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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 5 is supported at least by published ¶0170.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 32 and 35 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 9 is no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 35 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 35 recites “a metallurgical bond”. There is already the limitation “wherein the second material of the at least one structural cladding region is metallurgically bonded to and structurally integrated with the outer wall of the integral regeneratively cooled body” in Claim 5. It is unclear if the two recitations are referring to each other or different bonds.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the second material of the at least one structural cladding region is metallurgically bonded to and structurally integrated with the outer wall of the integral regeneratively cooled body”
Claim 35 recites ”wherein a metallurgical bond is formed between the at least one structural cladding region and the outer wall of the body, and wherein the at least one structural cladding region and the outer wall of the body become materially combined.”
Since Claim 5 already introduces a metallurgical bond between the cladding and outer walls, the further limitations in Claim 35 do not limit the subject matter of Claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
(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 5-8, 31 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gradl (US20190329355A1).
Claim 5
Gradl teaches a hybrid additive manufacturing method for forming a clad combustion chamber (¶0030 teaches various additive manufacturing techniques for forming portions of the thrust chamber assembly (TCA).) comprising: forming an integral regeneratively cooled body (Figures 1-3 teach a TCA (10) that has integral cooling channels (28, 38).) of a first material (¶0031 teaches the main combustion chamber (MCC) (20) is made from a material.) from a first manufacturing process (¶0032 teaches the MCC is made via powder bed fusion.), having an inner wall defining an open-ended combustion chamber volume (Figure 1, between 22 and 24), an outer wall having at least one inlet and at least one outlet disposed at different positions along a dimension thereof (Figure 1 shows two manifolds (40) positioned at locations along the outer wall having different dimensions. The detail views in Figures 2-3 show that these manifolds (40) are where inlet/outlets are located.), and a plurality of cooling channels formed between the inner wall and the outer wall and in fluid communication with the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet (Figures 2-3, Item 28); after forming the integral regeneratively cooled body, forming at least one structural cladding region (Figures 2-3 show the manifolds (40) are formed such that there is a base (or manifold land) that is integral with the outer wall of the MCC (20). The first layers of this base are a “structural cladding region”.) of a second material (These layers are made from stainless steel or INCONEL (¶0025). The claim does not require that the second and third materials are different.) from a second manufacturing process (The first base layers of each manifold are made from the same “second manufacturing process” as the rest of the manifolds, which is a freeform deposition or blown powder deposition process.), wherein the at least on structural cladding region substantially covers the outer wall of the integral regeneratively cooled body (The “region” of the structure cladding / base layers of the manifolds extends around the perimeter of the wall of the body and “substantially covers” the wall in the region.); after forming the at least one structural cladding region (The sides and top portions of the manifold are formed after the base., forming at least one integration feature (Manifold, 40) of a third material (¶0025 teaches the manifolds (40) are made from stainless steel or INCONEL.) from the second manufacturing process (¶0036 teaches the manifolds are formed using freeform deposition. Freeform deposition is defined by Gradl in ¶0035 as, for example, blown powder deposition. This is different from powder bed fusion.), wherein the at least one integration feature is integral or interconnected on or within the at least one structural cladding region (The manifold body is connected to the base.), and wherein the at least one structural cladding region extends around a perimeter of the at least one integration feature (The base of the manifold extends around the perimeter of the manifold.); wherein the at least one inlet, at least one outlet, and the plurality of cooling channels of the integral regeneratively cooled body define a single fluid flow path therebetween having at least one termination at an end of the integral regeneratively cooled body (Figure 1 shows the manifold (40), where there is a termination outlet/inlet of the cooling channel (28) is located at the top end of the body (20).); wherein the second material of the at least one structural cladding region is metallurgically bonded to and structurally integrated with the outer wall of the integral regeneratively cooled body (¶0036 teaches the manifolds (including the bases or claimed “structural cladding region”) are integrally coupled to the outside surface of the TCA. ¶0035 teaches the manifolds “encircle” the TCA.); wherein the first manufacturing process and the second manufacturing process are different. (The first process is powder bed fusion, which is different from the freeform deposition technique that Gradl uses the form the manifolds.)
Claim 6
Gradl teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the at least one structural cladding region differs from the integral regeneratively cooled body and the at least one integration feature in at least one material property. (Gradl ¶0023-0025 teaches the body (MCC and nozzle) is made from copper and stainless steel or a superalloy. ¶0036 teaches the start of the manifold production process includes a bimetallic or multi-metallic layer. Therefore, the structural cladding (start of the manifold/manifold lands) in Gradl has a gradient layer that has different material properties.)
Claim 7
Gradl teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the at least one material property comprises at least one of a grain structure, a porosity, a surface finish, and a mechanical property. (Gradl ¶0023-0025 teaches the body (MCC and nozzle) is made from copper and stainless steel or a superalloy. ¶0036 teaches the start of the manifold production process includes a bimetallic or multi-metallic layer. Therefore, the structural cladding (start of the manifold/manifold lands) in Gradl has a gradient layer that has different material properties including a mechanical property since it is made from a different material.)
Claim 8
Gradl teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the at least one integration feature is formed adjacent to or overlapping the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet. (Gradl, Figure 3 shows the manifolds (40) are located adjacent to the fluid inlets/outlets.)
Claim 31
Gradl teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the first manufacturing process and the second manufacturing process are performed according to a path plan that includes the first manufacturing process and the second manufacturing process. (Figure 4 shows the production method follows a plan.)
Claim 33
Gradl teaches the method of claim 5, wherein forming the at least one structural cladding region further comprises depositing two or more layers to achieve a cladding thickness. (¶0036 teaches the manifolds are made by freeform deposition. ¶0035 describes freeform deposition as including multiple techniques that involve depositing a plurality of layers.)
Claim 34
Gradl teaches the method of claim 33, wherein the at least one structural cladding region comprises at least one structural property determined by the second material and the second manufacturing process. (¶0025 teaches the manifolds are made from a material. ¶0036 teaches the manifolds are manufactured by a process. The end product of the method, using the material, in Gradl has a structural property.)
Claim 35
Gradl teaches the method of claim 5, wherein a metallurgical bond is formed between the at least one structural cladding region and the outer wall of the body, and wherein the at least one structural cladding region and the outer wall of the body become materially combined. (¶0036 teaches the base/land of the manifold is integrally connected with the MCC or nozzle using a bimetallic gradient layer that is bonded to the copper or stainless steel alloy of the MCC or nozzle.)
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gradl (US20190329355A1) in view of Bostwick (US20170096967A1).
Claim 9
Gradl teaches the method of claim 5.
Gradl does not disclose wherein the at least one integration featurebracket and an anchor plate. Gradl does disclose that the manifold shape can be different from what is shown in the drawings. (See ¶0022)
However, Bostwick (US20170096967A1) teaches a manifold (210) made from additive manufacturing (¶0032) that includes an anchor plate or bracket (Figure 2B teaches the manifold (210) is in the shape of a plate and includes mounting features (213), such that the structure can be considered an anchor plate.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known manifold shape of Bostwick with the system of Gradl in order to use a component that reduces the separate components and correspondingly reduces leaks. (See Bostwick ¶0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known manifold shape of Bostwick with the system of Gradl because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The predictable result is the manifolds of Gradl will comprise at least a portion that is a plate shape with mounting holes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 with respect to the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the amendment to Claim 5 overcomes the rejection(s) using Gradl, specifically “wherein the at least one structural cladding region substantially covers the outer wall of the integral regeneratively cooled body” and “wherein the at least one structural cladding region extends around a perimeter of the at least one integration feature”.
It is respectfully asserted that the rejection has been updated to suit the amendments to Claim 5 and Gradl is still relevant to the claim as written. The claim does not current require that the structural cladding region substantially covers the entire outer wall surface as it appears was intended. The claim requires some coverage, and the manifold base layers perform that function. As the limitations regarding the perimeter, the manifolds are a three dimensional structure, such that a slice or cross section at the location of the base/manifold transition is two dimensional and has a perimeter. The base of the manifolds extends around this entire perimeter.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 5 using Gradl and Takahashi has been withdrawn.
Examiner Note
Further definition of the structural cladding region and its size/overlap with the outer wall to preclude interpretation of Gradl’s manifold lands is one option to move past the Gradl reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
US20170096967A1 – Figure 2A teaches a manifold (210) in the shape of a plate with anchoring features (213) formed thereon.
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 Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights