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 .
This is the fifth office action on the merits. This office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 04/28/2026. Applicant has amended claims 12, 18-19, 23, and 31. Claims 12-31 are currently pending and being examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 4: “the initial end comprising intake structure configured to admit the ambient air into the thruster” is believed to be in error for --the initial end comprising an intake structure configured to admit the ambient air into the vehicle thruster--
Claim 31, line 4: “to mix primary fluid” is believed to be in error for --to mix the primary fluid-- (see claim 31, line 2)
Claim 31, line 6-8: “the initial end comprising intake structure configured to admit the ambient air into the thruster, the diffusing structure further comprising” is believed to be in error for --the respective initial end comprising an intake structure configured to admit the ambient air into the at least one vehicle thruster, the respective diffusing structure further comprising--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“diffusing structure” in claims 12, 16-17, 21, 23-27, and 31
“intake structure” in claims 12 and 31
“at least one constricting element” in claims 12 and 31
“at least one constriction element” in claim 22
“multiple constricting elements” in claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 22, the limitation “at least one constriction element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Note that “at least one constriction element” differs from “at least one constricting element” (constriction vs constricting). “At least one constricting element” is supported by paragraph [0016] of the specification, whereas “at least one constriction element” is not. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Furthermore, it is not known whether “at least one constriction element” refers to the same element as “at least one constricting element” in claim 12, line 11, or to an additional element that also constricts. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, there appears to be only one type of “constricting element”. Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted as “the at least one constricting element”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-22 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller (U.S. 5,996,936).
Regarding claim 12, Mueller teaches (Figs. 1 and 3-5) a vehicle thruster (10 – Fig. 1), comprising:
a diffusing structure (the structure of 40, extending from 38b to 40b – Figs. 3-5) configured to mix a primary fluid (34b – Figs. 1, 3, and 4. See also *NOTE below) and an ambient air (36 – while “36” is exhaust gas, this exhaust gas was produced from ambient air 34a, as shown in Fig. 1 and discussed in col. 2, ll. 59-63. See also *NOTE below), the diffusing structure (40) including an initial end (38b – Figs. 3-4) configured to provide ingress for the primary fluid (34b), the initial end (38b) comprising intake structure (44, which is an opening of duct 40 – Figs. 3-5) configured to admit the ambient air (36) into the thruster (10), the diffusing structure (40) further comprising a terminal end (40b – Fig. 3) configured to provide egress for a mixture of the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36);
a plenum (56 – Figs. 3-4) including at least one passage (see annotated Fig. 4 on next page) each having a respective cross-sectional area and configured to supply through the at least one passage the primary fluid (34b) at the initial end (38b) of the diffusing structure (40); and
a flow controller (Fig. 5) adjacent at least one wall (46b – Figs. 3-5), the at least one passage being defined by the at least one wall (46b) and at least one constricting element (48 – Figs. 4-5) – (as shown by annotated Fig. 4 on next page), the flow controller configured to vary the respective cross-sectional area (by moving valve 48 axially left/right) of each of the at least one passage.
PNG
media_image1.png
549
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
*NOTE:
Examiner further notes that the types of fluid being received by the diffusing structure (in this case, a primary fluid and an ambient air) are intended use recitations – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”, In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); see MPEP 2115. In this case, the primary fluid and the ambient air are considered the material or article worked upon and do not impart patentability to the claims, since the recitations of the primary fluid and the ambient air are merely the material that the diffusing structure works upon in its intended use.
Regarding claim 13, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Mueller further teaches (Fig. 4) the diffusing structure (40, including 38b) includes, at the initial end (38b) and adjacent to the at least one passage (see annotated Fig. 4 above), a convex surface (46a).
Regarding claim 14, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, and Mueller further teaches (Fig. 4) the at least one passage is configured to introduce the primary fluid (34b) to the convex surface (46a).
