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 .
Note
Claim 20 was noted as a new claim, but its language is identical to when it was presented in the reply on 03/27/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evulet (US 20200339247 A1) in view of Nam (US 20230022007 A1) and Stefes (US 20230029560 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Evulet (US 20200339247 A1) discloses an aircraft comprising an airframe comprising several airframe elements (Evulet, fig 4, items 100 and 104) and at least one fluidic propulsion device configured to accelerate an external airflow circulating from upstream to downstream (Evulet, figure 1, item 105, thruster/ejector), the at least one fluidic propulsion device comprising:
a peripheral nozzle defining an internal cavity, free of obstacles, in which the external airflow circulates (Evulet, figure 3, item 105, annular nozzle at inlet), the peripheral nozzle comprising openings configured to inject a plurality of high-speed airflows into the internal cavity so as to accelerate the external airflow upstream to downstream (Evulet, ¶14, ejector introduces compressed air, accelerating ambient airflow),
a portion of the peripheral nozzle being integrated into an airframe element so as to enable acceleration of an external airflow circulating from upstream to downstream on said airframe element (Evulet, figures 2 and 3, items 104 and 105, ¶18, ejector integrated into wing), the at least one fluidic propulsion device being supplied with a high-speed airflow by a supply system (Evulet, figure 4, see callout below and ¶18, gas turbine and compressor distribute compressed air to the propulsion system), and,
wherein the supply system comprising a scoop opening formed through a wall surface of said airframe element (Evulet, figure 1, item 101, scoop opening formed through a fuselage surface) upstream of said at least one fluidic propulsion device, said scoop opening sized and shaped to bleed off an external airflow upstream of the at least one fluidic propulsion device to accelerate it into a high-speed airflow to flow into the at least one fluidic propulsion device at the portion of the at least one fluidic propulsion device that is integrated into one of the airframe elements (Evulet, figure 4, see callout below and ¶18, gas turbine and compressor distribute compressed air through the wing and to ejectors; scoop is upstream relative to the fluidic propulsion devices; figure 3, item 109, air flows into the propulsion device via conduits in the wing), except:
the peripheral nozzle comprising openings
the scoop opening being a plurality of scoop openings formed through a wall surface of said airframe element.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nam (US 20230022007 A1) teaches a peripheral nozzle comprising a openings (Nam, figure 5, item 321, multiple openings).
Evulet and Nam are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of compressed air propulsion for aircraft. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the peripheral nozzle of Evulet with the openings of Nam with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an outlet for air to be let out of the nozzle into the cavity.
Stefes (US 20230029560 A1) teaches a plurality of scoop openings formed through a wall surface of said airframe element (Stefes, figure 7, item 71, plurality of micropores in a wing of the aircraft), said scoop opening sized and shaped to bleed off an external airflow (Stefes, ¶4 and ¶14, air sucked through upstream pores to bleed of airflow).
Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of compressed air propulsion for aircraft. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scoop opening of Evulet with the plurality of scoop openings of Stefes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the boundary layer size and increase flow adhesion on the wing.
Such a modified structure would alternatively meet the requirement for the scoop openings to be formed upstream of at least one fluidic propulsion device and for the scoop openings to be sized and shaped to bleed off an external airflow upstream of the at least one fluidic propulsion device (the scoops are lined spanwise on the leading edge of the upper surface of the wing and the fluidic propulsion devices are on aft part the upper surface of the wing; these device bleed airflow where they are located).
Regarding claim 2, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the internal cavity of the at least one fluidic propulsion device is partially delimited by a surface of said airframe (Evulet, figure 1, items 104 and 105, ¶19).
Regarding claim 3, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein said airframe element defines an under-wing lower surface and an over-wing upper surface (Evulet, figure 1, item 104, wing with upper and lower surfaces), and wherein the at least one fluidic propulsion device is mounted to the over-wing upper surface (Evulet, figures 1 and 3, items 105 and 106, propulsion devices attached over the upper wing surface).
