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 the above application filed on 03/20/2025 which is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/075945 filed on 09/20/2023 which claims foreign priority to EPO application EP22197690.5 filed on 09/26/2022. Claims 17 – 32 are examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
The MISSING drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of Claims 17 – 32 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 20 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, l. 2 “at least partially be supplied to the separator unit” is believed to be in error for --at least partially [[be]] supplied to the separator unit--.
Claim 22, l. 2 “at least partially, be supplied to the separator unit” is believed to be in error for --at least partially, [[be]] supplied to the separator unit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 27 recites “defensive unit” and “high-energy unit” which are interpreted as ‘unit for defense’ and ‘unit for high-energy’. MPEP2181(I)(A) stated that “unit for” was among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17 - 32 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 17 the phrase "may be" in l. 6, l. 9, and l. 12 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or are optional. Claim 17 recitation of the phrase "may be" in l. 6, l. 9, and l. 12 in combination with reciting four “or” in l. 8, l. 10, and l. 11 confuses the scope of the claimed invention. New Claim 17 appears to combine the Fig. 1 embodiment, the Fig. 3 embodiment, and the Fig. 4 embodiment (from the WIPO publication WO2024/0683985) of the disclosed invention into a single claim so that the scope of the claimed invention is unclear. Claims 18 – 32 depend from Claim 17 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17, ll. 10 - 11 recitation “or from water vapor that is located downstream” is unclear because a reference point/structure is missing. In other words the water vapor is located downstream of exactly what reference point or structure? Claims 18 – 32 depend from Claim 17 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17, ll. 10 - 11 recitation “or from water vapor that is located downstream, or from both, or which,” is unclear because the repeated use of “may be” and “or” makes it unclear as to what exactly what two items are referred to by “from both”. Claims 18 – 32 depend from Claim 17 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 22, l. 5 recitation “an electrolysis unit” is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. It is unclear if Claim 22, l. 5 recitation “an electrolysis unit” is the same as the “an electrolysis unit” recited in Claim 17, l. 9 or if the Claim 22, l. 5 recitation “an electrolysis unit” is in addition to the “an electrolysis unit” recited in Claim 17, l. 9, i.e., the rocket propulsion system includes a “first electrolysis unit” and a “first electrolysis unit”.
The term “high-energy” in Claims 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-energy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28 have been rendered indefinite by the relative term “high-energy”.
The term “high-pressure” in Claims 24, 26, and 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 24, 26, and 27 have been rendered indefinite by the relative term “high-pressure”.
Claim 24, l. 3 recites the limitation "the high-energy oxygen leg". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
NEW Claim 27, l. 2 limitation “high-energy unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the entire claimed function. Specification Paras. [0050], [0052], and [0058] merely repeat the claim language without any further details. Specification Para. [0050] disclosed “…a high-energy unit 332, are here connected to the high-pressure accumulators 320, 322 with the aid of further lines L(12, 13)”. Specification Para. [0052] disclosed “The high-energy unit 332 can also take the form of any other device that also requires high-pressure hydrogen H2 and oxygen O2 for its operation.” Specification Para. [0058] disclosed “…the high-energy unit 332 (for subsidiary or auxiliary drives).” As would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the function of “unit for high-energy” can be performed in any number of ways with different hardware as evidenced by Specification Para. [0052] disclosure that “The high-energy unit 332 can also take the form of any other device that…”. The written description does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or combination of structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
NEW Claim 27 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. NEW Claim 27, l. 2 recites “a high-energy unit” which is interpreted as ‘unit for high-energy’. As discussed in the 112(b) rejection above, Specification Paras. [0050], [0052], and [0058] merely repeat the claim language without any further details. Specification Para. [0050] disclosed “…a high-energy unit 332, are here connected to the high-pressure accumulators 320, 322 with the aid of further lines L(12, 13)”. Specification Para. [0052] disclosed “The high-energy unit 332 can also take the form of any other device that also requires high-pressure hydrogen H2 and oxygen O2 for its operation.” Specification Para. [0058] disclosed “…the high-energy unit 332 (for subsidiary or auxiliary drives).” MPEP 2163.03(V) stated that “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002)”. Claim 27 defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Consequently, disclosure does not provide an adequate description of the structure to perform the claimed function of ‘unit for high-energy’. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 – 19 and 30 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swet (3,286,954).
Regarding Claim 17, Swet discloses, in Figs. 1 - 7, all the claimed limitations including a rocket propulsion system comprising: a first tank (10) and a second tank (12), wherein the first tank (10) is filled with a fuel (Col. 2, ll. 50 - 55), and the second tank (12) is filled with an oxidizer (Col. 2, ll. 50 - 55) for purposes supplying at least one engine of the rocket propulsion system (16, 17, and 18 - Col. 2, ll. 45 - 50), wherein the rocket propulsion system is assigned a gas generator (14 and 20) to generate vaporous hydrogen peroxide (when decomposition was less than 100%), which, after flowing through at least one turbine (56 – Fig. 7) may be, at least partially, supplied to a separator unit (35 – Fig. 7) for separating vaporous hydrogen peroxide into water vapor (37) and gaseous oxygen (Col. 4, ll. 30 – 35), or, which, after flowing through at least one turbine may be, at least partially, supplied to an electrolysis unit to generate gaseous oxygen and gaseous hydrogen from the vaporous hydrogen peroxide, or from water vapor that is located downstream, or from both, or which, after flowing through at least one turbine may be, at least partially, supplied to the separator unit and the electrolysis unit.
Re Claim 18, Swet discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the gas generator (14) supplies at least one position control thruster (16 and/or 18) with vaporous hydrogen peroxide (when burned with an excess of oxidizer - Col. 2, ll. 30 – 35).
Re Claim 19, Swet discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein an electrical generator (57 - Col. 5, ll. 10 – 15), or at least one fuel pump, or an oxidizer pump, or any combination thereof, is driven with the at least one turbine (56).
Re Claim 30, Swet discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including a method for operating the rocket propulsion system according to claim 17, comprising: suppling the fuel (from 10) to the engine (16, 17, and 18 - Col. 2, ll. 45 - 50) via a first main supply line (arrow line from 10 to 14 and 20), and tapping, at least partially, a liquid hydrogen peroxide (from 12) from a second main supply line (arrow line from 12 to 14 and 20) of the engine and supplied to the gas generator (14 and 20).
Re Claim 31, Swet discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the vaporous hydrogen peroxide (when decomposition was less than 100%) exiting from the gas generator (20) is, at least partially, supplied to the turbine (56 – Fig. 7).
Re Claim 32, Swet discloses the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including a space vehicle (Col. 2, ll. 40 – 45 and Col. 6, ll. 30 – 75) comprising: at least one rocket propulsion system according to Claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17 – 19, 22, 23, 28, and 30 - 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swet (3,286,954) in view of Robert S. Disselkamp, “Energy Storage using Aqueous Hydrogen Peroxide”, Energy & Fuels, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2008, pp. 2771 – 2774, hereinafter “Disselkamp” in view of Weldon et al. (11,181,076).
Regarding Claim 17, Swet teaches, in Figs. 1 - 7, the invention as claimed, including a rocket propulsion system comprising: a first tank (10) and a second tank (12), wherein the first tank (10) is filled with a fuel (Col. 2, ll. 50 - 55), and the second tank (12) is filled with an oxidizer (Col. 2, ll. 50 - 55) for purposes supplying at least one engine of the rocket propulsion system (16, 17, and 18 - Col. 2, ll. 45 - 50), wherein the rocket propulsion system is assigned a gas generator (14 and 20) to generate vaporous hydrogen peroxide (when decomposition was less than 100%), which, after flowing through at least one turbine (56 – Fig. 7) may be, at least partially, supplied to a separator unit (35 – Fig. 7) for separating vaporous hydrogen peroxide into water vapor (37) and gaseous oxygen (Col. 4, ll. 30 – 35).
Swet is silent on or, which, after flowing through at least one turbine may be, at least partially, supplied to an electrolysis unit to generate gaseous oxygen and gaseous hydrogen from the vaporous hydrogen peroxide, or from water vapor that is located downstream, or from both, or which, after flowing through at least one turbine may be, at least partially, supplied to the separator unit and the electrolysis unit.
Disselkmap teaches, in Fig. 1 on Pg. 2771, Table 1 on Pg. 2773, and Fig. 2 on Pg. 2773, an electrolysis unit to generate gaseous oxygen (at the anode) and gaseous hydrogen (at the cathode) from hydrogen peroxide (H2O2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] H2 + O2). Weldon teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 2, ll. 20 – 25, and Col. 7, ll. 10 – 20, an electrolysis unit (30) to generate gaseous oxygen (in line 38) and gaseous hydrogen (in line 39) from water vapor (2 H2O [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2 H2 + O2). Weldon further teaches, in Fig. 1, Col. 4, ll. 25 – 45, and Col. 9, ll. 15 – 25, utilizing the generated gaseous oxygen (in line 38) to pressurize an oxidizer tank (50) and utilizing the generated gaseous hydrogen (in line 39) to pressurize a fuel tank (51) thereby stiffening and strengthening the tank structures during atmospheric flight of the rocket propulsion system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Swet, with the electrolysis unit to generate gaseous oxygen and gaseous hydrogen from hydrogen peroxide (H2O2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] H2 + O2), taught by Disselkmap, and/or with the electrolysis unit to generate gaseous oxygen and gaseous hydrogen from water vapor (2 H2O [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2 H2 + O2), taught by Weldon, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a rocket propulsion system comprising: a first tank and a second tank, wherein the first tank is filled with a fuel, and the second tank is filled with an oxidizer for purposes supplying at least one engine of the rocket propulsion system, wherein the rocket propulsion system is assigned a gas generator to generate vaporous hydrogen peroxide, which, after flowing through at least one turbine may be, at least partially, supplied to a separator unit, the electrolysis unit to generate gaseous oxygen and gaseous hydrogen from hydrogen peroxide and/or the electrolysis unit to generate gaseous oxygen and gaseous hydrogen from water vapor, 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., incorporating one or more electrolysis units downstream of the at least one turbine to generate gaseous oxygen and gaseous hydrogen from the vaporous hydrogen peroxide and/or water vapor would have facilitated stiffening and strengthening the structures of the first (fuel) tank and the second (oxidizer) tank during atmospheric flight of the rocket propulsion system by utilizing the generated gaseous oxygen to pressurize the second (oxidizer) tank and utilizing the generated gaseous hydrogen to pressurize the first (fuel) tank. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(I)(A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, the electrolysis unit could have been arranged in series and/or in parallel with the separator unit downstream of the at least one turbine so that the vaporous hydrogen peroxide, after flowing through at least one turbine, would have been supplied to both the separator unit and the electrolysis unit and/or supplied to the separator unit which supplied water to the electrolysis unit.
Re Claim 18, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Swet further teaches wherein the gas generator (14) supplies at least one position control thruster (16 and/or 18) with vaporous hydrogen peroxide (when burned with an excess of oxidizer - Col. 2, ll. 30 – 35).
Re Claim 19, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Swet further teaches wherein an electrical generator (57 - Col. 5, ll. 10 – 15), or at least one fuel pump, or an oxidizer pump, or any combination thereof, is driven with the at least one turbine (56).
Re Claim 22, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the vaporous hydrogen peroxide is, at least partially, be supplied to a separator unit (35) after flowing through the at least one turbine (56), and an electrolysis unit is connected to the separator unit (as discussed in Claim 17 above, the separator unit and the electrolysis unit could have been arranged in series with the separator unit upstream of and supplying water to the electrolysis unit) with a water vapor leg (35[Wingdings font/0xE0]36[Wingdings font/0xE0]37), and wherein the electrolysis unit (30 - Weldon) has a high-energy hydrogen leg (39) and an oxygen leg (38). Swet further teaches, in Fig. 7, a water vapor leg (35[Wingdings font/0xE0]36[Wingdings font/0xE0]37) of the separator unit (35) and an oxidizer leg (O2/N2, 35[Wingdings font/0xE0]B) of the separator unit (35).
Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, as discussed above, is silent on the second tank is pressurized with an oxidizer leg of the separator unit.
As discussed in the Claim 17 rejection above, Weldon taught, in Fig. 1, utilizing the gaseous oxygen (in line 38) to pressurize a second/oxidizer tank (50).
Thus, improving a particular device (rocket propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Weldon, 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 propulsion system of Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that pressurizing the second tank (oxidizer tank) with oxygen from a second outlet leg (oxidizer leg) of the separator unit would have facilitated stiffening and strengthening the structure of the second (oxidizer) tank during atmospheric flight of the rocket propulsion system, Weldon - Col. 4, ll. 25 – 45. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Re Claim 23, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Swet further teaches, in Fig. 7, wherein an oxygen storage unit (B) is assigned to the oxidizer leg (O2/N2, 35[Wingdings font/0xE0]B) of the separator unit (35), and a water storage unit (37) is assigned to the water vapor leg (35[Wingdings font/0xE0]36[Wingdings font/0xE0]37) of the separator unit (35).
Re Claim 28, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the vaporous hydrogen peroxide is, at least partially, supplied to the electrolysis unit after flowing through the at least one turbine and wherein the electrolysis unit has a high-energy hydrogen and oxygen leg. As discussed in Claim 17 rejection above, in the combination of Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, downstream of the at least one turbine the electrolysis unit could have been arranged in series and/or in parallel with the separator unit so that the vaporous hydrogen peroxide, after flowing through at least one turbine, would have been supplied to both the separator unit and the electrolysis unit and/or supplied to the separator unit which supplied water to the electrolysis unit. As discussed in Claim 17 rejection above, Weldon taught, in Fig. 1, Col. 4, ll. 25 – 45, and Col. 9, ll. 15 – 25, that the electrolysis unit (30) had a high-energy hydrogen leg (39) and an oxygen leg (38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, would have taught wherein the rocket propulsion system has a working gas leg (pipeline from 56 to 34) for a working gas mixture (mixture of vaporous hydrogen peroxide, water vapor, O2, and N2) exiting from the turbine (56 – Swet – Fig. 7), wherein the working gas leg (pipeline from 56 to 34) comprises a conversion leg (working gas leg splits into two parallel legs with a first parallel leg, i.e., the “conversion leg” supplying a portion of the working gas mixture to the electrolysis unit and a second parallel leg, i.e., the “oxidizer leg” supplying the remaining portion of the working gas mixture to the separator (35) which separated the working gas mixture into a water portion and an oxidizer portion (O2/N2, 35[Wingdings font/0xE0]B).) for purposes of supplying the working gas mixture to the electrolysis unit, and an oxidizer leg (second parallel leg).
Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, as discussed above, is silent on said oxidizer leg being for pressurizing the second tank.
As discussed in the Claim 17 rejection above, Weldon taught, in Fig. 1, utilizing the gaseous oxygen (in line 38) to pressurize a second/oxidizer tank (50).
Thus, improving a particular device (rocket propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Weldon, 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 propulsion system of Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that pressurizing the second tank (oxidizer tank) with oxygen from the oxidizer leg would have facilitated stiffening and strengthening the structure of the second (oxidizer) tank during atmospheric flight of the rocket propulsion system, Weldon - Col. 4, ll. 25 – 45. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Re Claim 30, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Swet further teaches including a method for operating the rocket propulsion system according to claim 17, comprising: suppling the fuel (from 10) to the engine (16, 17, and 18 - Col. 2, ll. 45 - 50) via a first main supply line (arrow line from 10 to 14 and 20), and tapping, at least partially, a liquid hydrogen peroxide (from 12) from a second main supply line (arrow line from 12 to 14 and 20) of the engine and supplied to the gas generator (14 and 20).
Re Claim 31, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Swet further teaches wherein the vaporous hydrogen peroxide (when decomposition was less than 100%) exiting from the gas generator (20) is, at least partially, supplied to the turbine (56 – Fig. 7).
Re Claim 32, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Swet further teaches including a space vehicle (Col. 2, ll. 40 – 45 and Col. 6, ll. 30 – 75) comprising: at least one rocket propulsion system according to Claim 17.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swet (3,286,954) in view of Robert S. Disselkamp, “Energy Storage using Aqueous Hydrogen Peroxide”, Energy & Fuels, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2008, pp. 2771 – 2774, hereinafter “Disselkamp” in view of Weldon et al. (11,181,076) as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Samms (3,310,938).
Re Claim 20, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the vaporous hydrogen peroxide is at least partially be supplied to the separator unit (35) after flowing through the at least one turbine (56). Swet further teaches, in Fig. 7, a water vapor leg (35[Wingdings font/0xE0]36[Wingdings font/0xE0]37) of the separator unit (35) and an oxidizer leg (O2/N2, 35[Wingdings font/0xE0]B) of the separator unit (35).
Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, as discussed above, is silent on wherein the first tank is pressurized with a water vapor leg of the separator unit, and the second tank is pressurized with an oxidizer leg of the separator unit.
As discussed in the Claim 17 rejection above, Weldon taught, in Fig. 1, utilizing the gaseous oxygen (in line 38) to pressurize a second/oxidizer tank (50). Samms teaches, in Figs. 1 and 2, and Col. 1, ll. 20 – 25, generating steam from hydrogen peroxide and using said steam, i.e., water vapor, to pressurize a first tank (3 – fuel tank).
Thus, improving a particular device (rocket propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Weldon and Samms, 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 propulsion system of Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that pressurizing the first tank (fuel tank) with steam, i.e., water vapor, from a first outlet leg of the separator unit and pressurizing the second tank (oxidizer tank) with oxygen from a second outlet leg of the separator unit would have facilitated stiffening and strengthening the structures of the first (fuel) tank and the second (oxidizer) tank during atmospheric flight of the rocket propulsion system, Weldon - Col. 4, ll. 25 – 45. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swet (3,286,954) in view of Robert S. Disselkamp, “Energy Storage using Aqueous Hydrogen Peroxide”, Energy & Fuels, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2008, pp. 2771 – 2774, hereinafter “Disselkamp” in view of Weldon et al. (11,181,076) in view of Samms (3,310,938) as applied to Claim 20 above, and further in view of Baldwin et al. (10,589,879).
Re Claim 21, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap, Weldon, and Samms, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising: at least one vessel with an inert gas for at least supplementary pressurization of the first tank, the second tank, or both.
Baldwin teaches, in Col. 5, ll. 1 – 5 and Figs. 2, 3, and 6, a similar rocket propulsion system having at least one vessel (111) with an inert gas (Helium a chemically inert gas) for at least supplementary pressurization of a first tank (113), the second tank (114), or both (113 and 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Swet, i.v., Disselkmap, Weldon, and Samms, with the at least one vessel with an inert gas for at least supplementary pressurization of the first tank, the second tank, or both, taught by Baldwin, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a rocket propulsion system comprising: a first tank and a second tank, wherein the first tank is filled with a fuel, and the second tank is filled with an oxidizer for purposes supplying at least one engine of the rocket propulsion system, wherein the rocket propulsion system is assigned a gas generator to generate vaporous hydrogen peroxide, which, after flowing through at least one turbine may be, at least partially, supplied to a separator unit, and at least one vessel with an inert gas for at least supplementary pressurization of the first tank, the second tank, or both, 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., incorporating at least one vessel containing an inert gas (in this case Helium) in the rocket propulsion system would have facilitated providing at least supplementary pressurization of the first (fuel) tank and the second (oxidizer) tank before and/or during atmospheric flight of the rocket propulsion system which would have facilitated stiffening and strengthening the structures of the first (fuel) tank and the second (oxidizer) tank. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swet (3,286,954) in view of Robert S. Disselkamp, “Energy Storage using Aqueous Hydrogen Peroxide”, Energy & Fuels, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2008, pp. 2771 – 2774, hereinafter “Disselkamp” in view of Weldon et al. (11,181,076) as applied to Claim 23 above, and further in view of Clark (6,326,703).
Re Claim 24, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein a first high-pressure accumulator is assigned to the high-energy hydrogen leg, and a second high-pressure accumulator is assigned to the high-energy oxygen leg.
Clark teaches, in Fig. 1 and Col. 2, ll. 20 – 30, a similar electrolysis unit (34) having a first high-pressure (any pressure) accumulator (37) that stores hydrogen gas produced by the electrolysis unit (34) and having a second high-pressure (any pressure) accumulator (38) that stores oxygen gas produced by the electrolysis unit (34)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, with the first high-pressure accumulator stores hydrogen and the second high-pressure accumulator stores oxygen, taught by Clark, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a rocket propulsion system comprising: a first tank and a second tank, wherein the first tank is filled with a fuel, and the second tank is filled with an oxidizer for purposes supplying at least one engine of the rocket propulsion system, wherein the rocket propulsion system is assigned a gas generator to generate vaporous hydrogen peroxide, which, after flowing through at least one turbine may be, at least partially, supplied to a separator unit, and an electrolysis unit having a first high-pressure accumulator that stores hydrogen gas produced by the electrolysis unit and having a second high-pressure accumulator that stores oxygen gas produced by the electrolysis unit, 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., incorporating a first high-pressure accumulator in the high-energy hydrogen leg would have facilitated storing hydrogen gas produced by the electrolysis unit and incorporating a second high-pressure accumulator in the high-energy oxygen leg would have facilitated storing oxygen gas produced by the electrolysis unit so that the stored hydrogen and oxygen gases would have been available for immediate use when needed. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Re Claim 25, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the first tank is pressurized with the high-energy hydrogen leg. As discussed in Claim 17 rejection above, Weldon taught, in Fig. 1, Col. 4, ll. 25 – 45, and Col. 9, ll. 15 – 25, utilizing the generated gaseous hydrogen (in line 39) to pressurize a first tank (51 – fuel tank) thereby stiffening and strengthening the tank structure during atmospheric flight of the rocket propulsion system.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swet (3,286,954) in view of Robert S. Disselkamp, “Energy Storage using Aqueous Hydrogen Peroxide”, Energy & Fuels, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2008, pp. 2771 – 2774, hereinafter “Disselkamp” in view of Weldon et al. (11,181,076) as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Schneider (6,272,846).
Re Claim 29, Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the rocket propulsion system is configured to be operated in an engine cycle with a fuel leg switched off: in a monopropellant mode, or with a main propulsion system switched off, for operating a position control system, for pressurizing the first tank, the second tank, or both, for providing a working gas for at least one external system, or any combination thereof.
Schneider teaches, in Figs. 13 and 14 and Col. 2, ll. 10 - 20, Col. 3, ll. 1 - 5, Col. 4, ll. 15 - 20, and Col. 10, l. 65 to Col. 11, l. 5, a hydrogen peroxide monopropellant altitude control system (ACS) thrusters for stationkeeping, i.e., position control system.
Thus, improving a particular device (rocket propulsion system), based upon the teachings of such improvement in Schneider, 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 propulsion system of Swet, i.v., Disselkmap and Weldon, and the results would have been predictable and readily recognized, that operating the rocket propulsion system in an engine cycle with a fuel leg switched off, i.e., using the hydrogen peroxide as a monopropellant, would have been in a monopropellant mode for stationkeeping where the main propulsion system was switched off because only one or more altitude control system (ACS) thrusters of a position control system would have been used to maintain a spacecraft in its designated orbital slot. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
