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 21-40 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.
Such limitations are as follows:
In Claims 21 and 25 “means for injecting the one or more propellants” with corresponding structure in Paragraph 0050.
In Claim 27 “one or more means for injecting one or more propellants into the chamber” with corresponding structure in Paragraph 0050.
In Claim 33 “one or more means for injecting one or more propellants into the chamber” 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 26 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 26, the limitation “continuously moving the injector plate through the combustion chamber between a sidewall of the combustion chamber” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the plate moves between a single structure in this case a side wall. For the purposes of this examination the limitation will be interpreted as “continuously moving the injector plate through volume defined by a sidewall of the combustion chamber”.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-25, 33-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penza (U.S. Patent No. 3,130,544), hereinafter Penza, in view of Ellis (U.S. Patent No. 3,330,116), hereinafter Ellis.
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Penza discloses a method of subscale testing rocket injector stability (Figures 1 and 2), the method comprising:
continuously varying a combustion volume within the combustion chamber (Figure 2 – the volume of the chamber to the left/upstream of the leftmost/upstream end of the plug, 20, of the throat is the combustion volume of the chamber; the plug, 20, of the throat is shown to be continuously moveable in the axial direction; therefore the changing of the location of the upstream/leftmost end of the plug of the throat by the axial movement of the plug changes the combustion volume of the chamber).
Penza does not injecting into a combustion chamber one or more propellants from one or more means for injecting the one or more propellants structurally held by a injector plate to cause combustion, the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates configured to be removably attached to the combustion chamber for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates, the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting the one or more propellants; and detecting data from within the combustion volume as the combustion volume is varied.
PNG
media_image1.png
514
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ellis teaches an injector assembly for a rocket engine (Figures 1, 2 and 5, Element 16) that operates by injecting into a combustion chamber, 18, one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the injectors inject propellants into the chamber, 18) from one or more means for injecting the one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the orifices are injectors/means for injecting the propellant, that are structurally defined/held in the injector plates, 30/32), supported by a injector plate, 30/32, to cause combustion (Column 4, Lines 28-29 – a combustion process occurs), the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the plates, 30/32, are interchangeable with a different set of plates that include different injectors) configured to be removably attached to the combustion chamber for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates(Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the plates, 30/32, are interchangeable with a different set of plates that include different injectors), the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting the one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the different plates hold a different set/pattern of injectors); and detecting acoustic data from within the combustion volume (Column 4, Lines 28-65 – the sensor, 51, detects the pressure in the combustion volume, 18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Penza by including a injector plate and combustion chamber sensor, as taught by Ellis, resulting in the method including the steps of injecting into a combustion chamber one or more propellants from one or more means for injecting the one or more propellants structurally held by a injector plate to cause combustion, the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates configured to be removably attached to the combustion chamber for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates, the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting the one or more propellants; and detecting data from within the combustion volume as the combustion volume is varied in order to allow for detection of the combustion chamber instability (Ellis – Column 4, Lines 63-65) and allow for repeated tests that test a large number of injector plates with different patterns of injectors to evaluate the most desirable performance (Ellis – Column 9, Lines 14-25).
Regarding Claim 22, Penza in view of Ellis discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Penza further discloses continuously varying the combustion volume comprises continuously moving an external telescoping throat (Figure 2 – the structure, 12, 20, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35 and 36, include concentric tubular structures that slide within each other with a portion of the throat assembly being external to the chamber; according to Merriam-Webster.com “telescoping” is defined as “to slide or pass one within another like the cylindrical sections of a collapsible hand telescope”, thus since the structures slide within each other with a portion being external to the chamber, the throat structure is an external telescoping throat) positioned at a downstream end of the combustion chamber (Column 1, Lines 38-40 and 47-53– the throat is provided at the downstream end of the chamber to control the thrust direction by controlling the exhaust; Figure 2 – the plug, 20, of the throat is shown to be continuously moveable in the axial direction; therefore the changing of the location of the upstream/leftmost end of the plug of the throat by the axial movement of the plug changes the combustion volume of the chamber).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24, Penza in view of Ellis discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Penza further discloses continuously varying the combustion volume comprises continuously moving an internal telescoping throat (Figure 2 – the structure, 12, 20, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35 and 36, include concentric tubular structures that slide within each other with a portion, 20, of the throat assembly being internal to the chamber; according to Merriam-Webster.com “telescoping” is defined as “to slide or pass one within another like the cylindrical sections of a collapsible hand telescope”, thus since the structures slide within each other with a portion being internal to the chamber, the throat structure is an internal telescoping throat) through the combustion chamber (Figure 2 – the plug, 20, of the throat is shown to be continuously moveable in the axial direction through the combustion chamber; therefore the changing of the location of the upstream/leftmost end of the plug of the throat by the axial movement of the plug changes the combustion volume of the chamber).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 25, Penza in view of Ellis discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Penza in view of Ellis as discussed so far, do not disclose replacing the modular injector plate with the different injector plate supporting the one or more different means for injecting the one or more propellants.
However, Ellis further teaches replacing the modular injector plate with the different injector plate supporting the one or more different means for injecting the one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 and Column 9, Lines 14-25 – multiple modular injector plates/ means for injecting the one or more propellants are tested and therefore one modular injector plate is replaced with a different modular injector plate with different injectors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Penza in view of Ellis by including replacing the modular injector plate with the different injector plate supporting the one or more different means for injecting the one or more propellants, as taught by Ellis, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 25.
Regarding Independent Claim 33, Penza discloses a subscale rocket injector stability test system (Figures 1 and 2 – Further it is noted that “subscale” and “injector stability test” are considered Intended use of the system – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) comprising:
a chamber (the volume in the inner wall is the chamber – See annotated figure below for clarification);
a telescoping throat (Figure 2 – the structure, 12, 20, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35 and 36, include concentric tubular structures that slide within each other; according to Merriam-Webster.com “telescoping” is defined as “to slide or pass one within another like the cylindrical sections of a collapsible hand telescope”, thus since the structures slide within each other than the throat structure is a telescoping throat) positioned at a downstream end of the chamber (Column 1, Lines 38-40 and 47-53– the throat is provided at the downstream end of the chamber to control the thrust direction by controlling the exhaust); and
a first actuator (Figure 1 – the top motor, 34, is a first actuator) configured to continuously move the telescoping throat in an axially direction (Figures 1 and 2 - Column 2, Lines 31-45 – the motor/first actuator, 34, is used to move the plug, 20, of the telescoping throat in the axial direction) to continuously vary a combustion volume of the chamber (Figure 2 – the volume of the chamber to the left/upstream of the leftmost/upstream end of the plug, 20, of the throat is the combustion volume of the chamber) located between the upstream end of the chamber and an upstream end of the telescoping throat (Figure 2 – the plug, 20, of the throat is shown to be continuously moveable in the axial direction; therefore the changing of the location of the upstream/leftmost end of the plug of the throat by the axial movement of the plug changes the combustion volume of the chamber).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Penza does not disclose an injector plate removably attached to an upstream end of the chamber, wherein the injector plate structurally holding one or more means for injecting one or more propellants into the chamber, the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates configured to be removably attached to the chamber for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates, the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting one or more propellants.
However, Ellis teaches an injector assembly for a rocket engine (Figures 1, 2 and 5, Element 16) that includes an injector plate, 30/32, that is removably positioned at an upstream end of a chamber (Figures 1 and 5 – Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the injector plate, 30/32, is removably attached to the injector assembly which is located at the left/upstream end of the chamber, 18), wherein the injector plate structural holds one or more means for injecting one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the orifices are injectors that are structurally defined/held in the injector plates, 30/32) configured to inject one or more propellants into the chamber (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the injectors inject propellants into the chamber, 18), the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates configured to be removably attached to the chamber (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the plates, 30/32, are interchangeable with a different set of plates that include different injectors), for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the plates, 30/32, are interchangeable with a different set of plates that include different injectors), the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the different plates hold a different set/pattern of injectors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Penza by including the injector assembly with an injector plate, as taught by Ellis, resulting in an injector plate removably attached to an upstream end of the chamber, wherein the injector plate structurally holding one or more means for injecting one or more propellants into the chamber, the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates configured to be removably attached to the chamber for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates, the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting one or more propellants in order to allow for repeated tests that test a large number of injector plates with different patterns of injectors to evaluate the most desirable performance (Ellis – Column 9, Lines 14-25).
Regarding Claim 34, Penza in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Penza further discloses the telescoping throat is positioned within the chamber (Figure 2 – the plug, 20, of the telescoping throat is located within the chamber).
Regarding Claim 35, Penza in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Penza further discloses a sidewall, 12, of the telescoping throat is positioned external to the chamber (Figure 2 – the sidewall, 12, of the telescoping throat system is located outside the chamber).
Regarding Claim 36, Penza in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Penza further discloses a second actuator (Figure 1 – the left motor, 34, is a second actuator) configured to axially move the telescoping throat (Figures 1 and 2 - Column 2, Lines 31-45 – the motor/second actuator, 34, is used to move the plug, 20, of the telescoping throat in the axial direction), wherein the first actuator and the second actuator move the telescoping throat simultaneously (Figures 1 and 2 - Column 2, Lines 31-45 – the motors, 34, are used simultaneously to move the plug, 20, of the telescoping throat in the axial direction as shown in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 38, Penza in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Penza further discloses the telescoping throat defines a converging-diverging nozzle shape (Column 2, Lines 22-30 – the telescoping throat defines a converging-diverging nozzle shape).
Regarding Claim 39, Penza in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Penza further discloses in a downstream direction, the telescoping throat has a first inner diameter (the passage, 24, has an inner diameter with a first diameter at the leftmost end of the passage) that decreases to a second inner diameter (the inner diameter decreases to a minimum/second inner diameter as the passage moves in the downstream direction from the 1st diameter) and the second inner diameter increases to a third inner diameter (the inner diameter increases as the passage moves in a downstream direction from the second diameter to the rightmost/downstream end of the plug with the 3rd diameter).
Regarding Claim 40, Penza in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Penza in view of Ellis, as discussed so far, do not disclose a sensor configured to detect a pressure within the combustion volume.
However, Ellis teaches a sensor, 51, configured to detect a pressure within the combustion volume (Column 4, Lines 28-65 – the sensor, 51, detects the pressure in the combustion volume, 18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Penza in view of Ellis by including a sensor configured to detect a pressure within the combustion volume, as taught by Ellis, in order to allow for detection of the combustion chamber instability (Ellis – Column 4, Lines 63-65).
Claim(s) 27-28 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppel (U.S. Patent No. 5,941,062), hereinafter Koppel, in view of Ellis.
Regarding Independent Claim 27, Koppel discloses a system for subscale testing of rocket injector stability (Figure 3a – Further it is noted that “subscale” and “injector stability test” are considered Intended use of the system – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), the system comprising:
a chamber, 72, having a sidewall, 76, extending axially (the sidewall, 76, extends left to right/axially, as seen in the figure);
a throat (the narrowest cross-section between the chamber, 72, and the nozzle, 62, is the throat) at a downstream end of the chamber (the throat is located at the right/downstream end of the chamber, 72);
an injector assembly, 66, positioned at an upstream end of the chamber (the assembly, 66, is located at the left/upstream end of the chamber, 72), wherein the assembly is continuously moveable through the chamber between the sidewall in an axial direction to continuously vary a combustion volume of the chamber located between the injector plate and the throat (Column 6, Line 49 – Column 7, Line 1 – the injector assembly, 66, slides between the sidewall, 76, continuously such that it changes the volume of the chamber, 72, between the assembly and the throat).
Koppel does not disclose an injector plate removably positioned at an upstream end of the chamber, wherein the injector plate comprises one or more injectors configured to inject one or more propellants into the chamber, wherein the injector plate is continuously moveable through the chamber between the sidewall in an axial direction to continuously vary a combustion volume of the chamber located between the injector plate and the throat.
However, Ellis teaches an injector assembly for a rocket engine (Figures 1, 2 and 5, Element 16) that includes an injector plate, 30/32, that is removably positioned at an upstream end of a chamber (Figures 1 and 5 – Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the injector plate, 30/32, is removably attached to the injector assembly which is located at the left/upstream end of the chamber, 18), wherein the injector plate comprises one or more injectors (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the orifices are injectors that are structurally defined/held in the injector plates, 30/32) configured to inject one or more propellants into the chamber (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the injectors inject propellants into the chamber, 18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Koppel by making the injector assembly include an injector plate, as taught by Ellis, resulting in the injector plate being removably positioned at an upstream end of the chamber, wherein the injector plate comprises one or more injectors configured to inject one or more propellants into the chamber, wherein the injector plate is continuously moveable through the chamber between the sidewall in an axial direction to continuously vary a combustion volume of the chamber located between the injector plate and the throat in order to allow for repeated tests that test a large number of injector plates with different patterns of injectors to evaluate the most desirable performance (Ellis – Column 9, Lines 14-25).
Regarding Claim 28, Koppel in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Koppel further discloses a positioning of the throat remains fixed (Figure 3a – the throat is a stationary structure that is connected to the sidewall and therefore fixed).
Regarding Claim 30, Koppel in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Koppel further discloses the throat has an inner diameter that decreases from a first inner diameter to a second inner diameter in an upstream direction (Figure 3a – the inner diameter of the throat decreases from the right/downstream most end/1st Diameter to the narrowest cross-section/2nd Diameter located upstream from the downstream end of the throat – See annotated figure below for clarification) and increases from the second inner diameter to a third inner diameter in the upstream direction (Figure 3a – the diameter of the throat increases as the throat moves from the narrowest cross-section/2nd Diameter to the upstream end of the throat/3rd Diameter – See annotated figure below for clarification).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 31, Koppel in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Koppel in view of Ellis, as discussed so far, do not disclose a sensor configured to detect a pressure within the combustion volume.
However, Ellis teaches a sensor, 51, configured to detect a pressure within the combustion volume (Column 4, Lines 28-65 – the sensor, 51, detects the pressure in the combustion volume, 18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Koppel in view of Ellis by including a sensor configured to detect a pressure within the combustion volume, as taught by Ellis, in order to allow for detection of the combustion chamber instability (Ellis – Column 4, Lines 63-65).
Regarding Claim 32, Koppel in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Koppel further discloses the throat defines a converging-diverging nozzle shape (Figure 3a -the throat has a converging portion to the narrowest cross-section of the throat followed by a diverging portion downstream of the narrowest cross-section; therefore the throat defines a converging-diverging nozzle shape).
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppel in view of Ellis as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Chevalaz (U.S. Patent No. 3,462,950), hereinafter Chevalaz.
Regarding Claim 29, Koppel in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Koppel in view of Ellis do not disclose an actuator configured to axially move the injector plate.
However, Chevalaz teaches a system for a rocket engine (Figure 1) with an injector assembly, 33, 39 and 40, that is removably positioned at an upstream end of a chamber (Figure 1 – Column 3, Lines 22-26 - the assembly that is fastened to the head/upstream end of the chamber, 11 and 28) with an injector plate, 33, and an actuator, 27, configured to axially move the injector assembly and plate (Column 5, Lines 9-21 – the actuator, 27, moves injector assembly and plate in the axial direction).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Koppel in view of Ellis to include an actuator configured to axially move the injector plate, as taught by Chevalaz, in order to allow for precision control of the propellant even in the most difficult throttling regimes (Chevalaz – Column 2, Lines 11-14).
Claim(s) 21, 23, 26, 33 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickerson (U.S. Patent No. 3,150,485), hereinafter Hickerson in view of Ellis.
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Hickerson discloses a method of subscale testing rocket injector stability (Figures 1), the method comprising:
injecting into a combustion chamber, 12 and 24, one or more propellants from an injector assembly (Column 2, Lines 34-67 – the injector assembly, 40, injects propellants into the combustion chamber, 12 and 24)
continuously varying a combustion volume (the volume of the chamber, 12 and 24, is the combustion volume) within the combustion chamber (Figure 1 – Column 4, Lines 3-13 -the volume of the chamber, 24, which is part of the combustion volume is continuously varied as the engine is throttled).
Hickerson does not disclose injecting into a combustion chamber one or more propellants from one or more means for injecting the one or more propellants structurally held by an injector plate to cause combustion, the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates configured to be removably attached to the combustion chamber for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates, the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting the one or more propellants; and detecting acoustic data from within the combustion volume as the combustion volume is varied.
However, Ellis teaches an injector assembly for a rocket engine (Figures 1, 2 and 5, Element 16) that operates by injecting into a combustion chamber, 18, one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the injectors inject propellants into the chamber, 18) from one or more means for injecting the one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the orifices are injectors/means for injecting propellants that are structurally defined/held in the injector plates, 30/32), structurally held by an injector plate, 30/32, to cause combustion (Column 4, Lines 28-29 – a combustion process occurs), the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the plates, 30/32, are interchangeable with a different set of plates that include different injectors) configured to be removably attached to the combustion chamber for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the plates, 30/32, are interchangeable with a different set of plates that include different injectors), the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting the one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the different plates hold a different set/pattern of injectors); and detecting acoustic data from within the combustion volume (Column 4, Lines 28-65 – the sensor, 51, detects the pressure in the combustion volume, 18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hickerson by including a modular injector plate and combustion chamber sensor, as taught by Ellis, resulting in the method including the steps of injecting into a combustion chamber one or more propellants from one or more means for injecting the one or more propellants structurally held by an injector plate to cause combustion, the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates configured to be removably attached to the combustion chamber for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates, the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting the one or more propellants; and detecting acoustic data from within the combustion volume as the combustion volume is varied in order to allow for detection of the combustion chamber instability (Ellis – Column 4, Lines 63-65) and allow for repeated tests that test a large number of injector plates with different patterns of injectors to evaluate the most desirable performance (Ellis – Column 9, Lines 14-25).
Regarding Claim 23, Hickerson in view of Ellis discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hickerson further discloses continuously varying the combustion volume comprises continuously moving the injector assembly (Figure 1 – Column 4, Lines 3-13 -the volume of the chamber, 24, which is part of the combustion volume is continuously varied as the engine is throttled by moving the injector assembly).
Thus the combination of Hickerson and Ellis, as discussed above, would result in the modular injector plate being a part of the injector assembly and thus would result in continuously varying the combustion volume comprises continuously moving the injector plate.
Regarding Claim 26, Hickerson in view of Ellis discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hickerson further discloses continuously moving the injector assembly through volume defined by a sidewall of the combustion chamber in an axial direction (Figure 1 – Column 4, Lines 3-13 -the volume of the chamber, 24, which is part of the combustion volume is continuously varied as the engine is throttled by moving the injector assembly axially through a volume defined by the side wall, 26, of the chamber).
Thus the combination of Hickerson and Ellis, as discussed above, would result in the modular injector plate being a part of the injector assembly and thus would result in continuously varying the combustion volume comprises continuously moving the injector plate through volume defined by a sidewall of the combustion chamber in an axial direction and the limitations of Claim 26.
Regarding Independent Claim 33, Hickerson discloses a subscale rocket injector stability test system (Figure 1 – Further it is noted that “subscale” and “injector stability test” are considered Intended use of the system – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) comprising:
a chamber, 12 and 24;
an injector assembly, 40,
a telescoping throat, 14, 34, 38, 42, 48 and 50, positioned at a downstream end of the chamber (Figure 1 – the throat is provided at the downstream end of the chamber to control the thrust by controlling the exhaust); and
a first actuator configured to continuously move the telescoping throat in an axial direction (Column 3, Lines 13-18 – the pressurized fluid source is an actuator that provides the force to move the piston which in turn moves the telescoping through in an axial direction) to continuously vary a combustion volume of the chamber (Figure 1 – the volume of the chamber to the left/upstream of the leftmost/upstream end of the throat is the combustion volume of the chamber which is varied by the movement of the piston/rod and throat) located between the upstream end of the chamber and an upstream end of the telescoping throat (Figure 2 – the plug, 20, of the throat is shown to be continuously moveable in the axial direction; therefore the changing of the location of the upstream/leftmost end of the plug of the throat by the axial movement of the plug changes the combustion volume of the chamber).
However, Ellis teaches an injector assembly for a rocket engine (Figures 1, 2 and 5, Element 16) that includes an injector plate, 30/32, that is removably positioned at an upstream end of a chamber (Figures 1 and 5 – Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the injector plate, 30/32, is removably attached to the injector assembly which is located at the left/upstream end of the chamber, 18), wherein the injector plate structural holds one or more means for injecting one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the orifices are injectors/ means for injecting one or more propellants that are structurally defined/held in the injector plates, 30/32) into the chamber (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the injectors inject propellants into the chamber, 18), the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates configured to be removably attached to the chamber (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the plates, 30/32, are interchangeable with a different set of plates that include different injectors), for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the plates, 30/32, are interchangeable with a different set of plates that include different injectors), the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting one or more propellants (Column 3, Lines 32-58 – the different plates hold a different set/pattern of injectors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Hickerson by making the injector assembly include an injector plate, as taught by Ellis, resulting in an injector plate removably attached to an upstream end of the chamber, wherein the injector plate structural holding one or more means for injecting one or more propellants into the chamber, the injector plate being one of a plurality of different injector plates configured to be removably attached to the chamber for interchanging the injector plate with a different injector plate of the plurality of different injector plates, the different injector plate structurally holding one or more different means for injecting one or more propellants in order to allow for repeated tests that test a large number of injector plates with different patterns of injectors to evaluate the most desirable performance (Ellis – Column 9, Lines 14-25).
Regarding Claim 37, Hickerson in view of Ellis disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hickerson further discloses the telescoping throat further comprises a cooling channel, 50.
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 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 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 f
Prosecution Insights