DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection in response to application filed 3/24/25. Claim 1 is currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim is not numbered in compliance with 37 CFR 1.75(g). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the charge consists of a shell made of a solid polymeric propellant and a solid oxidizer that is arranged within a volume formed by the shell of said propellant…wherein it is further equipped with a divider of the solid polymeric propellant and the solid oxidizer”. The claim suggests the solid propellant charge consists of a shell and a solid oxidizer but then later suggests the charge requires a divider, it is unclear whether the divider is part of the charge or a separate chamber element.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cylindrical shell, the shell has one pointed end face that is arranged between the solid polymeric propellant and the solid oxidizer of the divided propellant charge and another end face that rests on the inner surface of the gasification chamber.”. The limitation “one pointed end face” is unclear as a cylindrical shell does not, by ordinary meaning, have a pointed end absent further definition. Furthermore, the “another end face that rests on the inner surface” is a functional, contact-based limitation of uncertain structural scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yemets et al. (“Autophage Engine: Toward a Throttleable Solid Motor”, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 55, No.4, pp. 948-992), in view of Fling et al. (US 4864817).
What is claimed is a gasification chamber for a solid propellant charge, the charge consists of a shell made of a solid polymeric propellant and a solid oxidizer that is arranged within a volume formed by the shell of said propellant (see fig. 1A, reproduced below), the chamber is formed as a rotation body having a cone-shaped recess along an axis (vaporizer, fig. 1A), and an inner surface of the chamber is in a contact with a divided propel- lant charge, and it is equipped with injectors for the propellant and injectors for the oxidizer which are mounted in zones of contact with the propellant and the oxidizer respectively (Fuel injector port and Oxidizer injector port), and channels which combine flows of uniform components of the propellant charge (Gaseous oxidizer channel, Gaseous fuel channel).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yemets is silent to wherein it is further equipped with a divider of the solid polymeric propellant and the solid oxidizer, the divider is arranged at an input of the gasification chamber and is made as a cylindrical shell, the shell has one pointed end face that is arranged between the solid polymeric propellant and the solid oxidizer of the divided propellant charge and another end face that rests on the inner surface of the gasification chamber.
Fling teaches a rocket motor employing a cylindrical shell (tubular member 34) that physically separates concentric combustion-chamber volumes, each containing a different solid propellant grain, wherein one end of the tubular member is positioned/supported at the interface between the two charge volumes (retained within an interior re-entrant portion 36 of the case) and the other end fits within and is supported by a structural support portion 18, abutting against a shoulder 38 of that structural support (resting against an internal structural surface of the chamber assembly).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Yemets to incorporate a physical divider of the type taught by Fling. As Fling teaches a cylindrical shell interposed between the concentric solid charges, with one end positioned at the charge interface and the other end seated against the chamber's internal structure, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, to achieve predictable results, in this case, a gasification chamber in which the divider prevents the premature mixing/leakage. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG SANG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1418. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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.
/CRAIG KIM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3741