Regarding claim 4, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the airframe element is selected from a wing (Evulet, figure 1, item 104, airframe element is a wing).
Regarding claim 5, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 3, wherein plurality of scoop openings are formed on the over-wing surface upper surface (Stefes, figure 7, item 71, plurality of micropores located on the upper side of the wing).
Regarding claim 6, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the at least one fluidic propulsion device has a flattened shape to promote capture of the external airflow circulating from upstream to downstream on said airframe element (Evulet, figure 1, item 105, propulsion device with a flattened shape).
Regarding claim 7, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 5, wherein the at least one fluidic propulsion device is supplied by a compression system of the aircraft via a pneumatic circuit (Evulet, figures 3 and 4, items 108 and 109, ¶18, compressor distributes compressed air via conduits).
Regarding claim 8, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches a method of use of the aircraft according to claim 1 comprising at least one fluidic propulsion device (Evulet, figure 1, item 105), a portion of the peripheral nozzle of which is integrated into an airframe element (Evulet, ¶18), the method comprising a step of injecting a plurality of high-speed airflows into the internal cavity of the at least one fluidic propulsion device so as to accelerate the external airflow flowing from upstream to downstream on said airframe element (Evulet, ¶14, ejector injects compressed into ambient airstream, accelerating airflow).
Regarding claim 9, Evulet discloses an aircraft comprising an airframe comprising several airframe elements including a first airframe element (Evulet, fig 4, items 100 and 104) and several fluidic propulsion devices including a first fluidic propulsion device, the first fluidic device configured to accelerate an external airflow circulating from upstream to downstream (Evulet, figure 1, item 105, thrusters/ejectors), the first fluidic propulsion device comprising:
a peripheral nozzle defining an internal cavity, free of obstacles, in which the external airflow circulates (Evulet, figure 3, item 105, annular nozzle at inlet), the peripheral nozzle comprising an opening located within the internal cavity and arranged within the internal cavity (Evulet, figure 2, item 105, annular nozzle with opening in cavity) to inject a plurality of high-speed airflows into the internal cavity so as to accelerate the external airflow from upstream to downstream (Evulet, ¶14, ejector introduces compressed air, accelerating ambient airflow);
a portion of the peripheral nozzle being integrated into the first airframe elements so as to enable acceleration of an external airflow circulating from upstream to downstream on said first airframe element so as to improve re-adhesion of said external airflow to said airframe element (Evulet, figures 2 and 3, items 104 and 105, ¶18, ejector integrated into wing);
a supply system for supplying the first fluidic propulsion device with a high-speed airflow, the supply system comprising a scoop opening on said first airframe element located upstream of said peripheral nozzle and arranged to bleed off an external airflow upstream of the first fluidic propulsion device to accelerate the bleed off external airflow into a high-speed airflow (Evulet, figure 4, see callout below and ¶18, gas turbine and compressor distribute compressed air through the wing and to ejectors; scope shown in the figure below; scoop is upstream relative to the peripheral nozzle); except:
wherein opening comprises at least two openings;
wherein high speed airflow flows into the at least two openings;
wherein the scoop opening comprises a plurality of scoop openings;
wherein at least one scoop opening of the plurality of scoop openings is formed in a surface of the first airframe element and is longitudinally aligned with the first fluidic propulsion device
PNG
media_image1.png
672
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nam (US 20230022007 A1) teaches a peripheral nozzle comprising at least two openings; the peripheral nozzle comprising an opening located within the internal cavity and arranged within the internal cavity (Nam, figure 5, item 321, multiple openings described as blowers); wherein speed airflow flows into the at least two openings (Nam, ¶8 compress air flows into blower).
Evulet and Nam are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of compressed air propulsion for aircraft. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the peripheral nozzle of Evulet with the openings of Nam with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an outlet for air to be let out of the nozzle into the cavity.
Stefes (US 20230029560 A1) teaches a plurality of scoop openings (Stefes, figure 7, item 71, plurality of micropores);
Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of compressed air propulsion for aircraft. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scoop opening of Evulet with the plurality of scoop openings located spanwise along the upper surface of the wing of Stefes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the boundary layer size and increase flow adhesion on the wing.
Such a modified structure would meet the limitation wherein at least one scoop opening of the plurality of scoop openings is formed in a surface of the first airframe element and is longitudinally aligned with the first fluidic propulsion device (The scoops are lined spanwise on the upper surface of the wing and the fluidic propulsion devices are also on the upper surface of the wing) and also, alternatively to the citations to Evulet above, meet the requirement for the scoop openings to be formed upstream of at least one fluidic propulsion device and for the scoop openings to be sized and shaped to bleed off an external airflow upstream of the at least one fluidic propulsion device (the scoops are lined spanwise on the leading edge of the upper surface of the wing and the fluidic propulsion devices are on aft part the upper surface of the wing; these device bleed airflow where they are located).
Regarding claim 10, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 9, wherein the internal cavity of the first fluidic propulsion device is partially delimited by a surface of said first airframe element (Evulet, figure 1, items 104 and 105, ¶19).
Regarding claim 11, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 9, wherein said first airframe element is an under- wing lower surface and an over-wing upper surface (Evulet, figure 1, item 104, wing with upper and lower surfaces), and wherein the first fluidic propulsion device is mounted to the over-wing upper surface (Evulet, figures 1 and 3, items 105 and 106, propulsion devices attached over the upper wing surface).
Regarding claim 12, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 9, wherein the first airframe element is selected from a wing or a tail unit (Evulet, figure 1, item 104, airframe element is a wing).
Regarding claim 13, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 9, wherein the fluidic propulsion device extends vertically protruding from said airframe element (Evulet, figure 2, item 105, propulsion device extends vertically above wing).
Regarding claim 14, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 9, wherein the first fluidic propulsion device has a flattened shape to promote capture of the external airflow circulating from upstream to downstream on said first airframe element (Evulet, figure 1, item 105, propulsion device with a flattened shape).
Regarding claim 15, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 9, wherein the first fluidic propulsion device is supplied by a compression system of the aircraft via a pneumatic circuit (Evulet, figures 3 and 4, items 108 and 109, ¶18, compressor distributes compressed air via conduits) and the compression system receives airflow from the plurality of scoop openings (Stefes, figure 7, items 71 and 73, plurality of micropores feeding air into a pump).
Regarding claim 16, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 9, wherein the at least two openings on the peripheral nozzle comprise two upper openings located above the peripheral nozzle and two lower opening located below the peripheral nozzle (Nam, figure 5, item 321, upper and lower openings), except:
wherein the upper opening further comprises two upper openings; and
wherein the lower opening further comprises two lower openings
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to duplicate the upper and lower openings in order to reduce the impact of a jam or other obstruction in one of the openings and allow the nozzle to keep producing thrust in such an event, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 9, further comprising a second fluidic propulsion device located on the first airframe element, the first and second fluidic propulsion devices having a same size and shape (Evulet, figure 1, item 105, multiple fluidic propulsion devices also located on the wing having the same size and shape).
Regarding claim 18, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 17,
wherein the second fluidic propulsion device defines a second peripheral nozzle defining a second internal cavity, free of obstacles, in which the external airflow circulates, the second peripheral nozzle comprising a plurality of openings located in the second internal cavity and arranged within the second internal cavity to inject a plurality of high-speed airflows into the second internal cavity so as to accelerate the external airflow from upstream to downstream (Evulet, figure 1, item 105, wing has multiple fluidic propulsion devices located thereon).
Regarding claim 19, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 18, wherein the supply system comprising a second plurality of scoop openings on said first airframe element located upstream of said second peripheral nozzle and arranged to bleed off an external airflow upstream of the second fluidic propulsion device to accelerate the bleed off external airflow into a high-speed airflow (Stefes, figure 7, item 71, plurality of micropores; system as modified; Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches multiple fluidic propulsion devices and scoop openings).
Regarding claim 20, Evulet as modified by Nam and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 19, further comprising a third peripheral nozzle and a fourth peripheral nozzle located on a second airframe element, and wherein the second airframe element is a wing or a tail unit (Evulet, figure 1, item 104, left and right wing are present with at least two nozzles on each wing).
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evulet (US 20200339247 A1) in view of Rolling (US 9587585 B1) and Stefes (US 20230029560 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Evulet discloses an aircraft comprising an airframe comprising several airframe elements including a first airframe element (Evulet, fig 4, items 100 and 104) and several fluidic propulsion devices including a first fluidic propulsion device, the first fluidic device configured to accelerate an external airflow circulating from upstream to downstream (Evulet, figure 1, item 105, thrusters/ejectors), the first fluidic propulsion device comprising:
a peripheral nozzle defining an internal cavity, free of obstacles, in which the external airflow circulates (Evulet, figure 3, item 105, annular nozzle at inlet), the peripheral nozzle comprising an opening located within the internal cavity and arranged within the internal cavity (Evulet, figure 2, item 105, annular nozzle with opening in cavity) to inject a plurality of high-speed airflows into the internal cavity so as to accelerate the external airflow from upstream to downstream (Evulet, ¶14, ejector introduces compressed air, accelerating ambient airflow);
a portion of the peripheral nozzle being integrated into the first airframe elements so as to enable acceleration of an external airflow circulating from upstream to downstream on said first airframe element so as to improve re-adhesion of said external airflow to said airframe element (Evulet, figures 2 and 3, items 104 and 105, ¶18, ejector integrated into wing);
a supply system for supplying the first fluidic propulsion device with a high-speed airflow, the supply system comprising a scoop opening on said first airframe element located upstream of said peripheral nozzle and arranged to bleed off an external airflow upstream of the first fluidic propulsion device to accelerate the bleed off external airflow into a high-speed airflow (Evulet, figure 4, see callout below and ¶18, gas turbine and compressor distribute compressed air through the wing and to ejectors; scope shown in the figure below; scoop is upstream relative to the peripheral nozzle); except:
wherein opening comprises at least two openings;
wherein high speed airflow flows into the at least two openings;
wherein the scoop opening comprises a plurality of scoop openings;
wherein at least one scoop opening of the plurality of scoop openings is formed in a surface of the first airframe element and is longitudinally aligned with the first fluidic propulsion device
PNG
media_image1.png
672
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rolling (US 9587585 B1) teaches a peripheral nozzle comprising at least two openings located within the internal cavity and arranged within the internal cavity (Rolling, figure 1, item 24a-b, col 4 lines 17-30, ejector ports on upper and lower surfaces which may be segmented); wherein a high-speed airflow flows into the at least two openings (Rolling, col lines 52-col 4 lines 16, compressed air flows into ejector ports).
Evulet and Rolling are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of compressed air propulsion for aircraft. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the peripheral nozzle of Evulet with the at least two openings of Rolling with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an outlet for air to be let out of the nozzle into the cavity.
Stefes (US 20230029560 A1) teaches a plurality of scoop openings (Stefes, figure 7, item 71, plurality of micropores);
Evulet as modified by Rolling and Stefes are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of compressed air propulsion for aircraft. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scoop opening of Evulet as modified by Rolling with the plurality of scoop openings located spanwise along the upper surface of the wing of Stefes with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the boundary layer size and increase flow adhesion on the wing.
Such a modified structure would meet the limitation wherein at least one scoop opening of the plurality of scoop openings is formed in a surface of the first airframe element and is longitudinally aligned with the first fluidic propulsion device (The scoops are lined spanwise on the upper surface of the wing and the fluidic propulsion devices are also on the upper surface of the wing) and also, alternatively to the citations to Evulet above, meet the requirement for the scoop openings to be formed upstream of at least one fluidic propulsion device and for the scoop openings to be sized and shaped to bleed off an external airflow upstream of the at least one fluidic propulsion device (the scoops are lined spanwise on the leading edge of the upper surface of the wing and the fluidic propulsion devices are on aft part the upper surface of the wing; these device bleed airflow where they are located).
