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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 56, 59, and 62-63 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/15/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: recitation “wherein the second conduit and the pump are configured to provide the second propellant to the heat shield heat exchanger at a second mass flow rate” is believed to be in error for - - wherein the second conduit and the pump are configured to provide the second propellant to the heat shield heat exchanger at a second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 - -
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.
Claims 50-51 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 50 and its dependent, term “between” in recitation “a helium conduit between the flow controller and an ullage space of the fuel tank” renders the claim indefinite, because:
i) according to Figs. 13-15, a helium conduit 84 is fluidly between a helium flow controller 86 and an ullage space of the fuel tank 24 in order to selectively pass a portion of the helium flow from the helium vessel 80 to the fuel tank via the helium conduit, and a flow controller 75 is fluidly between the second conduit 56 and the fuel tank 24 in order to selectively pass a portion of the heated fluid flow from the second conduit 56 to the fuel tank via a first heated fluid conduit 68,
ii) claim 49, which claim 50 depends, defines the flow controller configured to selectively pass at least a first portion of the heated fluid flow from the second conduit to the first heated fluid conduit for transport to the fuel tank, i.e., the claimed flow controller in claim 49 is the disclosed flow controller 75,
iii) therefore,
a) it is unclear whether term “the flow controller” in the recitation “a helium conduit between the flow controller and an ullage space of the fuel tank” refers to the disclosed helium flow controller (86 in Figs. 13-15) or the previously claimed flow controller in claim 49 (75 in Figs. 13-15);
b) if the flow controller in claim 50 refers to the previously claimed flow controller in claim 49, said flow controller (75 in Figs. 13-15) is NOT in fluid communication with the helium conduit (84 in Figs. 13-15), and the Figs. 13-15 are schematical drawings that does NOT represent the actual/physical locations of the flow controller 75, helium flow controller 86, and the fuel tank 24, and thus, even in the light of the specification, it is unclear what term “between” means;
c) if the flow controller in claim 50 refers to the disclosed helium flow controller (86 in Figs. 13-15), it is unclear whether claim 50 requires one helium flow controller or two helium flow controllers.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32-40, 48, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KOKORICH 20240229746.
Regarding claim 32, KOKORICH teaches the invention as claimed: A vehicle (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a pressure-fed propulsion engine (to the chemical rocket engine 1a, see Fig. 1);
a first conduit (the conduit provides a first portion of liquid hydrogen from tank 4 to the chemical rocket engine 1a and combusted with oxygen, see annotated Fig. 1 and [0057]) configured to provide a first propellant (the first portion of liquid hydrogen from tank 4 to 1a) to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (1a);
a heat shield wall (the wall 6) defining an outer surface (the nose) of the vehicle (see Fig. 1);
a heat shield heat exchanger (8) disposed relative to the heat shield wall (6, see Fig. 1 and [0059]);
a second conduit (annotated Fig. 1) configured to provide a second propellant (a second portion of liquid hydrogen from tank 4 to heat exchanger 8) to the heat shield heat exchanger (8, see [0061]);
a pump (per [0061] a pump is used to pump the second portion of liquid hydrogen out of tank 4) located along the second conduit (annotated Fig. 1);
wherein the first conduit (annotated Fig. 1) is configured to provide the first propellant (the first portion of liquid hydrogen to 1a) to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (1a) at a first mass flow rate
m
˙
1 (a first mass flow rate of the first portion of liquid hydrogen that is able to propel the vehicle via the chemical engine 1a, represented by “b” in Fig. 2 and see [0072]);
wherein the second conduit (annotated Fig. 1) and the pump (the pump per [0061]) are configured to provide the second propellant (the second portion of liquid hydrogen from tank 4 to heat exchanger 8) to the heat shield heat exchanger (8) at a second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 (a second mass flow rate of the second portion of liquid hydrogen provided to heat exchanger 8 for actively cooling wall 6, see Fig. 1 and [0061]); and
wherein the second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 (the second mass flow rate of the second portion of liquid hydrogen provided to heat exchanger 8 for actively cooling wall 6) is substantially less than (per [0061], active cooling to wall 6 may be stopped, and per [0072] and Fig. 2, in “b” propulsion is provided by the chemical rocket engine 1a, i.e., the second mass flow rate is zero and the first mass flow rate is NOT zero, which read on the claimed limitation) the first mass flow rate
m
˙
1 (the first mass flow rate of the first portion of liquid hydrogen that is able to propel the vehicle via the chemical engine 1a, represented by “b” in Fig. 2 and see [0072]).
PNG
media_image1.png
767
1262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 33-37, KOKORICH further teaches wherein respective magnitudes of the first mass flow rate
m
˙
1 (the first mass flow rate of the first portion of liquid hydrogen that is able to propel the vehicle via the chemical engine 1a, represented by “b” in Fig. 2 and see [0072]) and the second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 (the second mass flow rate of the second portion of liquid hydrogen provided to heat exchanger 8 for actively cooling wall 6) are such that
m
˙
2
m
˙
1
+
m
˙
2
≤
0.010
(per [0061], active cooling to wall 6 may be stopped, and per [0072] and Fig. 2, in “b” propulsion is provided by the chemical rocket engine 1a, i.e., the second mass flow rate is zero and the first mass flow rate is NOT zero, which read on claims 33-37).
Regarding claim 38, KOKORICH further teaches a fuel tank (4, Fig. 1) configured to store a fuel in fluid form (liquid hydrogen, see [0057]); wherein the first propellant (the first portion of liquid hydrogen to 1a) is a first portion of the fuel stored in the fuel tank (4, see Fig. 1 and [0057 and 0061]); and wherein the second propellant (the second portion of liquid hydrogen from tank 4 to heat exchanger 8) is a second portion of the fuel stored in the fuel tank (4, see Fig. 1 and [0057 and 0061]).
Regarding claim 39, KOKORICH further teaches wherein the fuel stored in the fuel tank (4) is a cryogenic fuel (liquid hydrogen is in cryogenic state, see [0057]); wherein the vehicle (see Fig. 1) further includes an oxidizer tank (5, Fig. 1) configured to store a cryogenic oxidizer in fluid form (per [0003 and 0070], oxygen stored in 5 is a liquid oxygen provided for cryogenic rocket engine, and thus, for one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the oxygen stored in 5 is a cryogenic oxidizer) and an oxidizer conduit (annotated Fig. 1) configured to provide at least a portion of the cryogenic oxidizer to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (1a, per [0057], hydrogen and oxygen are mixed and combusted in the chemical engine 1a).
PNG
media_image2.png
920
1514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, KOKORICH further teaches wherein the cryogenic fuel is liquid hydrogen (see [0057]) and the cryogenic oxidizer is liquid oxygen (see [0057, 0003, and 0070]).
Regarding claim 48, KOKORICH further teaches wherein the heat shield heat exchanger (8, Fig. 1) is configured to transfer energy from the heat shield wall (6) to the second propellant (the second portion of liquid hydrogen from tank 4 to heat exchanger 8) received from the second conduit (annotated Fig. 1 in claim 32) to generate a heated fluid flow (the gaseous hydrogen exists the heat exchanger 8, see [0061]).
Regarding claim 53, KOKORICH further teaches wherein the vehicle (Fig. 1) is an upper stage rocket of a multi-stage rocket system (per [0070], the vehicle as shown in Fig. 1 is an upper stage rocket that is positioned above a rocket booster).
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 32-37, 41-42, 44-45, 48, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weldon 11181076.
