DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection in response to amendments filed 11/21/2025. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-4, 9-14, 16, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speller (US 5752381) in view of Lind (US 4445911).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9 and 16, Speller teaches a steering system for vectoring an at least partially ionized exhaust jet of a rocket, the exhaust jet occurring along a longitudinal axis of the jet, through an engine nozzle, and opposite a direction of exhaust thrust (col. 6, ll. 35-48), the steering system comprising:
one or more pairs of parallel electrodes 14a, 14b distributed circumferentially over 360° inside the nozzle along an electrode length (see figure 2), each pair arranged laterally for independently straddling the exhaust jet, the nozzle including a region beyond a nozzle exit;
a high-voltage DC supply connectable to the one or more pairs of electrodes and configured to impress a strong electric field across the exhaust jet (col. 6, ll. 35-48);
a steering control configured to scale a field intensity of the strong electric field proportional to a desired vectoring angle of the exhaust jet with respect to the longitudinal axis, the steering control also configured to weight among all of the one or more electrode pairs a pair voltage sent by the DC supply to each of the one or more electrode pairs, the weighting for steering the deflected exhaust to a desired azimuth (col. 6, ll. 1-34); and
where positively charged particles in the exhaust jet are accelerated laterally toward a negatively charged side of the one or more electrode pairs (col. 7, ll. 29-45).
Speller is silent to the steering control (1) configured to detect an arc across one or more of the electrode pairs, and the steering control (2) configured to adjust the electric field to stop the arc detected across the one or more of the electrode pairs while continuing to scale the field intensity of the strong electric field proportional to the desired vectoring angle of the exhaust jet off the longitudinal axis.
Lind teaches the steering control (1) configured to detect an arc across one or more of the electrode pairs (col. 5, ll. 3-9), and the steering control (2) configured to adjust the electric field to stop the arc detected across the one or more of the electrode pairs while continuing to scale the field intensity of the strong electric field proportional to the desired vectoring angle of the exhaust jet off the longitudinal axis (col. 4, ll. 42-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Speller with the steering control of Lind as Lind teaches improved efficiency and improved particle charging (col. 1, ll. 21-22, col. 2. ,ll. 3-6).
Regarding dependent claim 2 and 20, Speller in view of Lind teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Speller further teaches wherein: the lateral acceleration by the strong field generates a lateral force competitive with the longitudinal rocket thrust according to a geometric tangent of the vectoring angle (col. 7, ll. 29-45).
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 10, Speller in view of Lind teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Speller further teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Speller is silent to the strong electric field is at least 100 kV/m. Speller does teach 15-40 kV voltage potential.
As Speller does not teach the distance apart, it is possible Speller does teach 100 kV/m, as it is dependent on the spacing of the electrodes. If the electrodes are 10 cm apart, the 40 kV would be equivalent to 400 kV/m.
Therefore, examiner notes that it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding dependent claim 4 and 11-12, Speller in view of Lind teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Speller further teaches wherein: the propulsion system oxidates or catalyzes a chemical fuel and wherein: where the chemical fuel includes one or more of liquid hydrogen, kerosene, liquid methane, hydrazine, and another hydrocarbon solid or liquid fuel (col. 4, ll. 26-30).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Speller in view of Lind teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Speller further teaches wherein: there are 2 pairs of electrodes lining the nozzle, each electrode of the two pairs being circumferentially offset by 90° (col. 5, ll. 36-54).
Regarding dependent claims 14, Speller in view of Lind teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Speller further teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Speller is silent to wherein: there are 3 pairs of electrodes lining the nozzle, each electrode of the two pairs being circumferentially offset by 60°.
Although, Speller doesn’t explicitly teach it, Speller teaches that the maximum number of electrodes is limited by the physical size of the electrode housing, and teaches they can be spaced about the periphery of the electrode housing (col. 7, ll. 40-46).
In view of the prior art teachings that the selecting: a number of electrodes; a spacing between said electrodes is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the number and spacing of the electrodes in Speller, since it has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Regarding dependent claims 21, Speller in view of Lind teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Lind further teaches wherein the step of detecting, by the steering control, the arc across one or more of the electrode pairs and thereupon adjusting the electric field to stop the arc across the one or more of the electrode pairs while continuing the scaling, by the steering control, of the field intensity of the electric field proportional to the desired defection of the exhaust jet off the longitudinal axis of the vectoring angle further includes a pulsed mode of having a first period of a shut-down phase of the electric field followed by a second period of a pulsed phase of the electric field (col. 3, ll. 52- col. 4, ll. 61).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speller in view of Lind and further in view of Esquivias et al. (US 11649072).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 15, Speller teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Speller is silent to wherein: the DC supply is a low voltage supply driving a step-up DC converter. Esquivias teaches it was known in to use a step-up DC converter (col. 4, ll. 63 – col. 5, ll. 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide Speller with the step up transformer of Esquivias, as Esquivias also teaches it allows for better reliability (col. 4, ll. 63 – col. 5, ll. 28).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speller in view of Lind and Esquivias and further in view of Nikic et al. (US 2017/0314540).
Regarding dependent claims 6, Speller in view of Lind and Esquivias teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Speller in view of Lind and Esquivias is silent to the step-up DC converter is a flyback transformer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Speller in view of Lind and Esquivias with the flyback transfer of Nikic as it is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, generically having a step-up DC converter) for another (in this case, a flyback transformer as taught by Nikic) to obtain predictable results (in this case, gapped core storage, a wide input voltage range, multiple output voltages and high voltage capability) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speller in view of Lind and further in view of Muldoon (US 2006/0248895).
Regarding dependent claims 7, Speller in view of Lind teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Speller is silent to further comprising: increasing the number of the positively charged particles in the exhaust by one of the following ionizing means: RF heating, magnetic heating, electron bombardment, and introducing metallic particles into the exhaust.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Speller in view of Lind with the ionization process of Muldoon as it is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, field induced ionization) for another (in this case, electron bombardment as taught by Muldoon) to obtain predictable results (in this case, lower power requirements, higher conductivity) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speller in view of Lind and further in view of Krumpholz et al. (US 2014/0347069).
Regarding dependent claims 8, Speller in view of Lind teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Speller in view of Lind is silent to further comprising: detecting, by the steering control, an arc across one or more of the electrode pairs and thereupon terminating and resetting the electric field.
Krumpholz teaches further comprising: detecting, by the steering control, an arc across one or more of the electrode pairs and thereupon terminating and resetting the electric field [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Speller with the arc detection of Krumpholz as Krumpholz teaches detecting arcs can help reduce damage caused by the arcs [0004, 0048].
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speller in view of Lind and further in view of Martin (US 2025/0081321).
Regarding dependent claims 18-19, Speller in view of Lind teaches a propellant but is silent to the specifics, in particular wherein: the propellant is one of hydrogen, kerosene, methane, and another hydrocarbon fuel or hydrazine.
Martin teaches it was known to use hydrazine, liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, nitrous oxide, and hydrogen peroxide as a propellant [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Speller with the fuel of Martin as it is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, generically having a propellant) for another (in this case, using either liquid hydrogen or hydrazine as a propellant as taught by Martin) to obtain predictable results (in this case, propelling a rocket) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 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.
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.
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