Regarding claim 15, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Mueller further teaches (Figs. 3-4) the initial end (38b) is configured to provide ingress for the ambient air (36).
Regarding claim 16, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Mueller further teaches (Figs. 3-4) the diffusing structure (40) is configured to mix the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36) by causing entrainment of the ambient air (36) by a flow of the primary fluid (34b) – (as shown by Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Mueller further teaches (Figs. 3-4) the diffusing structure (40) is configured to mix the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36) by causing entrainment of the primary fluid (34b) by a flow of the ambient air (36) – (as shown by Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Mueller further teaches (Figs. 3-4) the initial end (38b) includes an initial opening having a first cross-sectional area (having diameter of 38b) and configured to provide ingress for the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36);
the terminal end (40b – Fig. 4) includes a terminal opening having a second cross-section area (having diameter of 40b) that is larger than the first cross-sectional area (as shown by Fig. 3) and configured to provide egress for the mixture of the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36); and
the diffusing structure (40) includes a wall (40d – Fig. 4) between the initial opening (38b) and the terminal opening (40b), the wall (40d) defining a passageway having a cross-sectional area (40 – Fig. 4) that increases in a direction from the initial end (38b) to the terminal end (40b) and configured to allow mixing of the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36).
Regarding claim 19, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Mueller further teaches (Figs. 3-4) the diffusing structure (40, including 38b) includes, at the initial end (38b) and adjacent to the at least one passage (see annotated Fig. 4 on page 9), a convex surface (46a – Fig. 4)
the initial end (38b) includes an initial opening having a first cross-sectional area (having diameter of 38b) and configured to provide ingress for the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36);
the terminal end (40b – Fig. 4) includes a terminal opening having a second cross-section area (having diameter of 40b) that is larger than the first cross-sectional area (as shown by Fig. 3) and configured to provide egress for the mixture of the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36); and
the diffusing structure (40) includes a wall (40d – Fig. 4) between the initial opening (38b) and the terminal opening (40b), the wall (40d) defining a passageway having a cross-sectional area (40 – Fig. 4) that increases in a direction from the initial end (38b) to the terminal end (40b) and configured to allow mixing of the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36).
Regarding claim 20, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Mueller further teaches (Fig. 3) a duct (32) in fluid communication with the plenum (56) and configured to provide the primary fluid (34b) to the plenum (56).
Regarding claim 21, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Mueller further teaches (Fig. 3) the plenum (56) includes multiple passages (46 – as shown in Fig. 3, there are two passages 46, one on top and the other on the bottom) each having a same cross-sectional area (due to the top and bottom passages 46 being identical) and each configured to supply the primary fluid (34b) at the initial end (38b) of the diffusing structure (40).
Regarding claim 22, Mueller teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Mueller further teaches (Figs. 3-5) the flow controller (Fig. 5) includes:
at least one plenum wall portion (46b – Figs. 4-5) each corresponding to a respective one of the at least one passage (see annotated Fig. 4 on page 9);
at least one constriction element (48 – Figs. 4-5) each corresponding to a respective one of the at least one passage;
an actuating apparatus (linear actuator 50 – Figs. 3 and 5) configured
to urge (by moving axially to the right) each of the at least one constriction element (48) toward a corresponding one of the at least one plenum wall portion (46b) to reduce the respective cross-sectional area of the corresponding one of the at least one passage, and
to withdraw (by moving axially to the left) each of the at least one constriction element (48) from a corresponding one of the at least one plenum wall portion (46b) to increase the respective cross-sectional area of the corresponding one of the at least one passage.