Regarding claim 16, Evulet as modified by Rolling and Stefes teaches the aircraft according to claim 9, wherein the at least two openings on the peripheral nozzle comprise two upper openings located above the peripheral nozzle and two lower opening located below the peripheral nozzle (Rolling, figure 1, item 24a-b, col 4 lines 17-30, ejector ports on upper and lower surfaces each of which may be segmented).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
The rejections of the claims are invalid because the no reasons were provided for why the “discharge holes” of Nam were combined with Evulet to teach the peripheral nozzle comprising openings and that the combination uses the discharge nozzle is different and opposite from the disclosure in Nam
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the primary reference Evulet teaches a nozzle and states that the nozzle has compressed air fed into it, but does not show openings in the nozzle to perform this function. Nam is relied upon to fill this gap in the disclosure of Evulet via its showing of openings feeding compressed air into the nozzle. Hence, as described above with regards to claims 1 and 9, the motivation to combine Evulet with the openings of Nam is to provide an outlet for air to be let out of the nozzle into the cavity of the fluidic propulsion device, producing thrust.
It is not clear what is meant when applicant argues that the use of the discharge nozzles by Nam and as used to modify Evulet are different and opposite. Furthermore the relevance of such an argument it unclear with respect to the rejection. It should be noted that applicant’s arguments do not take the place of evidence on the record.
Improper hindsight is used to cherry pick the discharge nozzles of Nam to meet the claimed structure to formulate a structure and function that neither reference teaches and that there is no articulation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made a combination of Evulet and Nam.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the primary reference Evulet teaches a nozzle and states that the nozzle has compressed air fed into it, but does not show openings in the nozzle to perform this function. Nam is relied upon to fill this gap in the disclosure of Evulet via its showing of openings feeding compressed air into the nozzle. Hence, as described above with regards to claims 1 and 9, the motivation to combine Evulet with the openings of Nam is to provide an outlet for air to be let out of the nozzle into the cavity of the fluidic propulsion device, producing thrust.
No articulation of why and how the combination of Evuelt and Stefes would be performed was provided; that there was no explanation of why the scoop of Evulet was defective; that one of ordinary skill in the art would have enlarged the scoop of Evulet rather than add the micropores of Stefes; that the combination of Evulet and Stefes amounts to hindsight cherry picking of features; and that there is no articulated motivation for the combination of Evulet and Stefes.
In response to applicant's argument that there was no explanation of how Evulet could be combined to include the micropores of Stefes, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, adding the mircopores of Stefes to the air supply system of Evulet provides multiple benefits, including increasing the supply of air to the compressed air system (providing redundancy in the case of failure) and using these pores to take on air decreases the boundary layer thickness, which decreases drag and provides cleaner air to enter the open end of the fluidic propulsion device.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Whether the scoop of Evulet is defective or not, and whether one might change the size of the scoop of Evulet, there is still reason to combine the teachings of Evuelt and Stefes as described above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marcel (US 2868479 A) teaches a system for control of airflow over a wing
Rolling (US 9587585 B1) teaches a system propulsion using bleed air for accelerating an ambient airflow over an airfoil
Evulet (US 20170057648 A1) teaches an ejector system for injecting compressed air into an incoming airflow to accelerate that airflow
Cummings (US 20200331589 A1) teaches a nacelle integrated into the upper surface of an airfoil
Evulet (US 20220009617 A1) teaches an aircraft with an ejector system for injecting compressed air into an incoming airflow to accelerate that airflow
Nam (US 20230022007 A1) teaches an aircraft using annular wings and compressed air to drive fans and accelerate ambient air.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642