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 . Claims 20-29, 32-34, and 62-63 of the amended claim set received 9/11/2026 are pending. Claims 1-19, 30-31, and 35-61 have been canceled.
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 62 and 63 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.
The term “optimal” in line 8 and in line 11 of claim 62 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” 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. Additionally, one does not know what is required of “performance”. This could refer to fuel consumption, pure thrust, thrust vector control, or something else.
Claim 63 essentially requires the same ‘optimal performance’ for the first and second contours at specified altitudes. There is no guidance in the disclosure as to specific structure of the contours to attain this optimal performance at the specified altitudes. As discussed above with respect to claim 62, it is unclear what optimal performance means or requires so one of ordinary skill is not able to reproduce 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.
Claims 20, 21, 25, 32-34, and 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US 2023/021190) in view of Buehler (US 2007/0012820).
Regarding Claim 20, French discloses a heat shield (Figs. 4A-4C) for protecting a windward side of an upper stage rocket 100 (read e.g. para. 0040) from an atmospheric reentry flow (read para. 0052), the heat shield comprising:
a wall 140 defining at least a first portion of an outer heat shield surface on the windward side of the upper stage rocket 100 during exposure to the atmospheric reentry flow;
wherein the wall includes an opening 146 that defines an exit of a nozzle (see figures); and
wherein the wall further includes a bleed opening through which turbine exhaust fluid exits the heat shield (there is a ‘bleed’ opening, one of the orifices mentioned in para. 0052, not shown in figures positioned on the wall 140 radially inside the array of openings 146 for providing turbine exhaust directly into the space 164 within the array as described in para. 0052). French does not disclose the nozzle is a dual-expansion nozzle as claimed.
Buehler discloses in Fig. 3 a similar vehicle to that of French. Buehler teaches a dual expansion nozzle for the vehicle in Fig. 4b.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified French such that the nozzles are dual expansion nozzles as taught by Buehler in order to produce predictable thrust vectors, compensating for flow separation at low altitudes (Buehler paras. 0077 and 0080).
Regarding Claim 21, French in view of Buehler discloses the claimed invention as discussed above and French further discloses wherein the wall is a thruster mount wall (thruster nozzles 146 of thrusters 450 mount to the wall 140 as shown in, e.g., Figs. 4A-4C); and wherein the heat shield further includes a centerbody wall (a portion of 142 which does not include the bleed opening) defining a second portion of the outer heat shield surface.
Regarding Claim 25, French in view of Buehler discloses the claimed invention as discussed above and French further discloses in Figs. 4A-4C, wherein the opening 146 is a first opening among a plurality of thruster openings 146 in the wall 140. Within the combination discussed above with respect to claim 20, all of the nozzles are replaced with the dual-expansion nozzles taught by Buehler such that the dual-expansion nozzle is a first dual-expansion nozzle among a plurality of dual-expansion nozzles; and each thruster opening in the wall defines an exit of one of the dual- expansion nozzles.
Regarding Claim 32, French in view of Buehler discloses the claimed invention as discussed above and French further discloses in Figs. 4A-4C, wherein the bleed opening (not shown in figures, there is a ‘bleed’ opening positioned on the wall 140 radially inside the array of openings 146 for providing turbine exhaust into the space 164 within the array as described in para. 0052) is configured such that the exhaust fluid exiting therethrough influences an exhaust plume exiting the opening that defines the exit of the nozzle (given that the exhaust is ejected into an area within the exhaust annular stream from the nozzle opening 146 as also read in para. 0055, the ejected turbine exhaust flow is adjacent to any one of the exhaust plumes of any one of the nozzle openings and will have an influence on said exhaust plume). Within the combination the nozzle/nozzles are dual-expansion nozzles as discussed in the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding Claim 33, French in view of Buehler discloses the claimed invention as discussed above and French further discloses in Figs. 4A-4C, wherein the exit of the nozzle 146 is at least substantially flush with the outer heat shield surface (at 140). Within the combination the nozzle/nozzles are dual-expansion nozzles as discussed in the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding Claim 34, French in view of Buehler discloses the claimed invention as discussed above and French further discloses in Figs. 4A-4C, wherein the heat shield is actively-cooled during exposure to the atmospheric reentry flow (read para. 0054).
Regarding Claim 62, French in view of Buehler discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Buehler teaches the dual-expansion nozzle (Fig. 4B) of the combination wherein the dual-expansion nozzle includes: a throat (the narrowest region); a first expansion section extending downstream of the throat (upstream of the inflection point 450); a second expansion section extending downstream of the first expansion section; wherein an inflection point 450 is defined where the first expansion section meets the second expansion section; wherein the first expansion section has a first contour designed for optimal performance throughout a first altitude range (low altitudes, read para. 0080); wherein the second expansion section has a second contour designed for optimal performance throughout a second altitude range (higher altitudes, para. 0080); wherein the first altitude range and the second altitude range are separated by a third altitude range (being altitudes between the first and second ranges; there is necessarily an altitudes of transition between the flow detaching at the inflection point to the flow remaining attached downstream of the inflection point; it is also noted that the ‘optimal performance’ at an altitude range is functional and the dual-bell nozzle shown in Fig. 4b is capable of providing said function given the actual structure of nozzle mirrors that shown and described in the instant application).
Regarding Claim 63, French in view of Buehler discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Buehler teaches the dual-expansion nozzle (Fig. 4B) of the combination wherein the dual-expansion nozzle is configured such that: the first altitude range extends between sea level and a first threshold altitude, and the first threshold altitude is in a range from 0.1 km to 4 km from sea level; and the second altitude range extends between a second threshold altitude and a maximum mission altitude, and the second threshold altitude is in a range from 60 km to 100 km from sea level (it is noted that the ‘optimal performance’ at an altitude range is functional and the dual-bell nozzle shown in Fig. 4b is capable of providing said function given the actual structure of nozzle mirrors that shown and described in the instant application).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the rejection of claim 20 over French and Buehler essentially saying that one of ordinary skill would not modify French to include the dual-expansion nozzle of Buehler because the dual-expansion nozzle of French has the purpose of compensating for propulsion at different altitudes and altitude compensation is “already achieved by the aerospike engine disclosed in French” and “A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had no reason or motivation to replace or modify French’s aerospike with Buehler’s dual bell nozzle”. First, it is noted that the aerospike of French, which includes a plurality of standard bell nozzles, is not being replaced. The nozzles within the engine are replaced with the dual-expansion nozzles taught by Buehler. Although, the engine design of French already addresses altitude compensation, Buehler teaches a dual-expansion/dual-bell nozzle design which, if employed in the aerospike engine of French, may still further enhance the operation of the aerospike engine by production of predictable thrust vectors and compensating for flow separation (within the nozzles themselves) at low altitudes, an advantage over the standard bell nozzles of French. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, although a given level of performance is achieved, there are always potential improvements. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 and 26-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 22, French in view of Buehler discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. French does not disclose “wherein the thruster mount wall extends annularly about the centerbody wall.” The thruster mount wall includes the exit of the nozzle and the turbine exhaust fluid bleed opening. French does not disclose specifically where on the thruster mount wall the turbine exhaust fluid bleed opening is positioned such that it is unclear if the thruster mount wall extends annularly about, i.e. around, a centerbody wall. No reference is found to reasonably modify French to include this feature.
Claims 23-24 are indicated allowable at least by basis on claim 22.
Regarding Claim 26, French in view of Buehler discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. French does not disclose “wherein the wall is a thruster mount wall; wherein the heat shield further includes a centerbody wall defining a second portion of the outer heat shield surface; wherein the thruster mount wall extends annularly about the centerbody wall; and wherein the thruster openings are circumferentially spaced around the thruster mount wall.” The reasoning applied above with respect to claim 22 is applicable here.
Claims 27-29 are indicated allowable at least by basis on claim 26.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
