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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/05/2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 22-23, 27, and 29-36 are 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 1 introduces “an exhaust module having a plurality of exhausts” in line 10, despite previously introducing “an exhaust” in line 7. This is indefinite because it is unclear if the “plurality of exhausts” are meant to reference “an exhaust” of line 7, or intends to introduce an additional plurality of exhausts (for a total of at least 3, exhausts, for example). As best understood from Figs. 5A-5D, the invention only has two exhausts (40 and 50, Fig. 5A). Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-8, 22-23, 27, and 29-36 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “a square cross-sectional shape that receives the vector thrust mechanism”. This is indefinite because it is unclear how the square shape receives the vector thrust mechanism. For example, is there a square component of the exhaust module duct that fixes the ventral flap to the exhaust duct module, or does the space within 51 that surrounds the ventral flap have a square cross-sectional shape? Appropriate clarification or correction is required. Claims 2-8, 22-23, 27, and 29-36 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “a circular cross-sectional shape that receives the exhaust module”. This is indefinite because the exhaust module have a plurality of exhausts (40 and 50, Fig. 5A). How does a circular cross-sectional shape receive both of the plurality of exhausts? It appears that the exhausts are received by a plurality of circular cross-section shapes, for example. Appropriate clarification or correction is required. Claims 2-8, 22-23, 27, and 29-36 fail to cure the deficiency.
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.
Claims 1-7, 23, 27, 29-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludwig et al. (US 3155342 A), hereafter Ludwig, in view of Souslin et al. (US 3863867 A), hereafter Souslin, in view of Horinouchi et al. (US 4587804 A), hereafter Horinouchi.
Regarding Claim 1, Ludwig discloses a device for propulsion in a vehicle, comprising:
an inlet for allowing a fluid (inlet of 18, Fig. 3);
a power module provided to accelerate the fluid (engine 18, Fig. 6);
a vector thrust mechanism (25, Fig. 6) fluidly connected to the power module (Fig. 6 and Col. 4, lines 43-58) having a ventral flap (24, Fig. 6) for redirecting the accelerated fluid to a predetermined angle (“controlling the direction of gases permitting downward flow…and rearward flow”, see Col. 4, lines 43-58);
an exhaust (19 and 20, Fig. 6) provided along a predetermined direction (19 permits rearward flow, 20 permits downward flow, see Fig. 6 and Col. 4, lines 43-58) and fluidly connected to the vector thrust mechanism (19 and 20 are fluidly connected to 23, Fig. 6),
wherein the ventral flap directs a thrust through the exhaust in the predetermined direction to maneuver the vehicle (Col. 4, lines 43-58);
an exhaust module having a plurality of exhausts (19 and 20, Fig. 6) fluidly connected to the power module via the thrust mechanism (Fig. 6) that directs the thrust through the corresponding exhaust associated with the predetermined direction (19 permits rearward flow, 20 permits downward flow, see Fig. 6 and Col. 4, lines 43-58); and
an exhaust module duct (duct housing of Fig. 6, for example the duct defined by space 37, from 18 to 37a, 37b) that houses the vector thrust mechanism and the exhaust module and is fluidly connected to the power module (Fig. 6), wherein the exhaust module duct has a circular cross-sectional shape that receives the power module (Figs. 6-7, examiner notes a circular cross-section of the duct that connects to engine 18), and a circular cross-sectional shape that receives the exhaust module (tubular extension 37a, 37b, Fig. 6).
Ludwig is silent about turning vanes downstream of the ventral flap.
Souslin teaches turning vanes (62, Fig. 5) downstream of a similar flap (70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Ludwig with the turning vanes as taught by Souslin, with a reasonable expectation of success, whereby Souslin’s turning vanes are downstream of Ludwig’s ventral flap. Both references are from the same field of endeavor of thrust vectoring. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ludwig with Souslin because this would have achieved the desirable result of assisting in directing the flow in the downward direction (Souslin, Col. 6, lines 11-13).
Modified Ludwig is silent about a square cross-sectional shape that receives the vector thrust mechanism.
Horinouchi teaches a similar exhaust module duct (12) with a cross-sectional shape of a rectangle (Col. 2, line 67 – Col. 3, line 3).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the shape that receives the vector thrust mechanism with a square cross-sectional shape as taught by Horinouchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the benefit of increased efficiency (see Horinouchi, Col. 4, lines 14-38). Additionally, Applicant has not provided a showing of criticality of the claimed shapes, and there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an exhaust module (Ludwig, 21 and 22, Fig. 6) fluidly connected to the vector thrust mechanism for letting out the fluid (Ludwig, 37a and 37b are fluidly connected to 21, for example, Fig. 6),
wherein the exhaust module includes a plurality of exhausts (Ludwig, 21 and 22, Fig. 6) provided in a plurality of directions for generating the thrust in the predetermined direction (Ludwig, 21 is horizontal, 22 is vertical, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the vector thrust mechanism provides vertical takeoff and landing capability, including and short takeoff and landing capability to the vehicle (Ludwig, “vertical thrust for aiding in upward flight”, Col. 4, lines 37-42).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ventral flap rotates for opening and closing the exhaust of the device for generating the thrust in the direction of the open exhaust (Ludwig, Fig 6, positions of 24 and Col. 4, lines 46-51).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 4, wherein a geometry of the ventral flap reduces loss of thrust and turbulence of the fluid (Ludwig, Col. 4, lines 46-58 and Col. 5, lines 61-64, examiner notes Ludwig’s flap is clearly capable of this function by controlling the direction of flow);-and
prevents leakage of the fluid to the closed exhaust (Ludwig, Col. 4, lines 46-58 and Col. 5, lines 61-64).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 4,
wherein the ventral flap is adapted to a geometry of the vehicle (Ludwig, 24 is adapted to fit in 37, for example, Fig. 6) and contributes to lift production of a wing of the vehicle (Ludwig, Col. 4, lines 46-58).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1 further comprising a case that houses the power module, the vector thrust mechanism and the exhaust module duct (Ludwig, outer casing of 18, and 37a and 37b, Fig. 6);
Modified Ludwig is silent about wherein the case facilitates attachment and detachment of the device to the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the case facilitating attachment and detachment of the device to the vehicle, for maintenance access, for example, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the device is provided in the vehicle by one of being externally attached to the vehicle (Fig. 2, 18, 20 and 21 are externally attached to the vehicle), being attached to a wing of the vehicle, being embedded into the vehicle, being embedded into the wing of the vehicle, being semi-embedded into the vehicle, and or being semi-embedded into the wing of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 29, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, except wherein the device is removably attached to the vehicle; and wherein the power module and the vector thrust mechanism are removably attached to the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention wherein the device removably attached to the vehicle; and the power source and the vector thrust mechanism removably attached to the device, for maintenance access, for example, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding Claim 30, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the power module is fluidly connected to a power source selected from one of a ducted fan, a centrifugal fan, anaxial fan or a jet engine (Ludwig, “gas turbines”, see Col. 2, line 36).
Regarding Claim 31, modified Ludwig teaches he device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device is combined with a propulsion system (Ludwig, 13 and 14, Fig. 2) provided in the vehicle for generating additional thrust (Ludwig, Col. 5, lines 24-35).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 2,
wherein an exhaust module duct is provided for housing the vector thrust mechanism and the exhaust module (Ludwig, 37a and 37b, Fig. 6);-and
wherein a cross- sectional shape of the exhaust module duct
Regarding Claim 33, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the predetermined direction includes vertical and horizontal directions for generating thrust in a vertical direction and a horizontal direction (Ludwig, Col. 4, lines 37-42).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the exhaust includes:
a vertical exhaust (Ludwig, 20, Fig. 6) that guides the fluid in a vertical direction to generate vertical thrust (Ludwig, Col. 4, lines 37-42); and
a horizontal exhaust (Ludwig, 19, Fig. 6) that guides the fluid in a horizontal direction to generate horizontal thrust (Ludwig, Col. 4, lines 37-42).
Regarding Claim 36, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the predetermined angle ranges from 0 degrees to 360 degrees (Fig. 6, examiner notes Ludwig teaches angles of approximately 90 and 180 degrees, which are within the required range).
Claims 8 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ludwig In view of Stutterfield et al. (US 6382559 B1), hereafter Stutterfield.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the ventral flap rotates (positions of 24, Fig. 6).
Modified Ludwig is silent about wherein the ventral flap rotates about a shaft and is connected to a rotating mechanism including one of a servo motor, an actuator or an electric motor.
Stutterfield teaches similar a similar flap (40a, for example, Fig. 2 rotates about a shaft (42a, Fig. 2) and is connected to a rotating mechanism including one of a servo motor, an actuator (actuator 80a) or an electric motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ventral flap of modified Ludwig with a shaft of and actuator as taught by Stutterfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to employ a control mechanism to rotate the ventral flap.
Regarding Claim 35, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the vector thrust mechanism is movable relative to the device for redirecting the fluid (Ludwig, 23 is movable, Fig 6 and Col. 4, lines 46-58).
Modified Ludwig is silent about wherein the vector thrust mechanism is connected to a mechanism for automating the movement;
wherein the mechanism is selected from one of a servo motor, an electric motor, a non-electric motor, an actuator and a mechanical linkage.
Stutterfield teaches similar a similar vector thrust mechanism is connected to a mechanism for automating the movement (actuator 80), wherein the mechanism is an actuator (actuator 80a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ventral flap of modified Ludwig with an actuator for automating the movement as taught by Stutterfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to employ a control mechanism to rotate the ventral flap.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ludwig in view of Stutterfield et al. (US 6382559 B1), hereafter Stutterfield, and Sammy (US 20090242690 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Ludwig teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ventral flap includes a curved surface (Ludwig, 24 has a curved surface, Fig.6) for opening and closing the exhaust and redirecting the fluid (Ludwig, Col. 4, lines 46-58 and Col. 5, lines 61-64);
wherein the curved surface redirects the fluid to the predetermined direction with reduced turbulence (Ludwig, Col. 4, lines 46-58 and Col. 5, lines 61-64).
Modified Ludwig is silent about the ventral flap being is mechanically coupled to a shaft for opening and closing.
Stutterfield teaches similar a similar flap is mechanically coupled to a shaft for rotation (40a, for example, Fig. 2 rotates about a shaft (42a, Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ventral flap of modified Ludwig with a shaft and actuator as taught by Stutterfield, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to employ a control mechanism to rotate the ventral flap.
Modified Ludwig is silent about the flap being rotatable by rotary servo, and modified Ludwig instead teaches employing an actuator (Stutterfield, actuator 80a).
Sammy teaches a servo motor (servo actuator 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ventral flap of modified Ludwig with a servo motor as taught by Sammy, with a reasonable expectation of success, for precise control of the ventral flap rotation. Additionally, the equivalence of an actuator as taught by Stutterfield and a servo motor as taught by Sammy for their use in the aerospace art to rotate flaps, and the selection of any known equivalents, would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642