Regarding claim 32, Weldon teaches the invention as claimed: A vehicle (the rocket, see title), comprising:
a pressure-fed propulsion engine (comprising 35 and 36, Fig.);
a first conduit (46) configured to provide a first propellant (the hydrogen fed to the combustion chamber 35 via injector 34) to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (the combustion chamber 35, see Fig.);
a heat shield wall (the wall of nozzle 36, which shields the heat generated by combusting the hydrogen and oxygen provided by injector 31, see Fig. and col. 8, ll. 55-63) defining an outer surface (the outer surface of nozzle 36, which is a part of the rocket) of the vehicle;
a heat shield heat exchanger (comprising the plurality of passages 37, see Fig. and col. 7, ll. 45-50) disposed relative to the heat shield wall (the wall of nozzle 36);
a second conduit (annotated Fig.) configured to provide a second propellant (the portion of water that is decomposed into the hydrogen and the oxygen in electrolyzer 30 and fed into nozzle 36 via injector 31 for combustion, see Fig. and col. 9, ll. 20-30 and col. 8, ll. 55-63) to the heat shield heat exchanger (comprising the plurality of passages 37, see Fig. and col. 7, ll. 45-50);
a pump (41) located along the second conduit (annotated Fig.);
wherein the first conduit (46) is configured to provide the first propellant (the hydrogen fed to the combustor 35) to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (comprising 35 and 36) at a first mass flow rate
m
˙
1 (a first mass flow rate that is controlled at least by valve 47 and pump 43);
wherein the second conduit (annotated Fig.) and the pump (41) are configured to provide the second propellant (the portion of water that is decomposed into the hydrogen and the oxygen in electrolyzer 30 and fed into nozzle 36 via injector 31 for combustion, see Fig. and col. 9, ll. 20-30 and col. 8, ll. 55-63) to the heat shield heat exchanger (comprising the plurality of passages 37, see Fig. and col. 7, ll. 45-50) at a second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 (a second mass flow rate that is controlled at least by valve 26 and pump 41);
wherein the second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 (the second mass flow rate that is controlled at least by valve 26 and pump 41) is substantially less than (per col. 91-15, the decomposed hydrogen and oxygen fed into nozzle 36 is stopped while the hydrogen fed into combustion chamber 35 is kept providing, i.e., the second mass flow rate of the portion of water that used as the second propellant is zero, which read on the claimed limitation) the first mass flow rate
m
˙
1 (the first mass flow rate that is controlled at least by valve 47 and pump 43).
PNG
media_image3.png
958
790
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 33-37, Weldon further teaches wherein respective magnitudes of the first mass flow rate
m
˙
1 (the first mass flow rate that is controlled at least by valve 47 and pump 43) and the second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 (the second mass flow rate that is controlled at least by valve 26 and pump 41) are such that
m
˙
2
m
˙
1
+
m
˙
2
≤
0.010
(per col. 9, ll. 1-15, the decomposed hydrogen and oxygen fed into nozzle 36 is stopped while the hydrogen fed into combustion chamber 35 is kept providing, i.e., the second mass flow rate of the portion of water that used as the second propellant is zero while the first mass flow rate is NOT zero, which read on the claimed limitations of claims 33-37).
Regarding claim 41, Weldon further teaches a fuel tank (51) configured to store a fuel in fluid form (liquid hydrogen, see Fig. and col. 7, ll. 15-23); a coolant tank (25) configured to store a coolant in fluid form (water, which is used to cool the nozzle 36 and changed to steam, see Fig. and col. 7, ll. 43-50); wherein the first propellant (the hydrogen fed to the combustion chamber 35 via injector 34) is at least a first portion of the fuel stored in the fuel tank (51; see Fig.); and wherein the second propellant (the portion of water that is decomposed into the hydrogen and the oxygen in electrolyzer 30 and fed into nozzle 36 via injector 31 for combustion, see Fig. and col. 9, ll. 20-30 and col. 8, ll. 55-63) is at least a first portion of the coolant stored in the coolant tank (25; see Fig.).
Regarding claim 42, Weldon further teaches wherein the fuel tank (51) includes a fuel cavity (the space of 51) in which the fuel (the liquid hydrogen) is stored (see Fig.); wherein the coolant tank (25) includes a coolant cavity (the space of 25) in which the coolant (water) is stored (see Fig.); and wherein the fuel tank (51) and the coolant tank (25) are configured such that the fuel stored in the fuel cavity is physically separate from the coolant stored in the coolant cavity (51 and 25 are two separated tanks, see Fig.).
