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 .
Drawings
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 embodiment claimed in claim 19 must be shown, particularly pointed out in the remarks if already 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-12, 17-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Llamas Sandin (previously cited US 2020/0361597 A1), hereinafter Sandin.
Regarding claim 1, Sandin discloses a method comprising:
positioning one or more counter-flow-point-embedded-electrode-plasma-actuator-devices (hereinafter the one or more devices) on an edge of an airfoil of an aircraft (aerodynamic improvement device, ABSTRACT; wing 8, edge: §[0032]-[0033]),
wherein a device comprises at least a first electrode that is unexposed and embedded under a surface of the airfoil (an electrode from group 22, Fig. 3) and
a second electrode positioned on or in a top surface of the airfoil (the office notes the first or lowest electrode in group 21 from the group of electrodes formed on an upper hemisphere of the leading edge whenever the leading edge is sliced into an upper and lower hemisphere),
wherein the first electrode comprises a point electrode (comprising tip 222 in Fig. 3; the tip(s) function to localize plasma initiations, concentrate the electric field and control where and how the plasma forms, as is evidenced by at least §[0104]) and
activating the one or more devices to create a plasma force flowing from the second electrode to the first electrode and over a leading edge curvature of the airfoil during a flight of the aircraft (§[0177]),
wherein a dynamic stall angle of a pitching airfoil is increased during the flight of the aircraft by forcing plasma over a leading edge curvature of the pitching airfoil (at least §[0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the edge of the airfoil is a leading edge of the airfoil (§[0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more devices are activated by application of different phase alternating current signals to the first electrode and the second electrode (§[0179]: The ionizing voltage between two successive electrodes can be obtained by different ways such as explained in connection to the first group of electrodes; §[0170]: The electrodes may be supplied with a varying voltage, such as for example a periodic voltage signal. The voltages supplied to a first electrode and to a second electrode may have a phase difference between them).
Regarding claim 10, Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the airfoil is formed of a dielectric material (Examiner notes the airfoil is formed from electrically insulating materials, see §§ [0051], [0126]; polyurethane, for example).
Regarding claim 11, Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising attaching a dielectric material to the airfoil, wherein the dielectric material is positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode (26 and/or thin-layer detailed in §[0150], Should the material chosen as anti-erosion layer 26 not be sufficiently electrically insulating or should the distance between the first electrode 27 and the second electrode 28 be reduced, a thin layer of highly-electrically insulating material may be inserted in the anti-erosion layer 26 between the first electrode 27 and the second electrode 28).
Regarding claim 12, Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a geometric shape of the second electrode is linear (Examiner notes the electrodes from group 21 are linear, as detailed in § [0166]).
Regarding claim 17, Sandin discloses a system (aerodynamic improvement device, ABSTRACT) comprising:
one or more airfoils of an aircraft (wing 8 and Fig. 3);
one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator devices attached to an edge of an airfoil of the aircraft (Fig. 3, §[0032]-[0033]),
wherein a counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator device comprises at least a first electrode that is unexposed and embedded under a surface of the airfoil (an electrode from group 22, Fig. 3), and
a second electrode positioned on or in a top surface of the airfoil (the office notes the first or lowest electrode in group 21 from the group of electrodes formed on an upper hemisphere of the leading edge whenever the leading edge is sliced into an upper and lower hemisphere),
wherein the first electrode comprises a point electrode (tip 222; Fig. 3);
one or more voltage sources coupled to the one or more devices (18, specifically via voltage generator 30, see ABSTRACT),
wherein the one or more voltage sources are configured to activate the one or more devices during a flight of the aircraft to create a plasma force flowing form the second electrode to the first electrode and over a leading edge curvature of the airfoil, (§[0177]),
wherein a dynamic stall angle of a pitching airfoil is increased during the flight of the aircraft by forcing plasma over the edge of the pitching airfoil (thus allows a wing to stall at a high angle of attack, higher than without activation of the aerodynamics improvement device; §[0042]).
Regarding claim 18, Sandin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the edge of the airfoil is a leading edge of the airfoil (§§[0033], [0085]).
Regarding claim 22, Sandin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein one or more voltage sources are configured to apply different phase alternating current signals to the first electrode and the second electrode (§[0179]: The ionizing voltage between two successive electrodes can be obtained by different ways such as explained in connection to the first group of electrodes; §[0170]: The electrodes may be supplied with a varying voltage, such as for example a periodic voltage signal. The voltages supplied to a first electrode and to a second electrode may have a phase difference between them).
Regarding claim 23, Sandin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the airfoil is formed of a dielectric material (Examiner notes the airfoil is formed of electrically insulating materials, see §§ [0051], [0126]; polyurethane for example).
Regarding claim 24, Sandin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein a geometric shape of the second electrode is linear (§ [0166]).
Claims 5-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandin, as applied to claims 1 and 17, respectively, and further, in view of Wood (previously cited US 2010/0224733 A1), hereinafter Wood.
Regarding claim 5, claim 6, claim 7, and claim 8, Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more devices are activated by application of an input voltage signal that may take different values, shapes and frequencies (§[0026], [0151]), but does not appear to specifically disclose having an input voltage signal that specifically takes a sinusoidal waveform, a triangular waveform, a square waveform, a saw-tooth waveform.
However, Wood teaches a plasma actuator device that applies an input voltage signal specifically takes a sinusoidal waveform (Fig. 2e), a triangular waveform (Fig. 5h), a square waveform (Fig. 5g), a saw-tooth waveform (Fig. 5a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method disclosed by Sandin with the triangular waveform, sinusoidal waveform, square waveform and sawtooth waveform, taught by Wood, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that devices are activated by application of an input voltage signal that takes a sinusoidal waveform, a triangular waveform, a square waveform or a saw-tooth waveform. The benefit being an application of a voltage that is at least the ionizing voltage so that the ionized air locally forms a plasma (Sandin, §§ [0026],[0039]).
Claim 21 is likewise rejected in light of Sandin and Wood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 13-16, 19-20 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicants claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 9/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are either found unpersuasive or moot (particularly regarding the § 103 Rejections of claims 1 and 17) as a new interpretation of the prior art is being relied upon in the current rejection in light of the amended claims.
The unpersuasive arguments are specifically remarks pertaining to the claimed “counter-flow relationship”. The office respectfully notes that it appears the electrodes are placed on the airfoil leading edge, and the voltage is configured to flow in whatever direction best suits the application of the particular plasma actuating device between whichever electrode pair or pairs is relevant for that particular need. Electrode one and electrode two are merely names and as such are interchangeable.
Regarding the “highly curved geometry” term pulled form applicants arguments, the office notes that particular terminology is not claimed. A leading edge curvature is claimed, the office notes a curvature that appears to typical of an aircraft leading edge for at least a wing is illustrated in the instant application, and is a leading edge curvature that prior art Sandin clearly discloses. Increasing stall angle by delaying boundary layer separation via plasma generation over a leading edge curvature is typical and well-known in the art. See the electrodes of Sandin detailed on the leading edge curvature in Fig. 3.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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.
/S.D.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights