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 1-20 are pending in this application.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hummelt (U.S. Patent No. 10,910,198), hereinafter Hummelt.
Regarding Independent Claim 2, Hummelt discloses a solar thermal rocket engine (Figure 1 – Column 10, Line 60- Column 11, Line 5), comprising:
a combustion chamber (Column 10, Line 60- Column 11, Line 5 – the engine has a cavity/combustion chamber);
one or more propellant channels configured to provide propellant to the combustion chamber (Column 10, Line 60- Column 11, Line 5 – the channels through the thermal target are propellant channels that provide the propellant to the chamber); and
one or more electric heating elements (Column 10, Line 60- Column 11, Line 5 – the chamber has an electrical heater/heating elements) configured to adjust a temperature of the combustion chamber to an operating temperature (This limitation is a functional limitation - 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) – Further Column 10, Line 60- Column 11, Line 5 describes that the electrical heater heats the chamber and thus would be capable of performing the functional limitation).
Regarding Claim 12, Hummelt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the one or more electric heating elements are further configured to heat the combustion chamber to the operating temperature before the one or more propellant channels provide the propellant to the combustion chamber” is a functional limitation. 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) – Thus since the structure of Hummelt is capable of heating the chamber it would be capable of perform the claimed limitation. Thus Hummelt would result in the limitations of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, Hummelt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the one or more electric heating elements are further configured to heat the combustion chamber to the operating temperature in the absence of propellant flowing through the one or more propellant channels” is a functional limitation. 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) – Thus since the structure of Hummelt is capable of heating the chamber it would be capable of perform the claimed limitation. Thus Hummelt would result in the limitations of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, Hummelt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the one or more electric heating elements are further configured to heat the combustion chamber to the operating temperature in the absence of concentrated light” is a functional limitation. 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) – Thus since the structure of Hummelt is capable of heating the chamber it would be capable of perform the claimed limitation. Thus Hummelt would result in the limitations of Claim 14.
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) 1, 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malloy (U.S. Patent No. 5,459,996), hereinafter Malloy in view of Foulds (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2018/0265224), hereinafter Foulds.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Malloy discloses a solar thermal rocket (Figures 1 and 2), comprising:
a solar thermal thruster body,30;
one or more mirrored collectors, 50, configured to concentrate solar energy into an energy beam (Column 3, Lines 29-43 – the reflective/mirrored collectors, 50, concentrate solar energy into a beam); and
an optical aperture, 36.
DeMars does not disclose the optical aperture is configured to modulate an amount of the energy beam allowed to pass into the solar thermal thruster body.
However, Foulds teaches a solar thermal propulsion system (Figure 1) with an optical inlet, 103, that is configured to modulate an amount of an energy beam allowed to pass into a solar thermal thruster (Paragraph 0019 – the optical inlet is able to distribute/control/modulate the energy beam to different systems including the solar thermal propulsion system, 107, and including away from the system).
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 Malloy by making the optical aperture, which is an optical inlet, configured to modulate an amount of the energy beam allowed to pass into the solar thermal thruster body, as taught by Foulds, in order to allow for a system that uses the energy efficiently (Foulds – Paragraph 0009).
Regarding Claim 3, Malloy in view of Foulds disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the optical aperture is further configured to gradually increase the amount of energy beam allowed to pass into the solar thermal thruster body during a startup operation of the solar thermal rocket” is a functional limitation. 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) – Thus since the optical aperture of Malloy in view of Foulds is capable of modulating/changing the amount of energy beam allowed into the solar thermal thruster body it would be capable of perform the claimed limitation. Thus the combination of Malloy in view of Foulds would result in the limitations of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Malloy in view of Foulds disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the optical aperture is further configured to change the amount of energy beam allowed to pass into the solar thermal thruster body in response to the solar thermal rocket changing a type of propellant used during operation” is a functional limitation. 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) – Further Malloy discloses the solar thermal rocket uses at least two propellants and is capable of switch which propellant is used (Column 4, Lines 59-67). Thus since the optical aperture of Malloy in view of Foulds is capable of modulating/changing the amount of energy beam allowed into the solar thermal thruster body it would be capable of perform the claimed limitation. Thus the combination of Malloy in view of Foulds would result in the limitations of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Malloy in view of Foulds disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the change in the amount of energy beam allowed to pass into the solar thermal thruster body is further configured to compensate for changes in energy input to the solar thermal rocket resulting from the type of propellant used during operation” is a functional limitation. 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) – Further Malloy discloses the solar thermal rocket uses at least two propellants and is capable of switch which propellant is used (Column 4, Lines 59-67). Thus since the optical aperture of Malloy in view of Foulds is capable of modulating/changing the amount of energy beam allowed into the solar thermal thruster body it would be capable of perform the claimed limitation. Thus the combination of Malloy in view of Foulds would result in the limitations of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, Malloy in view of Foulds disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the solar thermal rocket is further configured to change the type of propellant used during operation without shutting down and restarting the solar thermal rocket” is a functional limitation. 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) – Further Malloy discloses the solar thermal rocket uses at least two propellants and is capable of switch which propellant is used (Column 4, Lines 59-67). Thus the structure of Malloy in view of Foulds would be capable of performing the claimed limitation. Thus the combination of Malloy in view of Foulds would result in the limitations of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 9, Malloy in view of Foulds disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the optical aperture is further configured to change the amount of energy beam allowed to pass into the solar thermal thruster body to compensate for changes in energy input to the solar thermal rocket” is a functional limitation. 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) – Thus since the optical aperture of Malloy in view of Foulds is capable of modulating/changing the amount of energy beam allowed into the solar thermal thruster body it would be capable of perform the claimed limitation. Thus the combination of Malloy in view of Foulds would result in the limitations of Claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malloy in view of Foulds as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Selcuk (U.S. Patent No. 4,449,514), hereinafter Selcuk.