Regarding claim 44, Weldon further teaches wherein the coolant tank (25) is positioned outside the fuel cavity of the fuel tank (51, see Fig.).
Regarding claim 45, Weldon further teaches an engine heat exchanger (48) disposed relative to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (at the combustion chamber 35, see Fig. and col. 8, ll. 35-40); wherein the engine heat exchanger (48) is located along the first conduit (46, see Fig.).
Regarding claim 48, Weldon further teaches wherein the heat shield heat exchanger (comprising the plurality of passages 37, see Fig. and col. 7, ll. 45-50) is configured to transfer energy from the heat shield wall (the wall of nozzle 36, which shields the heat generated by combusting the hydrogen and oxygen provided by injector 31, see Fig. and col. 8, ll. 55-63) to the second propellant (the portion of water that is decomposed into the hydrogen and the oxygen in electrolyzer 30 and fed into nozzle 36 via injector 31 for combustion, see Fig. and col. 9, ll. 20-30 and col. 8, ll. 55-63) received from the second conduit (annotated Fig. in claim 32) to generate a heated fluid flow (the supper heated steam exists 37, see Fig. and col. 7, ll. 45-50).
Regarding claim 55, Weldon further teaches wherein the pump (41) is an electric pump (per col. 7, ll. 34-40, pump 41 may be driven by an electric motor instead of driving by turbine 40).
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 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOKORICH 20240229746 in view of VUILLAMY 20150354503.
Regarding claim 47, KOKORICH does not teach wherein the vehicle excludes a pump in fluid communication with the first conduit.
However, VUILLAMY teaches a vehicle (see Fig. 7) comprising a first conduit (6, Fig. 7) configured to provide a first propellant (the liquid hydrogen provided from tank 3 to engine 5, see Fig. 7 and [0027]) to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (5); wherein the vehicle (Fig. 7) excludes a pump (per [0044], instead of using pump to pump out the liquid hydrogen from tank 3, a pressurized gas from 31 is used to push out the liquid hydrogen out from tank 3) in fluid communication with the first conduit (6, see Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosed by non-depicted fluid system of KOKORICH to be the fluid system of VUILLAMY, such that
wherein the vehicle excludes a pump in fluid communication with the first conduit (the modification is to use VUILLAMY’s pressurized gas to provide liquid hydrogen to KOKORICH’s pressure-fed propulsion engine)
because it is noted that the use of a known prior art structure, in this case, the use of pressurized gas as taught by VUILLAMY, to obtain predictable results, in this case, to provide liquid hydrogen to engine, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, MPEP 2141 III(A).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOKORICH 20240229746 in view of Wollen 5129599.
Regarding claim 49, KOKORICH further teaches a fuel tank (4) configured to store a fuel in fluid form (liquid hydrogen, see [0057] and Fig. 1).
KOKORICH does not teach a first heated fluid conduit between the second conduit and the fuel tank; and a flow controller configured to selectively pass at least a first portion of the heated fluid flow from the second conduit to the first heated fluid conduit for transport to the fuel tank.
However, Wollen teaches a first heated fluid conduit (annotated Fig. 3, the conduit that provides a first portion of heated hydrogen, which is heated by the heat exchanger 19, to the fuel tank 12) between (fluidly between) the second conduit (annotated Fig. 3, the conduit that provides liquid hydrogen to the heat exchanger 19 that is an airframe heat exchanger, col. 2, ll. 55-62) and the fuel tank (12); and a flow controller (annotated Fig. 3, in order to bled the first portion of the heated hydrogen back to tank 12, see col. 4, ll, 35-40) configured to selectively pass at least a first portion of the heated fluid flow (the first portion of the heated hydrogen that provided back to tank 12) from the second conduit (annotated Fig. 3, at downstream from the heat exchanger 19) to the first heated fluid conduit (annotated Fig. 3) for transport to the fuel tank (12).