Regarding claim 31, Mueller teaches (Figs. 1 and 3-5) a vehicle (col. 2, ll. 41-42: “turbofan aircraft gas turbine engine 10”), comprising:
a primary-fluid source (bypass air) configured to hold a primary fluid (34b – see also *NOTE below); and
at least one vehicle thruster (10 – Fig. 1) each including
a respective diffusing structure (the structure of 40, extending from 38b to 40b – Figs. 3-5) configured to mix primary fluid (34b – Figs. 1, 3, and 4) from the primary-fluid source with an ambient air (36 – while “36” is exhaust gas, this exhaust gas was produced from ambient air 34a, as shown in Fig. 1 and discussed in col. 2, ll. 59-63. See also *NOTE below), the respective diffusing structure (40) including a respective initial end (38b – Figs. 3-4) configured to provide ingress for the primary fluid (34b), the initial end (38b) comprising intake structure (44, which is an opening of duct 40 – Figs. 3-5) configured to admit the ambient air (36) into the thruster (10), the diffusing structure (40) further comprising a respective terminal end (40b – Fig. 3) configured to provide egress for a mixture of the primary fluid (34b) and the ambient air (36);
a respective plenum (56 – Figs. 3-4) including a respective at least one passage (see annotated Fig. 4 on next page) each having a respective cross-sectional area and configured to supply, at the respective initial end (38b) of the respective diffusing structure (40) through the respective at least one passage, the primary fluid (34b) from the primary-fluid source; and
a respective flow controller (Fig. 5) adjacent at least one wall (46b – Figs. 3-5), the respective at least one passage being defined by the at least one wall (46b) and at least one constricting element (48 – Figs. 4-5) – (as shown by annotated Fig. 4 on next page), the respective flow controller being configured to vary the respective cross-sectional area (by moving valve 48 axially left/right) of each of the respective at least one passage (46).
PNG
media_image2.png
549
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
*NOTE:
Examiner further notes that the types of fluid being received by the diffusing structure (in this case, a primary fluid and an ambient air) are intended use recitations – “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”, In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); see MPEP 2115. In this case, the primary fluid and the ambient air are considered the material or article worked upon and do not impart patentability to the claims, since the recitations of the primary fluid and the ambient air are merely the material that the diffusing structure works upon in its intended use.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12 and 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evulet (US 2011/0215204 A1), in view of Johnson (US 2006/0242941 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Evulet teaches (Figs. 4-8) a vehicle thruster (12 – Fig. 4), comprising:
a diffusing structure (the structure of 12, extending to the right of 26 – Fig. 4) configured to mix a primary fluid (22 – Figs. 4-7) and an ambient air (32 – Fig. 4. See ¶ [0029], ll. 13-14: “incoming airflow 32 that flows from an ambient condition”), the diffusing structure (12) including an initial end (Fig. 4: at where “26” points to) configured to provide ingress for the primary fluid (22), the initial end comprising intake structure (Fig. 4: where “26” points to) configured to admit the ambient air (32) into the thruster (12), the diffusing structure (12) further comprising a terminal end (Fig. 4: right end of 12) configured to provide egress for a mixture (34 – Fig. 4) of the primary fluid (22) and the ambient air (32) – (¶ [0029], ll. 13-15);
a plenum (20 – Fig. 4) including at least one passage (24 – Figs. 4 and 7-8) each having a respective cross-sectional area (shown by 42 in Fig. 8) and configured to supply through the at least one passage (24) the primary fluid (22) at the initial end (26) of the diffusing structure (12); and
the at least one passage (24) being defined by at least one wall (26 – as shown in Fig. 7) and at least one constricting element (36 – Figs. 5-6) – (¶ [0033], ll. 4-6), varying the respective cross-sectional area (42) of each of the at least one passage (24) – (¶ [0028], ll. 2-3: “The size and positions of an exit of each nozzle 24 may be altered”).
However, Evulet does not teach a flow controller adjacent the at least one wall, the flow controller being configured to vary the respective cross-sectional area of each of the at least one passage.
It is noted that Evulet teaches “The nozzles 24 may be selectively opened and closed by controlling the actuation of the corresponding nozzle vanes” (¶ [0034], ll. 6-8), but does not teach a device for controlling the actuation (i.e., a flow controller).
