turbine, taught by Vermeersch, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the rocket engine system, the rocket engine comprising a combustion chamber and a nozzle, turbopump, and a regulator valve connecting said cooling system to said turbine; said regulator valve configured to provide power to said electrical generator via said turbine, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the regulator valve located in a flow line downstream of said cooling system and upstream of said turbine would have provided power to said electrical generator via said turbine by controlling the flow of fluid from said cooling system to said turbine. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelmann (9,166,510) in view of Kwak et al. (11,060,482) in view of Ovens et al. (2014/0065954) in view of Eick et al. (4,926,629) in view of Wilton et al. (6,897,629) in view of Hussain et al. (2013/0096749) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Di Salvo et al. (2012/0317956) and in view of Kruse et al. (6,655,127).
Re Claim 11, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, teaches the invention as claimed, including wherein said power management system is further comprised to monitor subsystem statuses of the rocket engine system, the subsystem statuses selected from the group consisting of: electric motor temperature (refer to the Claim 1 rejection above).
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, teach a rocket engine system, i.e., base system, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, as discussed above, are silent on said subsystem statuses selected from the group consisting of: pump revolutions per minute (RPM), turbine RPM, fuel flow, oxidizer flow, valve position, battery charge level, generator power output, turbine fuel flow, turbine pressure, electric motor power input, and combinations thereof.
Himmelmann further teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 44 – 65, monitoring subsystem statuses selected from the group consisting of: fuel flow [Col. 5, ll. 25 – 35], oxidizer flow [Col. 5, ll. 25 – 35], pump revolutions per minute (RPM) [Col. 4, ll. 10 – 20 and Col. 5, ll. 25 – 35 – pump speed was equivalent to pump RPM], and turbine RPM [Col. 4, ll. 35 – 40, Col. 4, ll. 60 – 67, and Col. 5, ll. 35 – 45 – turbine speed was equivalent to turbine RPM]. Eick further teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, Col. 4, ll. 44 – 65, and Col. 5, ll. 5 – 10, monitor subsystem statuses selected from the group consisting of: valve position. Hussain further teaches, in Paras. [0047] – [0050] and [0158], said power management system was further comprised to monitor subsystem statuses selected from the group consisting of: battery charge level.
Thus, improving a particular system (rocket engine system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Himmelmann, Eick and Hussain, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the rocket engine system of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that having said power management system monitor the pump revolutions per minute (RPM), turbine RPM, fuel flow, oxidizer flow, valve position, and battery charge level would have facilitated optimizing efficiency of power output of said rocket engine by allowing said power management system to automatically operate said rocket engine system based on the monitored input data. As discussed above, Hussain teaches in Paras. [0045] - [0050] and [0086], continuously supplying the computing device and power management system with various input data which allows them to generate the optimal control outputs for the various components thereby operating the system at optimum efficiency. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, teach a rocket engine system, i.e., base system, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, as discussed above, are silent on said subsystem statuses selected from the group consisting of: combustion chamber pressure and combustion chamber temperature.
Di Salvo teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Para. [0030], Para. [0031], and Para. [0035], a similar rocket system engine where a power management system (30 – Para. [0030]) was comprised to monitor subsystem statuses of the rocket system engine said subsystem statuses selected from the list comprising: combustion chamber pressure (28 – Para. [0031]) and combustion chamber temperature (29 – Para. [0031]).
Thus, improving a particular system (rocket engine system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Di Salvo, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying these known improvement techniques in the same manner to the rocket engine system of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that having said power management system monitor the combustion chamber pressure and combustion chamber temperature would have facilitated optimizing efficiency of power output of said rocket engine by allowing said power management system to automatically operate said rocket engine system based on the monitored input data.
As discussed above, Hussain teaches in Paras. [0045] - [0050] and [0086], continuously supplying the computing device and power management system with various input data which allows them to generate the optimal control outputs for the various components thereby operating the system at optimum efficiency. Di Salvo teaches, in Para. [0035], that monitoring the combustion chamber pressure and combustion chamber temperature provided feedback data to the automated controller system, i.e., power management system, to precisely control other operational parameters of the rocket engine system. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, Hussain, and Di Salvo, teach a rocket engine system, i.e., base system, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, Hussain, and Di Salvo, as discussed above, are silent on said subsystem statuses selected from the list comprising: turbine fuel flow (interpreted as the fuel flow to a gas generator).
Kruse teaches, in Fig. 2 and Col. 3, ll. 1 – 30, a similar rocket engine system having a gas generator (50) where the generator fuel flow was monitored (34’ – main fuel throttle valve) so that fuel at a flow rate of 4.86 lb/s at 1880 psi and oxidizer (hydrogen peroxide) at a flow rate of 4.38 lb/s at 1850 psi generated a fuel rich combustion gas having a flow rate of 9.24 lb/s at 1590 psi and temperature in the range of 1710 °Rankin to drive turbine (20’).
Thus, improving a particular system (rocket engine system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Kruse, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the rocket engine system of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, Hussain, and Di Salvo, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that having said power management system monitor the generator fuel flow would have facilitated determining the parameters (flow rate, pressure, and temperature) of the combustion gases generated by the gas generator when the parameters (flow rate, pressure, and temperature) of the generator oxidizer flow was also known. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelmann (9,166,510) in view of Kwak et al. (11,060,482) in view of Ovens et al. (2014/0065954) in view of Eick et al. (4,926,629) in view of Wilton et al. (6,897,629) in view of Hussain et al. (2013/0096749) as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Cerchie et al. (7,624,943).
Re Claim 14, Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton and Hussain, as discussed above teaches the invention as claimed; except, wherein said flight computer comprises a remote computing device.
As discussed in the Claim 13 rejection above, Ovens teaches, in Para. [0015], “The flight control computer 22 may include or be associated with, any suitable number of individual microprocessors, power supplies, storage devices, interface cards, auto flight systems, flight management computers, and other standard components. The flight control computer 22 may include or cooperate with any number of software programs (e.g., flight management programs) or instructions designed to carry out the various methods, process tasks, calculations, and control/display functions necessary for operation of the aircraft 10.” Ovens further teaches, in Para. [0011], “A data network 26 over which the plurality of aircraft systems 20 may communicate with each other and provide information to a crew of the aircraft 10 may be included.” Ovens further teaches, in Para. [0016], “The first near-field communication interface 40 may be communicably coupled to the computer 22 or other processors of the aircraft 10 as well as any number of the plurality of aircraft systems 20 to transfer information on and off the aircraft 10. The first near-field communication interface 40 may include a near-field communication mechanism capable of wirelessly linking with other near-field enabled systems and devices.” Ovens further teaches, in Fig. 3 and Paras. [0017] and [0018], a handheld device (70) that can be a smartphone, tablet PC (personal computer), or other suitable device that contained a controller (82 – Para. [0020]) which was remote from the vehicle (20). Ovens further teaches, in Fig. 4 and Para. [0019], various wireless communication networks. Ovens further teaches, in Fig. 4 and Paras. [0027] to [0030], a remote computing device/computer (96) that used a wireless communication network (97) to securely communicate with the handheld device and the aircraft control systems. Ovens further teaches, in Paras. [0027] - [0028], that the remote computing device/computer (96) could be located at the airline central maintenance or airline control center.
Cerchie teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, Col. 11, ll. 10 – 15, and Col. 12, ll. 30 – 50, a similar flight vehicle (702) where the flight control computer (706) comprises a remote computing device (702 or 760). Cerchie teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 10 – 15, that the flight control computer (706) may be locate off-board, i.e., remote, of the flight vehicle (702). Cerchie teaches, in Fig. 7 and Col. 12, ll. 30 – 50, that a remote vehicle controller (760) used a wireless communication link (762) to send and receive data from and commands to the flight vehicle (702).
Thus, improving a particular system (rocket engine system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Ovens and Cerchie, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, i.e., applying this known improvement technique in the same manner to the rocket engine system of Himmelmann, i.v., Kwak, Ovens, Eick, Wilton, and Hussain, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that having said flight computer comprises a remote computing device would have facilitated remote control of said rocket engine system. For example, a flight control computer located in a ground station, i.e., rocket launch command center, would have been able to remotely control the rocket engine system during rocket launch and flight thereby reducing the cost and weight of the rocket since the flight control computer and its power supplies were not a part of said rocket. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered and to the extent possible have been addressed in the rejections above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741