PNG
media_image4.png
871
1568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide KOKORICH with Wollen’s first heated fluid conduit and flow controller, such that
a first heated fluid conduit between the second conduit and the fuel tank; and a flow controller configured to selectively pass at least a first portion of the heated fluid flow from the second conduit to the first heated fluid conduit for transport to the fuel tank (the modification is to bled a first portion of the heated fluid downstream from KOKORICH’s heat exchanger 8 using Wollen’s first heated fluid conduit and flow controller back to KOKORICH’s fuel tank 4)
in order to maintain the pressure in the tank (Wollen, col. 4, ll. 35-39 and col. 1, ll. 22-25).
Claims 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOKORICH 20240229746 in view of Wollen 5129599, and in further view of LEE 20230407820.
Regarding claim 50, KOKORICH in view of Wollen further teaches an exogenous pressurization subsystem (comprising Wollen’s 25 in Wollen’s Fig. 3) including: a helium vessel (Wollen’s 25) configured to store helium in gaseous form (see Wollen’s col. 2, ll. 65-70); a helium conduit (annotated Wollen’s Fig. 3) between the flow controller (interpreted as the helium flow controller, see annotated Wollen’s Fig. 3 and per Wollen’s col. 2, ll. 60-68, the pressurization in tank 12 is selected by using helium or heated hydrogen) and an ullage space (Wollen’s 26) of the fuel tank (Wollen’s 12); a helium flow controller (annotated Wollen’s Fig. 3) configured to receive helium from the helium vessel (Wollen’s 25 in Wollen’s Fig. 3); wherein the helium flow controller (annotated Wollen’s Fig. 3) is configured to selectively pass at least a first portion of the helium (the portion of helium passes through the helium conduit in Wollen’s Fig. 3) received from the helium vessel (Wollen’s 25 in Wollen’s Fig. 3) to the helium conduit (annotated Wollen’s Fig. 3) for transport to the fuel tank (Wollen’s 12).
PNG
media_image5.png
873
1568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
KOKORICH in view of Wollen does not teach said helium is a helium coolant.
However, Lee teaches an exogenous pressurization subsystem (comprising 5, see Fig. 1 and [0061]) including: a helium vessel (5, per [0061], the pressurized gas is helium gas) configured to store helium coolant in gaseous form (per [0062 and 0081], the helium gas stored in tank 5 is heated by the combustor and then the heated helium gas is provided to pressurize fuel tank 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide KOKORICH in view of Wollen with Lee’s using the helium as a helium coolant in order to provide a high-temperature/high-pressure pressurized gas to maintain constant pressure in the fuel tank without increasing weight and the cost of engine (Lee, [0082 and 0061]).
Regarding claim 51, KOKORICH in view of Wollen and Lee further teaches an oxidizer tank (KOKORICH’s 5 in KOKORICH’s Fig. 1) configured to store a cryogenic oxidizer in fluid form (per KOKORICH’s [0003 and 0070], KOKORICH’s oxygen stored in KOKORICH’s 5 is a liquid oxygen provided for cryogenic rocket engine, and thus, for one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the oxygen stored in KOKORICH’s 5 is a cryogenic oxidizer) and an oxidizer conduit (KOKORICH’s annotated Fig. 1) configured to provide at least a portion of the cryogenic oxidizer to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (KOKORICH’s 1a, per KOKORICH’s [0057], hydrogen and oxygen are mixed and combusted in KOKORICH’s chemical engine 1a); wherein the helium vessel (Lee’s 5 in Lee’s Fig. 1) of the exogenous pressurization subsystem is positioned with the oxidizer tank (per Lee’s Fig. 1 and [0057], Lee’s helium vessel 5 and Lee’s oxidizer tank 3 are positioned in the same body 2, and thus, the claimed helium vessel is positioned in KOKORICH’s vehicle in Fig. 3, which read on the claimed limitation).
PNG
media_image2.png
920
1514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOKORICH 20240229746 in view of Wollen 5129599, and in further view of NPL - Baelz North America - 2-Way vs 3-Way Valves.
Regarding claim 52, KOKORICH further teaches a control thruster (13, Fig. 1 and [0065]); a second heated fluid conduit (per [0065 and 0061], a portion of the heated hydrogen exits heat exchanger 8 is provided to thrust nozzle 13 and another portion of the heated hydrogen exits heat exchanger 8 is provided to the thermal engine 1b to create thrust and, and thus, a second heated fluid conduit is required in order to provide the portion of the heated hydrogen from heat exchanger 8, which is fluidly downstream from the second conduit, to thrust nozzle 13) between (fluidly between) the second conduit (annotated Fig. 1 in claim 32) and the control thruster (13); and wherein a second flow controller (a flow controller is required in order to provide the portion of the heated hydrogen from heat exchanger 8, which is fluidly downstream from the second conduit, to thrust nozzle 13) is configured to selectively pass at least a second portion of the heated fluid (the portion of the heated hydrogen from heat exchanger 8 to thrust nozzle 13) flow from the second conduit (annotated Fig. 1 in claim 32) to the second heated fluid conduit (the second heated fluid conduit is required in order to provide the portion of the heated hydrogen from heat exchanger 8, which is fluidly downstream from the second conduit, to thrust nozzle 13) for transport to the control thruster (13, Fig. 1).
KOKORICH in view of Wollen does not teach the same flow controller is configured to selectively pass at least said second portion of the heated fluid flow from the second conduit to said second heated fluid conduit for transport to said control thruster (limitation of claim 52) and configured to selectively pass at least said first portion of the heated fluid flow from said second conduit to said first heated fluid conduit for transport to said fuel tank (limitation of claim 49).
However, Baelz North America teaches using one 3-way valve is more cost-effective for piping system than using multiple 2-way valves (p. 5, Fig.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify KOKORICH in view of Wollen with Baelz North America’s teaching to replace two 2-way valves (i.e., Wollen’s flow controller in annotated Fig. 3 in claim 49 and KOKORICH’s flow controller fluidly between heat exchanger 8 and control thruster 13) with one 3-way valve, such that
wherein the flow controller (one Baelz North America’s 3-way valve) is configured to selectively pass at least a second portion of the heated fluid flow from the second conduit to the second heated fluid conduit for transport to the control thruster
because using one 3-way valves is more cost effective for piping system than using multiple 2-way valves (Baelz North America, p. 5, Fig.).
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOKORICH 20240229746 in view of Trudeau 5850989.
Regarding claim 54, KOKORICH further teaches wherein the vehicle (Fig. 1) is an upper stage rocket (which is also the second stage) of a multi-stage rocket system (per [0070], the vehicle as shown in Fig. 1 is an upper stage rocket that is positioned above a rocket booster, i.e., two-stage rocket system).
KOKORICH does not teach wherein the vehicle is a third stage rocket of a three-stage rocket system.
However, Trudeau teaches (in Figs. 1-2) wherein a vehicle (the most upper stage 12 as shown in Figs. 1-2) can be a second stage rocket of a two-stage rocket system (Fig. 1) or a third stage rocket of a three-stage rocket system (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify KOKORICH with Trudeau’s teaching of using a three-stage rocket system to launch the vehicle, such that
the vehicle is a third stage rocket of a three-stage rocket system
because it is noted that a simple substitution of one known element, in this case, using a two-stage rocket system, for another, in this case, using a three-stage rocket system, to obtain predictable results, in this case, launch the vehicle, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, MPEP 2141 III(B).
Claims 32, 41-42, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balepin 20180038316.
Regarding claim 32, Balepin teaches the invention as claimed: A vehicle (the rocket comprising the rocket engine in Fig. 2), comprising:
a pressure-fed propulsion engine (202);
a first conduit (annotated Fig. 2) configured to provide a first propellant (the liquid hydrogen provided by source 212, see [0046]) to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (the combustion chamber 206 via injector 204, see Fig. 2);
a heat shield wall (the wall of nozzle 208, which shields the heat of the combustion gases exhausted from combustion chamber 206) defining an outer surface (an outer surface of the nozzle 208, which is part of the rocket, see Fig. 2) of the vehicle;
a heat shield heat exchanger (226) disposed relative to the heat shield wall (the wall of nozzle 208, see Fig. 2 and [0043]);
a second conduit (annotated Fig. 2) configured to provide a second propellant (the liquid hydrogen provided by source 213, see [0046]) to the heat shield heat exchanger (226, see Fig. 2);
a pump (217) located along the second conduit (annotated Fig. 2);
wherein the first conduit (annotated Fig. 2) is configured to provide the first propellant (the liquid hydrogen provided by source 212, see [0046]) to the pressure-fed propulsion engine (comprising 206 and 208) at a first mass flow rate
m
˙
1 (a first mass flow rate controlled by valve 244, see [0039] and Fig. 2);
wherein the second conduit (annotated Fig. 2) and the pump (217) are configured to provide the second propellant (the liquid hydrogen provided by source 213, see [0046]) to the heat shield heat exchanger (226) at a second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 (a second mass flow rate controlled by valve 246 and pump 217, see [0042] and Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
694
922
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Balepin does not teach wherein the second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 is substantially less than the first mass flow rate
m
˙
1.
However, it is noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, i.e. providing the second mass flow rate
m
˙
2 substantially less than the first mass flow rate
m
˙
1, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, i.e. as taught by Balepin as discussed above. It is noticed that the prior art apparatus, as discussed so far is capable of performing this function, because all the structure for performing the function is available.
Regarding claim 41, Balepin further teaches a fuel tank (212, which provides liquid hydrogen as fuel to combustion chamber 206, see Fig. 2) configured to store a fuel in fluid form (liquid hydrogen, see [0046]); a coolant tank (213, which provides liquid hydrogen as coolant to 226, see Fig. 2) configured to store a coolant in fluid form (liquid hydrogen, see [0046]); wherein the first propellant (the liquid hydrogen provided by source 212 to the combustion chamber 206, see Fig. 2) is at least a first portion of the fuel stored in the fuel tank (212, see Fig. 2); and wherein the second propellant (the liquid hydrogen provided by source 213 to the heat exchanger 226, see Fig. 2) is at least a first portion of the coolant stored in the coolant tank (213, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 42, Balepin further teaches wherein the fuel tank (212) includes a fuel cavity (the space of 212) in which the fuel is stored (the liquid hydrogen); wherein the coolant tank (213) includes a coolant cavity (the space of 213) in which the coolant is stored (the liquid hydrogen); and wherein the fuel tank (213) and the coolant tank (213) are configured such that the fuel stored in the fuel cavity (the space of 212) is physically separate from the coolant stored in the coolant cavity (the space of 213, see Fig. 2 and [0047]).
Regarding claim 46, Balepin further teaches wherein the first conduit (annotated Fig. 2 in claim 32) is not in fluid communication with (because each of said two conduits is providing a respective liquid hydrogen from a respective source, i.e., 212, 213, to a respective component, i.e., 206, 226, see annotated Fig. 2 in claim 32) the second conduit (annotated Fig. 2 in claim 32).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balepin 20180038316 in view of BARGER 3136121.
Regarding claim 43, Balepin does not teach wherein the coolant tank is positioned within the fuel cavity of the fuel tank.
However, BARGER teaches wherein the coolant tank (12, which provides liquid hydrogen to heat exchanger 20) is positioned within the fuel cavity (where the “main fuel” is placed, see Fig.) of the fuel tank (10, which provides liquid hydrogen as fuel to engine 62, see Fig. and per col. 3, ll, 25-30, tanks 10 and 12 both store liquid hydrogen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Balepin with BARGER’s positioning the coolant tank within the fuel cavity of the fuel tank in order to eliminate/reduce the insulation required by the tank(s) (BARGER, col. 2, ll. 20-25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights