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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendments/remarks dated 02/02/2026 have been received, entered, and fully considered. Claims 1-3 and 6 are amended. Claims 4-5 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 6 are currently under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because a clearly visible “ wire frame” model drawings are required to properly depict and clearly show the structures of the claimed subject matter. The picture drawings submitted are not sufficient to clearly see all the elements of the invention. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the, “ diffusor” in line 20 (end of claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification does not disclose, the structures of the, “ diffusor” in line 20 of claim 1 (see the drawing objection).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without “special ejectors” of para. [0013] of the specification, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The specification discloses in para. [0013]: "A propulsor according to an embodiment is designed from the principles of thrust augmentation using special ejectors and Upper Surface Blown lift augmentation.". However, no features of the "special ejectors" are disclosed/claims. This features can also not directly and unambiguously be derived from any of the drawings. Therefore, the disclosure is not enabled.
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of parent claim 1 solely due to their dependency from the rejected claim 1 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation “…wherein the at least one thrust augmentation device contains one or more fuel injection nozzle for augmentation of thrust during user-selected periods of time” do not seem to be supported by the specification/drawings. The at least one thrust augmentation device (106, Fig. 1) do not seem to contain any fuel injection nozzles (structure not labeled/identified in the drawings). The disclosed nozzle 107 in Fig. 1 is not contained in the at least one thrust augmentation device as claimed. The newly amended limitation od “…..during user-selected period of time” do not also seem to be supported by the disclosure. Nowhere in the specification a user-selected usage of thrust augmentation in periods of time disclosed. Therefore, the amendment/limitation of claim 6 is considered new matter.
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 1-3 and 6 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 recites the limitation "the diffusor" in line 20 (end of claim 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the aircraft” line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said propulsion system” lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of parent claim 1 solely due to their dependency from the rejected claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)/(2) as being anticipated by Bertin et al. (US 3,545,701).
Regarding Claim 1, as broadly interpreted and best understood Bertin discloses a vessel (Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one compressor (col. 2, line 4-8, 7, Fig. 5);
multiple conduits (10, Fig. 7);
a multiple-way valve (col.6, line 48-75, valve 66 coupled to valve 67);
at least one thrust augmentation device (22, Fig. 12-14),
wherein the at least one compressor includes an intake opening and at least one outlet port in fluid communication with the valve, the valve being in fluid communication with the conduits (Fig. 21),
at least one of the conduits (10, Fig. 8) allowing retraction of the at least one thrust augmentation device (Fig. 8) and exposure inside and outside (Fig. 11) a wing and fuselage, respectively, of the vessel;
a series of flaps (5, Fig. 8) that can be retracted, tilted and operated (Fig. 8-10)in conjunction with the at least one thrust augmentation device for maximum lift and thrust generation (col. 5, line 10);
valve flow configured to allow expansion to ambient of a compressed air stream in a preferred single direction (Fig. 21),
, whereby each said thrust augmentation device (22, Fig. 12-14) receives compressed air from the at least one compressor via at least one of the conduits and valve (col. 5, lines 64-68)and uses pressurized air as motive gas to generate thrust by fluidically entraining ambient air (col. 5, line 8), mixing it with the motive gas and ejecting the motive gas at high velocities (Fig. 21).
Regarding Claim 3, as broadly interpreted and best understood Bertin discloses a vessel (Fig. 1) wherein the multiple conduits (10, Fig. 5, Fig. 21) are in communication with the valve and can modulate the flow to multiple thrust augmentation devices to assist the attitude control of the vessel (Fig. 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertin et al. (US 3,545,701) inn view of Fenny et al. (US 2020/0172237).
Regarding Claim 2, Bertin is silent, but Fenny teaches an aircraft/vessel with a compressor driven by an electric (para. [0007], “…a high-speed electric motor configured to drive the air compressor…”) or mechanical device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of a vessel disclosed in Bertin to be driven by electric motor as taught in Fenny with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides variable speed drive, instant adaptability, consistent power, minimize emissions, reduce noise, fewer moving parts, and engine independence.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertin et al. (US 3,545,701) inn view of Evulet (US 2017/0159565).
Regarding Claim 6, Bertin is silent, but Evulet teaches an aircraft/vessel wherein the at least one thrust augmentation device/ejector contain one or more fuel injection nozzles for augmentation of thrust during short /user-selected periods of time (para. [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thrust augmenting device disclosed in Bertin with an ejectors contain one or more fuel injection nozzles for augmentation of thrust during short/user-selected periods of time as taught in Evulet with a reasonable expectation of success for augmentation of thrust during short /user-selected periods of time(Evulet, para. [0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regards to the drawings objections, a ‘wireframe’ drawings are still required. See the additional objection under ‘drawing objections’ above.
In regards to the previous 35 USC 112 (a) rejection concerning the enablement of the disclosure, the examiner maintains the previous rejection (see rejection above). While the amendment to the claims addresses some of the previous 35 USC 112 (b) rejections, the current amendments to the claims did not address some of the previous rejection; and also created additional 112 rejections that are necessitated by the amendment to the claims. Please, properly address the above 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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.
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642