Johnson teaches “Variable stator vanes in axial compressors are conventionally known along with their corresponding actuation or drive trains which include corresponding levers, unison rings, and actuators for adjusting the rotary position of the vanes in each row” (¶ [0040], ll., 1-5). In this case, any of the levers, unison rings, and actuators may be considered a “flow controller” that controls the actuation of the vanes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Evulet by including a flow controller, in order to provide a device to control actuation of the corresponding nozzle vanes, such devices being known conventionally in the art, as taught by Johnson (¶ [0040], ll., 1-5), therefore providing:
a flow controller (an actuator, as taught by Johnson) adjacent the at least one wall (Evulet, 26) – (since Evulet’s vanes 36 are adjacent wall 26, an actuator/flow controller that controls the actuation of said vanes will also be adjacent wall 26), the flow controller (Johnson’s actuator) being configured to vary the respective cross-sectional area (Evulet, 42) of each of the at least one passage (Evulet, 24).
Regarding claim 23, Evulet teaches (Figs. 4-8) a method, comprising:
providing a primary fluid (22 – Figs. 4-7) at an intake (Fig. 4: where “26” points to) of a diffusing structure (the structure of 12, extending to the right of 26 – Fig. 4) via at least one passage (24 – Figs. 4 and 7-8) of a plenum (20 – Fig. 4), each of the at least one passage (24) having a respective cross-sectional area (shown by 42 in Fig. 8);
adjusting the respective cross-sectional area (42) of each of the at least one passage (24) – (¶ [0028], ll. 2-3: “The size and positions of an exit of each nozzle 24 may be altered”), the at least one passage (24) being defined by at least one wall (26 – as shown in Fig. 7) and multiple constricting elements (36 – Figs. 5-6) – (¶ [0033], ll. 4-6);
mixing the primary fluid (22) with an ambient air (32 – Fig. 4. See ¶ [0029], ll. 13-14: “incoming airflow 32 that flows from an ambient condition”) in the diffusing structure (12); and
expelling a mixture (34 – Fig. 4) of the primary fluid (22) and the ambient air (32) from an outlet (Fig. 4: right end of 12) of the diffusing structure (12) – (¶ [0029], ll. 13-15).
However, Evulet does not teach adjusting the respective cross-sectional area of each of the at least one passage with a flow controller, the flow controller being adjacent the at least one wall.
It is noted that Evulet teaches “The nozzles 24 may be selectively opened and closed by controlling the actuation of the corresponding nozzle vanes” (¶ [0034], ll. 6-8), but does not teach a device for controlling the actuation (i.e., a flow controller).
Johnson teaches “Variable stator vanes in axial compressors are conventionally known along with their corresponding actuation or drive trains which include corresponding levers, unison rings, and actuators for adjusting the rotary position of the vanes in each row” (¶ [0040], ll., 1-5). In this case, any of the levers, unison rings, and actuators may be considered a “flow controller” that controls the actuation of the vanes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Evulet by including a flow controller, in order to provide a device to control actuation of the corresponding nozzle vanes, such devices being known conventionally in the art, as taught by Johnson (¶ [0040], ll., 1-5), therefore providing:
adjusting the respective cross-sectional area (Evulet, 42) of each of the at least one passage (Evulet, 24) with a flow controller (an actuator, as taught by Johnson), the flow controller (Johnson’s actuator) being adjacent the at least one wall (Evulet, 26) – (since Evulet’s vanes 36 are adjacent wall 26, an actuator/flow controller that controls the actuation of said vanes will also be adjacent wall 26).
Regarding claim 24, Evulet, in view of Johnson, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 23, and Evulet further teaches (Fig. 4) providing the primary fluid (22) includes introducing the primary fluid (22) to a convex surface (26 – Fig. 4 shows surface 24 as convex) of the diffusing structure (12).
Regarding claim 25, Evulet, in view of Johnson, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 23, and Evulet further teaches (Fig. 4) receiving the ambient air (32) at the intake (Fig. 4: where “26” points to) of the diffusing structure (12).
Regarding claim 26, Evulet, in view of Johnson, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 23, and Evulet further teaches (Figs. 4 and 7) mixing the primary fluid (22) and the ambient air (32) includes:
generating a flow of the primary fluid (22) with the diffusing structure (12 – Fig. 4) – (evident by flow 28); and
entraining the ambient air (32) by the flow of the primary fluid (22) – (¶ [0029], ll. 1-2: “the pressurized exhaust gas 28 entrains airflow 32”).
Regarding claim 27, Evulet, in view of Johnson, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 23, and Evulet further teaches (Figs. 4) mixing the primary fluid (22) and the ambient air (32) includes:
generating a flow of the ambient air (32) with the diffusing structure (12 – Fig. 4); and
entraining the primary fluid (22) by the flow of the ambient air (32) – (as shown by Figs. 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 28, Evulet, in view of Johnson, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 23, and Evulet further teaches (Fig. 4) the intake (Fig. 4: where “26” points to) has a first cross-sectional area;
the outlet (Fig. 4: right end of 12) has a second cross-section area that is larger than the first cross-sectional area (as shown in Fig. 4); and
the diffusing structure (12) includes a wall (wall of 12, to the right of where “26” points to) between the intake and the outlet, the wall defining a passageway (shown by flowpath of 34) having a cross-sectional area that increases in a direction from the intake to the outlet (as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 29, Evulet, in view of Johnson, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 24, and Evulet further teaches (Fig. 4) the convex surface (26) is adjacent to the intake (Fig. 4: where “26” points to);
the intake has a first cross-sectional area;
the outlet (Fig. 4: right end of 12) has a second cross-section area that is larger than the first cross-sectional area (as shown in Fig. 4); and
the diffusing structure (12) includes a wall (wall of 12, to the right of where “26” points to) between the convex surface (26) and the outlet, the wall defining a passageway (shown by flowpath of 34) having a cross-sectional area that increases linearly in a direction from the intake to the outlet (as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 30, Evulet, in view of Johnson, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 23, and Evulet further teaches (Figs. 1 and 4) providing the primary fluid (22 – Fig. 4) at the intake (Fig. 4: where “26” points to) of the diffusion structure (12) includes providing the primary fluid (22) from a primary-fluid source (gas generator 16 – Fig. 1) to the plenum (20 – Fig. 4) via a duct (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
484
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Evulet teaches (Figs. 1 and 4-8) a vehicle (aircraft 10 – Fig. 1), comprising:
a primary-fluid source (gas generator 16 – Fig. 1) configured to hold a primary fluid (22 – Figs. 4-7); and
at least one vehicle thruster (12 – Fig. 4) each including
a respective diffusing structure (the structure of 12, extending to the right of 26 – Fig. 4) configured to mix primary fluid (22) from the primary-fluid source (16) with an ambient air (32 – Fig. 4. See ¶ [0029], ll. 13-14: “incoming airflow 32 that flows from an ambient condition”), the respective diffusing structure (12) including a respective initial end (Fig. 4: at where “26” points to) configured to provide ingress for the primary fluid (22), the initial end comprising intake structure (Fig. 4: where “26” points to) configured to admit the ambient air (32) into the thruster (12), the diffusing structure (12) further comprising a respective terminal end (Fig. 4: right end of 12) configured to provide egress for a mixture (34 – Fig. 4) of the primary fluid (22) and the ambient air (32) – (¶ [0029], ll. 13-15);
a respective plenum (20 – Fig. 4) including a respective at least one passage (24 – Figs. 4 and 7-8) each having a respective cross-sectional area (shown by 42 in Fig. 8) and configured to supply, at the respective initial end of the respective diffusing structure (12) through the respective at least one passage (24), the primary fluid (22) from the primary-fluid source (16); and
the respective at least one passage (24) being defined by at least one wall (26 – as shown in Fig. 7) and at least one constricting element (36 – Figs. 5-6) – (¶ [0033], ll. 4-6), varying the respective cross-sectional area (42) of each of the respective at least one passage (24) – (¶ [0028], ll. 2-3: “The size and positions of an exit of each nozzle 24 may be altered”).