Regarding Claim 10, Malloy in view of Foulds disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Malloy in view of Foulds do not disclose a shutter system including a protective hinge and cover plate, the cover plate configured to interrupt formation of the energy beam when the cover plate is in a first position.
However, Selcuk teaches a solar concentrator (Title) with a shutter system (Figures 2 and 3) including a protective hinge and cover plate (the plates, 34, 35, 36, and 37, connected to the body by a hinge, as seen in Figure 3, make up a shutter system) the cover plate configured to interrupt formation of the energy beam when the cover plate is in a first position (Figures 2 and 3 – the plates of the shutter system interrupt the formation of the energy beam in the collector when in the closed/first position).
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 Malloy in view of Foulds by including a shutter system including a protective hinge and cover plate, the cover plate configured to interrupt formation of the energy beam when the cover plate is in a first position, as taught by Selcuk, in order to protect the concentrator/receiver in the event of a failure (Selcuk – Column 1, Lines 21-29).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummelt in view of Anflo (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2018/0298846), hereinafter Anflo.
Regarding Claim 15, Hummelt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hummelt does not disclose the one or more electric heating elements are further configured to heat the propellant within the one or more propellant channels.
However, Anflo teaches a propulsion system (Figure 3) with one or more propellant channels (Paragraphs 0007 and 0008 – the heat bed, 160A, is a bed with a plurality of paths/channels for the propellant to flow into the chamber, 205, and one or more electric heating elements, 170, that are configured to heat the propellant within the one or more propellant channels (Paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0011, 0015 – the propellant in the channels of the heat bed is heated by the electric heating element).
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 Hummelt by making the one or more electric heating elements include a heating element to heat the propellant in the one or more propellant channels thereby making the one or more electric heating element being further configured to heat the propellant within the one or more propellant channels, as taught by Anflo, in order to suppress undesirable cooling of the chamber thus improving performance and life of the thruster (Anflo – Paragraph 0006).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummelt in view of Friedberger (U.S. Patent No. 8,407,980), hereinafter Friedberger.
Regarding Claim 16, Hummelt discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Hummelt does not disclose one or more temperature sensors configured to measure the temperature of the combustion chamber; and a control logic system configured to control the one or more electric heating elements to heat the combustion chamber to the operating temperature based on the measured temperature of the combustion chamber.
However, Friedberger teaches a propulsion system (Figure 1) with an electric heater (Column 2, Lines 16-29) and one or more temperature sensors configured to measure the temperature of the combustion chamber (Column 4, Lines 20-27 – a temperature sensor as well as resistance sensors are provided to measure the temperature of the combustion chamber); and a control logic system (Column 3, Lines 23-32 – the heaters are controlled and thus there is a control logic system) configured to control the one or more electric heating elements to heat the combustion chamber to the operating temperature based on the measured temperature of the combustion chamber (Column 4, Lines 20-27 – the heaters are controlled with offset correction based on the measured temperature of the combustion chamber by the sensor).
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 Hummelt by including one or more temperature sensors configured to measure the temperature of the combustion chamber; and a control logic system configured to control the one or more electric heating elements to heat the combustion chamber to the operating temperature based on the measured temperature of the combustion chamber, as taught by Friedberger, in order to provide an improvement to the performance (Friedberger – Column 8, Lines 11-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 11 and 17-20 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitations “wherein the optical aperture is further configured to adjust a diameter of the optical aperture” along with the remaining limitations of Claim 7 are not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record.
The limitations “wherein the optical aperture is further configured to adjust a diameter of the optical aperture” along with the remaining limitations of Claim 8 are not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record.
The limitations “a camera configured to detect a position of a glow spot formed on the cover plate when the cover plate is in the first position.” along with the remaining limitations of Claim 11 are not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record.
The limitations “wherein the control logic system is further configured to transition from heating the combustion chamber using the one or more electric heating elements to heating the combustion chamber using the energy beam in response to the combustion chamber reaching the operating temperature.” along with the remaining limitations of Claim 17 are not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record.
The limitations “the control logic system is further configured to: provide a gaseous propellant to the combustion chamber via the one or more propellant channels; introduce a liquid propellant to the combustion chamber via the one or more propellant channels; and gradually reduce a gas-to-liquid propellant ratio provided to the combustion chamber via the one or more propellant channels to ensure that the combustion chamber is maintained in an instantaneous steady state.” along with the remaining limitations of Claim 18 are not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record.
Claims 19-20 depends from Claim 18 and necessarily include the allowable subject matter discussed above and therefore are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DeMars (U.S. Patent No. 6,290,185) discloses a solar thermal rocket (Figures 1 and 2), comprising: a solar thermal thruster body, 20, 24 and 32; one or more mirrored collectors, 16, configured to concentrate solar energy into an energy beam (Column 3, Lines 59-67 – the reflective/mirrored collectors, 16, concentrate solar energy into a beam); and an optical aperture, 22.
Miller (U.S. Patent No. 6,412,274) shows a solar thermal rocket with mirrored collectors and an optical aperture.
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
