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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on April 7, 2026. Claims 1-10, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed April 7, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Allen fails to disclose or suggest a fuel-integrated auxiliary thruster, despite any superficial similarity in ejection direction (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9). It is noted that Mackin was used to meet this limitation.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Mackin fails to disclose, teach, or otherwise suggest that an ejection direction of the combustion gas is maintained to have a right angle to a ground surface (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9). It is noted that Otsuka was used to meet this limitation.
Regarding applicant’s argument that there is not motivation to combine Allen and Mackin and any such combination would require impermissible hindsight reconstruction (Applicant’s Response, pgs. 9-10), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Allen discloses rocket member (i.e., propulsion devices) to generate an auxiliary thrust for a aircraft. Mackin discloses a propulsion system using hydrogen as the fuel source and the hydrogen also being supplied to a fuel cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to swap the rocket member propulsion device of Allen for the hydrogen powered propulsion system of Mackin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen (US 4,676,457) in view of Mackin (US 2022/0297844) and Otsuka (US 5,765,778).
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses a flying vehicle comprising:
an auxiliary thruster installed in the fuselage and configured to provide an auxiliary thrust force by ejecting combustion gas (Allen, Col. 2, lines 39-43 regarding an emergency landing system including a plurality of rocket members mounted in the fuselage),
wherein:
the auxiliary thruster is coupled to a lower portion of the fuselage (Allen, Fig. 1 regarding the rocket members being mounted in the lower portion of the fuselage), and
the auxiliary thruster is partially embedded within the fuselage (Allen, Fig. 1 & Col. 2, lines 39-43 regarding the rocket members being mounted in the fuselage).
Allen does not explicitly disclose a fuel cell installed in a fuselage and configured to supply power to the fuselage; and
an auxiliary thruster installed in the fuselage and configured to provide an auxiliary thrust force by ejecting combustion gas generated by burning a portion of fuel to be supplied to the fuel cell,
wherein:
an ejection direction of the combustion gas is maintained to have a right angle to a ground surface, such that an impact load generated upon collision with the ground surface is attenuated by the auxiliary thrust force.
Mackin teaches an aircraft propulsion system 100 that includes a fuel tank 150 connected to the compressor 104 of a hybrid engine and a fuel cell 122 (Fig. 1B).
Allen and Mackin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen to incorporate using the aircraft propulsion system, as disclosed by Mackin, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of providing thrust to an aircraft.
Therefore, Allen, as modified, teaches a fuel cell installed in a fuselage and configured to supply power to the fuselage (The entire aircraft propulsion system of Mackin, which includes the fuel cell, would replace the existing engine equipment of Allen located in the fuselage. The fuel cell would then be supplying power to the auxiliary thrusters which are part of the fuselage.); and
an auxiliary thruster installed in the fuselage and configured to provide an auxiliary thrust force by ejecting combustion gas generated by burning a portion of fuel to be supplied to the fuel cell.
Otsuka teaches an ejection direction of the combustion gas is maintained to have a right angle to a ground surface, such that an impact load generated upon collision with the ground surface is attenuated by the auxiliary thrust force (Otsuka, Col. 3, lines 5-22 regarding the trust axis of the auxiliary engine being directed to cause the helicopter to be moved in an upwardly direction. Therefore, the ejection of combustion air would be perpendicular to the ground which would result in the attenuation of the impact load generated upon collision with the ground surface.).
Allen and Otsuka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate having the thrust of the auxiliary engines being directed to move the aircraft up, as disclosed by Otsuka, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of generating vertical thrust.
Regarding claim 3, Allen in view of Mackin and Otsuka teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 1. Allen, as modified with the aircraft propulsion system of Mackin, further teaches wherein the fuel cell comprises:
a fuel tank disposed in the fuselage and configured to store the fuel (Mackin, Fig. 1B regarding the LH2 fuel tank 150 being part of the propulsion system);
a compressor configured to pressurize air received from an air inlet of the fuselage to a predetermined pressure (Mackin, Fig. 1B regarding the compressor 104 receiving air and compressing the air received); and
a fuel cell stack configured to electrochemically react the fuel with oxygen in the air to generate electricity (Mackin, [0142] regarding the fuel cell 122 including a fuel cell stack that reacts the fuel with the HP compressed air).
Allen and Mackin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate using the aircraft propulsion system, as disclosed by Mackin, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of providing thrust to an aircraft.
Regarding claim 13, Allen in view of Mackin and Otsuka teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 1. Allen, as modified with the aircraft propulsion system of Mackin, further teaches wherein the fuel is hydrogen or a hydrogen compound (Mackin, [0132] regarding the fuel being hydrogen).
Allen and Mackin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate using the aircraft propulsion system, as disclosed by Mackin, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of providing thrust to an aircraft.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Mackin and Otsuka, and further in view of Piasecki (US 11,993,391).
Regarding claim 2, Allen in view of Mackin teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 1. Allen further teaches wherein:
the fuselage comprises a rotor (Allen, Fig. 1 & Col. 2, lines 31 regarding a rotor).
Allen does not teach wherein:
the fuel cell is further configured to provide a thrust force to the fuselage by applying power to a drive motor of the rotor.
Piasecki teaches wherein:
the fuel cell is further configured to provide a thrust force to the fuselage by applying power to a drive motor of the rotor (Piasecki, Col. 3, lines 54-56 regarding the fuel cell stack generating electricity to power the electric motors driving the main rotor and the convertible thruster).
Allen and Piasecki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate using the fuel cell to power the main rotor, as disclosed by Piasecki, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of using the same power source for the primary and auxiliary engines to reduce the need of multiple power systems.
Allen and Piasecki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate using the fuel cell to power multiple propulsion components, as disclosed by Piasecki, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of using the same power source for the primary and auxiliary engines to reduce the need of multiple power systems.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Mackin and Otsuka, and further in view of Hatalsky (US 5,806,791).
Regarding claim 4, Allen in view of Mackin and Otsuka teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 3. Allen, as modified with the aircraft propulsion system of Mackin, further teaches wherein the auxiliary thruster comprises:
a combustion chamber configured to receive the fuel from the fuel tank; and
receive the air from the compressor (Mackin, [0138] regarding the combustor burning fuel using HP compressed air & Fig. 1B regarding the fuel line going from the LH2 fuel tank 150 to the combustor 110); and
a nozzle connected to the combustion chamber to eject the combustion gas generated in the combustion chamber (Mackin, [0139] regarding a first nozzle downstream of the combustor to exhaust the first exhaust gas).
Allen and Mackin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate using the aircraft propulsion system, as disclosed by Mackin, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of providing thrust to an aircraft.
Allen, as modified, does not teach a plurality of vanes disposed at regular intervals from each other in the nozzle and configured to vary a posture thereof to control the ejection direction of the combustion gas.
Hatalsky teaches a plurality of vanes disposed at regular intervals from each other in the nozzle and configured to vary a posture thereof to control an ejection direction of the combustion gas (Hatalsky, Col. 6, lines 46-50 regarding multiple moveable vanes mounted in the path of the plume to direct the plume and control the positioning of the missile & Fig. 3 regarding the vanes being spaced 90 degrees apart).
Allen and Hatalsky are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate adjustable vanes in the nozzle, as disclosed by Hatalsky, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of using the vanes to precisely control the direction of thrust.
Regarding claim 5, Allen in view of Mackin, Otsuka, and Hatalsky teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 4. Allen, as modified with the aircraft propulsion system of Mackin, further teaches wherein:
a first fuel supply line is connected between the fuel tank and the fuel cell stack,
a second fuel supply line is connected between the first fuel supply line and the combustion chamber,
a first valve is disposed between the first fuel supply line and the second fuel supply line (Mackin, Fig. 1B regarding a fuel supply line going to the fuel cell and another going to the combustor & valve 155 between the fuel line to the fuel cell and the fuel cell to the combustor),
a first air supply line is connected between the compressor and the fuel cell stack,
a second air supply line is connected between the first air supply line and the combustion chamber, and
a second valve is disposed between the first air supply line and the second air supply line (Mackin, [0139] regarding a diverter that blocks or allows flow from the HP compressor to the combustor and the fuel cell. As the diverter can control the flow of compressed air, an air supply line must exist that goes from the compressor to the diverter to the fuel cell and another from the diverter to the combustor.).
Allen and Mackin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate using the aircraft propulsion system, as disclosed by Mackin, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of providing thrust to an aircraft.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Mackin, Otsuka, and Hatalsky, and further in view of Dindar (US 11,905,884).
Regarding claim 6, Allen in view of Mackin, Otsuka and Hatalsky teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 5, but fails to teach a fuel pump disposed in the second fuel supply line and configured to control a mass flow rate of the fuel supplied to the combustion chamber.
Dindar teaches a fuel pump disposed in the second fuel supply line and configured to control a mass flow rate of the fuel supplied to the combustion chamber (Dindar, Col. 22, lines 29-35 regarding a liquid pump providing a determined amount of hydrogen fuel to the engine).
Allen and Dindar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate using a pump to provide a specified amount of fuel to the engine, as disclosed by Dindar, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of ensuring the proper amount of thrust is being generated with the correct amount of fuel being supplied.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Mackin, Otsuka, and Hatalsky, and further in view of Eguchi (US 2022/0250754).
Regarding claim 7, Allen in view of Mackin, Otsuka, and Hatalsky teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 4. Allen further teaches a controller configured to control an operation of the auxiliary thruster during an emergency (Allen, Col. 3, lines 53-61 regarding a control module transmitting a signal to arm the proximity switch when the rotor ceases to rotate and firing the rockets when the proximity switch senses the pre-set critical altitude).
Allen does not teach a sensing device comprising a plurality of sensors electrically connected to the controller.
Eguchi teaches a sensing device comprising a plurality of sensors electrically connected to the controller (Eguchi, Fig. 10 regarding a measuring device connected to the controller).
Allen and Eguchi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate having a measuring device connected to the controller, as disclosed by Eguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of ensuring the auxiliary engine is being used at the proper time with the right amount of thrust.
Regarding claim 8, Allen in view of Mackin, Otsuka, Hatalsky, and Eguchi teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 7. Eguchi further teaches wherein the sensing device comprises:
a first sensor configured to sense a posture of the fuselage (Eguchi, [0046] regarding the status information measured from the measuring device including a tilt (including pitch, roll, yaw or the like)); and
a second sensor configured to measure an altitude of the flying vehicle (Eguchi, [0046] regarding the status information measured from the measuring device including altitude).
Allen and Eguchi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate measuring tilt and altitude, as disclosed by Eguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of measuring altitude and orientation of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 9, Allen in view of Mackin, Otsuka, Hatalsky, and Eguchi teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 8. Eguchi further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
calculate a current sink rate from a current altitude value of the flying vehicle input from the sensing device (Eguchi, [0055] regarding determining a vertical downward speed using status information received from the measuring device);
compare the current sink rate with a predetermined required sink rate during the emergency (Eguchi, [0055] regarding comparing the vertical downward speed with a predetermined threshold); and
calculate the auxiliary thrust force required for the flying vehicle from a difference between the current sink rate and the predetermined required sink rate (Eguchi, [0055] regarding outputting the thrusters when the vertical downward speed is greater than a predetermined threshold).
Allen and Eguchi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate calculating a decent rate and to control the thrust force based on the sink rate, as disclosed by Eguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of using the auxiliary engines to reduce the sink rate of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 10, Allen in view of Mackin, Otsuka, Hatalsky, and Eguchi teaches the flying vehicle as claimed in claim 8. Hatalsky further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine an angle of each of the vanes from a current posture of the flying vehicle input from the sensing device (Hatalsky, Col. 6, lines 56-63 regarding the steering control system operating the vanes up to plus or minus 25 degrees. In order to determine what angle to position the vanes at, the system must use its current orientation); and
control an operation of drivers respectively connected to the vanes to control the ejection direction of the combustion gas discharged from the nozzle (Hatalsky, Col. 6, lines 46-50 regarding multiple moveable vanes mounted in the path of the plume to direct the plume and control the positioning of the missile & Fig. 3 regarding the vanes being spaced 90 degrees apart).
Allen and Hatalsky are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate adjusting vanes in the nozzle, as disclosed by Hatalsky, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of using the vanes to precisely control the direction of thrust.
Claims 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Mackin, Eguchi, and Otsuka.
Regarding claim 14, Allen discloses an aircraft with an auxiliary thruster (Allen, Col. 2, lines 39-43 regarding an emergency landing system including a plurality of rocket members mounted in the fuselage).
Allen does not disclose a method for controlling an auxiliary thruster, the method comprising:
measuring a current sink rate of a flying vehicle during an emergency of the flying vehicle;
in response to a determination that the current sink rate is greater than or equal to a required sink rate, calculating an auxiliary thrust force for reducing the current sink rate;
commanding combustion gas to be generated and ejected by supplying a portion of fuel to be supplied to a fuel cell of the flying vehicle to the auxiliary thruster and burning the portion of fuel; and
controlling an ejection direction of the combustion gas,
wherein:
the ejection direction of the combustion gas is maintained in a direction perpendicular to a ground surface, such that an impact load generated upon collision with the ground surface is attenuated by the auxiliary thrust force, and
control of the auxiliary thruster is terminated in response to a determination that the current sink rate is less than the required sink rate.
Mackin teaches an aircraft propulsion system 100 that includes a fuel tank 150 connected to the compressor 104 of a hybrid engine and a fuel cell 122 (Fig. 1B).
Allen and Mackin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen to incorporate using the aircraft propulsion system, as disclosed by Mackin, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of providing thrust to an aircraft.
Eguchi teaches measuring a current sink rate of a flying vehicle during an emergency of the flying vehicle (Eguchi, [0055] regarding determining a vertical downward speed using status information received from the measuring device);
in response to a determination that the current sink rate is greater than or equal to a required sink rate, calculating an auxiliary thrust force for reducing the current sink rate (Eguchi, [0055] regarding comparing the vertical downward speed with a predetermined threshold & controlling the thruster outputs to reduce the decent speed); and
commanding combustion gas to be generated and ejected by supplying a portion of fuel (Eguchi, [0055] regarding outputting the thrusters when the vertical downward speed is greater than a predetermined threshold & [0032] regarding the thrusters being configured to output combustion gas),
wherein control of the auxiliary thruster is terminated in response to a determination that the current sink rate is less than the required sink rate (Eguchi, [0055-0057] regarding outputting the thrusters when the vertical downward speed is greater than a predetermined threshold and ending the thrust when the flying body is in contact with the ground (i.e., decent rate is at zero)).
Allen and Eguchi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate calculating a decent rate and to control the thrust force based on the sink rate, as disclosed by Eguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of using the auxiliary engines to reduce the sink rate of the aircraft.
Otsuka teaches controlling an ejection direction of the combustion gas,
wherein:
the ejection direction of the combustion gas is maintained in a direction perpendicular to a ground surface, such that an impact load generated upon collision with the ground surface is attenuated by the auxiliary thrust force (Otsuka, Col. 3, lines 5-22 regarding the trust axis of the auxiliary engine being directed to cause the helicopter to be moved in an upwardly direction. Therefore, the ejection of combustion air would be perpendicular to the ground which would result in the attenuation of the impact load generated upon collision with the ground surface.).
Allen and Otsuka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate having the thrust of the auxiliary engines being directed to move the aircraft up, as disclosed by Otsuka, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of generating vertical thrust.
Therefore, Allen, as modified, teaches a method for controlling an auxiliary thruster, the method comprising:
measuring a current sink rate of a flying vehicle during an emergency of the flying vehicle;
in response to a determination that the current sink rate is greater than or equal to a required sink rate, calculating an auxiliary thrust force for reducing the current sink rate;
commanding combustion gas to be generated and ejected by supplying a portion of fuel to be supplied to a fuel cell of the flying vehicle to the auxiliary thruster and burning the portion of fuel; and
controlling an ejection direction of the combustion gas,
wherein:
the ejection direction of the combustion gas is maintained in a direction perpendicular to a ground surface, such that an impact load generated upon collision with the ground surface is attenuated by the auxiliary thrust force, and
control of the auxiliary thruster is terminated in response to a determination that the current sink rate is less than the required sink rate.
Regarding claim 15, Allen in view of Mackin, Eguchi, and Otsuka teaches the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein control of the auxiliary thruster is performed in a state in which the flying vehicle is at a predetermined altitude (Allen, Col. 3, lines 57-61 regarding firing the rockets when the proximity switch senses the pre-set critical altitude).
Regarding claim 20, Allen in view of Mackin, Eguchi, and Otsuka teaches the method as claimed in claim 14. Eguchi further teaches wherein measuring the current sink rate comprises calculating the current sink rate from a current altitude value of the flying vehicle input from a sensing device (Eguchi, [0055] regarding determining a vertical downward speed using the altitude and speedo of the flying body from the measuring device).
Allen and Eguchi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate calculating a decent rate using the current altitude, as disclosed by Eguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of calculating the current sink rate.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Mackin, Eguchi, and Otsuka, and further in view of Bacic (WO 2024/028016) and Dindar.
Regarding claim 17, Allen in view of Mackin, Eguchi, and Otsuka teaches the method as claimed in claim 14, but fails to teach wherein commanding the combustion gas to be generated and ejected comprises:
determining a mass flow rate of the fuel for obtaining the auxiliary thrust force to obtain a determined mass flow rate; and
controlling an operation of a fuel pump disposed between a fuel tank of the fuel cell and a combustion chamber of the auxiliary thruster to supply the fuel at the determined mass flow rate.
Bacic teaches determining a mass flow rate of the fuel for obtaining the auxiliary thrust force to obtain a determined mass flow rate (Bacic, pg. 12, para. 3, regarding determining the required mass flow rate in order to generate required thrust).
Allen and Bacic are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate determining mass flow rate from the required thrust, as disclosed by Bacic, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of ensuring the correct amount of thrust is generated.
Dindar teaches controlling an operation of a fuel pump disposed between a fuel tank of the fuel cell and a combustion chamber of the auxiliary thruster to supply the fuel at a determined mass flow rate (Dindar, Col. 22, lines 29-35 regarding a liquid pump providing a determined amount of hydrogen fuel to the engine).
Allen and Dindar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate using a pump to provide a specified amount of fuel to the engine, as disclosed by Dindar, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of ensuring the proper amount of thrust is being generated with the correct amount of fuel being supplied.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Mackin, Eguchi, and Otsuka, and further in view of Hatalsky.
Regarding claim 19, Allen in view of Mackin, Eguchi, and Otsuka teaches the method as claimed in claim 14. Allen, as modified with the aircraft propulsion system of Mackin, teaches wherein the auxiliary thruster comprises:
a combustion chamber; and
a nozzle connected to the combustion chamber (Mackin, [0139] regarding a first nozzle downstream of the combustor to exhaust the first exhaust gas).
Allen, as modified with the aircraft propulsion system of Mackin, does not explicitly teach wherein the auxiliary thruster comprises:
a vane disposed in the nozzle, and
controlling the ejection direction of the combustion gas further comprises:
determining an angle of the vane from a current posture of the flying vehicle; and
controlling an operation of a driver connected to the vane to control the ejection direction of the combustion gas discharged from the nozzle.
Hatalsky teaches a vane disposed in the nozzle (Hatalsky, Col. 6, lines 46-50 regarding multiple moveable vanes mounted in the path of the plume), and
controlling the ejection direction of the combustion gas further comprises:
determining an angle of the vane from a current posture of the flying vehicle (Hatalsky, Col. 6, lines 56-63 regarding the steering control system operating the vanes up to plus or minus 25 degrees. In order to determine what angle to position the vanes at, the system must use its current orientation); and
controlling an operation of a driver connected to the vane to control the ejection direction of the combustion gas discharged from the nozzle (Hatalsky, Col. 6, lines 46-50 regarding multiple moveable vanes mounted in the path of the plume to direct the plume and control the positioning of the missile & Fig. 3 regarding the vanes being spaced 90 degrees apart).
Allen and Hatalsky are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Allen, as modified, to incorporate adjusting vanes in the nozzle, as disclosed by Hatalsky, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of using the vanes to precisely control the direction of thrust.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights