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 23-43 are pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations in the current application are as follows:
In Claim 23 “means for injecting one or more propellants into the chamber” with corresponding structure in Paragraph 0050.
In Claim 28 “means for injecting one or more propellants into the chamber” with corresponding structure in Paragraph 0050.
In Claim 40 “one or more injector means” with corresponding structure in Paragraph 0050.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 25, the limitation “the extension rod coupled to the piston” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the extension rod is part of the piston, as claimed in the limitation “the piston comprising an extension rod” of Claim 23, or if the piston and extension rod are considered two separate structures. For the purposes of this examination the limitation will be interpreted as the extension rod being part of the piston and thus if the cooling channel extends through the extension rod, then it extends partially within the piston.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hickerson (U.S. Patent No. 3,192,714), hereinafter Hickerson.
Regarding Independent Claim 23, Hickerson discloses a subscale rocket injector stability test system (Figure 1) comprising:
a chamber, 11, 12, 14 and 18;
an injector plate, 44 and 56, coupled to the chamber (the injector plate is coupled to the chamber by the bolts, 39) and structurally holding one or more means for injecting one or more propellants into the chamber (the injector plate structurally holds the injector shuttle, 54, by bolts, 80; where the injector shuttle is a means for injecting propellants into the chamber); and
a piston, 42, 52 and 58, positioned at least partially within the chamber (the piston is located within the chamber) and configured to move to vary a combustion volume of the chamber (the piston moves to adjust the volume, 13 and 67, of the chamber), the piston comprising an extension rod, 52, extending downstream through a downstream exit of the chamber (the extension rod, 52, extends to the right/downstream through the throat, 14, which is a downstream exit of the combustion volume of the chamber), wherein the piston and a sidewall of the chamber define a flow path around the piston configured to act as a chokepoint allowing exhaust to exit the chamber (the piston and the sidewall, 12 and 14, define an annular flowpath around the piston to form the chokepoint/throat, through which the exhaust flows out of the combustion volume of the chamber).
Regarding Claim 24, Hickerson discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hickerson further discloses an end of the piston facing the combustion volume is bulbous (the left end of the bulb, 58, of the piston is a bulbous end that faces the combustion volume).
Regarding Claim 25, Hickerson discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hickerson further discloses the piston further comprises a cooling channel, 64, extending at least partially within the extension rod (the channel, 64, is provided within the piston/extension rod).
Regarding Claim 26, Hickerson discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hickerson further discloses a volume defined between the piston and the sidewall defines an inverted nozzle shape (the volume/annular passage formed by the piston and the sidewall is an inverted nozzle shape).
Regarding Claim 27, Hickerson discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hickerson further discloses an actuator configured to axially move the piston to continuously vary the combustion volume (Column 3, Lines 43-51 – the pressurized fluid source is an actuator that provides the force to translate the pintle/piston).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-43 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The limitations “a piston positioned at least partially within the chamber and having an upstream end positioned downstream the upstream end of the chamber” along with the remaining limitations of Claim 28 are not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record.
Dressler (U.S. Patent No. 6,591,603), Dermody (U.S. Patent No. 3,234,731), and Hickerson (U.S. Patent No. 3,150,485) show rocket systems with pistons that include extension rods and that adjust the combustion volume of a chamber but do not show the upstream end of the pistons being downstream of the upstream end of the chamber. Rather all three references show the upstream ends of the pistons being at least at the upstream end of the respective chambers it not further upstream.
Claims 29-39 depend from Claim 28 and necessarily include the allowable subject matter discussed above and therefore are allowed.
The limitations “continuously moving a piston within the chamber to continuously vary a volume within the chamber with an extension rod of the piston moving through a downstream exit of the chamber” along with the remaining limitations of Claim 40 are not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record.
Dressler (U.S. Patent No. 6,591,603), Dermody (U.S. Patent No. 3,234,731), and Hickerson (U.S. Patent No. 3,150,485) show rocket systems with pistons that include extension rods and that adjust the combustion volume of a chamber but do not show the volume being adjusted by the movement of the extension rod of the piston. Rather in each case the piston rod movement through the exit is a result of the movement which modulates the volume.
Claims 41-43 depend from Claim 40 and necessarily include the allowable subject matter discussed above and therefore are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4pm EST.
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.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights