DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “Air turborocket engine” in claim 1 should be “An air turborocket engine”; and the limitation in claims 2-16 should be “The air turborocket engine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to be the limitation “the second inlet openings a circular holes” should be “the second inlet openings are circular holes”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “in particular comprising hydrogen” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether hydrogen is positively required or not.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “in particular at least 20 degrees, in particular at least 30 degrees, in particular at least 40 degrees” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the limitations are required or not.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “in particular 1/8, in particular 1/5, in particular 1/4 “ renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the limitations are positively recited or not. Additionally, the limitation “in particular wherein the first section…” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the limitation is being recited.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “in particular smaller that 5/6, in particular smaller than 4/5” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear if the limitation is being positively recited or not. Additionally “the axial axis” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally the limitation “the openings” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear if this is referring to the second plurality of openings only or the first inlet opening as well.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “in particular 10 mm, in particular 7 mm, in particular 5 mm, in particular 4 mm” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the limitations are positively recited or not.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the inner wall” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, “the central part” and “the mixture of the air and the fluid” also lacks antecedent basis.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu CN 108757182.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an air turborocket engine comprising: a fuel tank, fuel pump 80 provides a fuel to the engine and thus must be connected to a fuel tank, in particular comprising hydrogen, the fuel can be hydrogen, methane, LNG, kerosene all of which comprise hydrogen, a main combustion chamber 40, a turbine 60, a compressor 30, a first inlet opening 10 for feeding air into the main combustion chamber characterized in that the air turborocket engine comprises a plurality of second inlet openings 110 for feeding fluid flowing from the turbine into the main combustion chamber.
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the air turborocket engine comprises a duct 140 guiding the fluid flowing from the turbine into the main combustion chamber.
PNG
media_image2.png
478
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the duct comprises a lateral surface inclined by an angle of at least 15 degrees with respect to the axial axis of the air turborocket engine.
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the plurality of second inlet openings is arranged on the inclined lateral surface. The openings are at the aft lateral surface attached thereto.
PNG
media_image3.png
337
501
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the duct comprises a first section adjoining the turbine, no openings are arranged on the first section and the first section has a minimal axial length of 1/10 of the total axial length of the duct, in particular wherein the first section is parallel to the axial axis of the air turborocket engine. Referring to the annotated figure above, the first section is labeled and is without openings, it is adjacent to the turbine and thus adjoining it, and parallel to the axial axis of the engine, and the length of the duct maybe sized at 1/10 of the total length.
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the openings 110 are only arranged on the duct at the duct aft end, where the duct has a diameter smaller than 6/7 of the diameter of the main combustion chamber at the same point along the axial axis. The duct portion at 140 is smaller than 6/7 of the main combustion chamber diameter where the main combustor duct 150 is.
PNG
media_image4.png
288
361
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the duct has the form of a cone, wherein the cone comprises a base and a lateral surface. See annotated figure immediately above.
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the cone is a rounded cone or a pointed cone. See annotated figure immediately above.
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses the second inlet openings are arranged on the lateral surface of the cone at a position downstream of the conical part where 110 is.
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses the cone has a circular base adjoining the turbine. The cone is a centerbody where the base is annular adjoining the turbine and thus circular.
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses the fluid flows from the turbine into the main combustion chamber only though the second inlet openings 110. The turbine 60 exhausts the pre-combusted gas to the duct 140 and then to the main combustion chamber only through openings 110.
Regarding claim 15, for the purposes of claim 13, Liu the first inlet opening is interpreted as that at the compressor 30 and the opening is annular.
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses the air turbine rocket engine is on an aircraft. See title hypersonic speed plane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Ansart US 5,351,475.
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses all elements except the second inlet openings comprise openings with at least two different diameters.
Ansart teaches a fuel injector having a plurality of fuel injection holes that have different diameters to achieve a flatter flame front. See col. 1, lines 55-61. The holes have different diameters to better homogenize the fuel air mixture. See col. 3, lines 15-25.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide the plurality of openings 110 of Liu with different diameters as taught by Ansart, in order to achieve a flatter flame front and better homogenized fuel air mixture. Supra.
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses all elements except that the second inlet openings have a diameter of maximally 15 mm wherein the second inlet openings are circular holes. Ansart teaches the injector having circular holes with different diameters to adjust the flame front and fuel/air mixture. “[W]here 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). In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of “routine optimization”, the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. See In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Ansart teaches the diameters may be different to adjust distribute the incoming air flow. Thus the claimed 15 mm diameter holes of the second inlet openings are interpreted as obvious optimizations over the prior art.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Althaus US 5,513,982.
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses all elements except deflecting elements are arranged at the inner wall of the main combustion chamber in order to deflect the mixture of the air and the fluid from the turbine to the central part of the main combustion chamber.
Althaus teaches a plurality of vortex generators 9 formed on the inner wall as shown in fig. 7 that drive gases toward the center of a combustor that allow for optimized combustion processes and minimal emissions due to mixing. See col. 8, lines 32-45.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide the vortex generators of Althaus in the main combustion chamber of Liu in order to provide optimized combustion and minimal emissions. Id.
Examiner’s Comments and Pertinent Art
The disclosed invention appears to include distinguishing subject matter from the prior art in that the main combustion chamber 19 is formed radially outward from the second plurality of openings about the duct. An interview would likely expedite prosecution. Additionally, attached herein are prior art that discusses various aspects of the disclosed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