However, Evulet does not teach a respective flow controller adjacent the at least one wall, the respective flow controller being configured to vary the respective cross-sectional area of each of the respective at least one passage.
It is noted that Evulet teaches “The nozzles 24 may be selectively opened and closed by controlling the actuation of the corresponding nozzle vanes” (¶ [0034], ll. 6-8), but does not teach a device for controlling the actuation (i.e., a flow controller).
Johnson teaches “Variable stator vanes in axial compressors are conventionally known along with their corresponding actuation or drive trains which include corresponding levers, unison rings, and actuators for adjusting the rotary position of the vanes in each row” (¶ [0040], ll., 1-5). In this case, any of the levers, unison rings, and actuators may be considered a “flow controller” that controls the actuation of the vanes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Evulet by including a flow controller, in order to provide a device to control actuation of the corresponding nozzle vanes, such devices being known conventionally in the art, as taught by Johnson (¶ [0040], ll., 1-5), therefore providing:
a respective flow controller (an actuator, as taught by Johnson) adjacent the at least one wall (Evulet, 26) – (since Evulet’s vanes 36 are adjacent wall 26, an actuator/flow controller that controls the actuation of said vanes will also be adjacent wall 26), the respective flow controller (Johnson’s actuator) being configured to vary the respective cross-sectional area (Evulet, 42) of each of the respective at least one passage (Evulet, 24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitations in claims 12, 23, and 31 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. To the extent possible, Applicant's arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections at the appropriate locations. It should be noted that claims 12 and 31 each have multiple prior-art rejections (35 U.S.C. 102 under Mueller and 35 U.S.C. 103 under Evulet, in view of Johnson).
Regarding Applicant’s other arguments, these arguments have already been addressed in the Advisory Action mailed on 02/25/2026. The response to Applicant’s other arguments is reproduced below:
“Applicant's arguments in response to the types of fluid failing to impart patentability to the claims are not persuasive. Applicant argues that "the claims do positively recite structure (i.e., plenum and intake structure) providing such fluids..." However, the fluids themselves do not add structure to the claims.
In regards to method claim 23, the rejection is maintained for the reasons stated above. Examiner also maintains that Mueller's exhaust gas 36 reads on the claimed "ambient air" because the exhaust gas comprises a mixture of ambient air and fuel. Furthermore, the claimed "ambient air" may be broadly interpreted as any form of air in any surrounding environment because the claims do not state the source of this ambient air. When a gas turbine engine is turned off, there is no vacuum inside the engine. Rather, the pressures inside the engine normalize to the outside ambient air pressure.
Regarding Applicant's argument that "the exhaust gases 36 are, in fact, more so equivalent to the primary fluid recited in claim 12", it is noted that the claimed limitation "primary fluid" is being interpreted as a generic fluid, because the term "primary", without further context, does not further limit the term "fluid". It is further noted that in the case of proposed claim 12, Mueller's exhaust gas 36 could be interpreted as the claimed "primary fluid" and Mueller's bypass air 34b could be interpreted as the claimed "ambient air", since Mueller teaches an intake structure (injection nozzle 46) that admits ambient air (34b) into the thruster. Mueller in this case would teach all the limitations of proposed claim 12.
It should further be noted that Mueller teaches In an alternate embodiment, compressor discharge pressure air may be suitably routed to the injection slot 44" (col. 3, II. 62-64). Alternatively, one of the injection nozzles 46 could provide the primary fluid (compressor discharge air), and another of the injection nozzles 46 could provide the ambient air (bypass air 34b). In this case, Mueller would also teach all the limitations of proposed claim 12.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/HENRY NG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights