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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the drawing objections, the replacement drawings have obviated the objection(s) and it is/ they are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections, the arguments are persuasive, therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 rejections, the arguments are not persuasive, particularly Sandin does teach and/or disclose a method and a system “comprising point electrodes” and “including increasing a dynamic stall angle of a pitching airfoil during the flight by forcing plasma over a leading edge of an airfoil”. See the Rejections section for details.
Further, the combination of modified Sandin and Wood disclose/teach the limitations of claims 5-8 and 21. And, likewise the combination of modified Sandin and Smullin teach the limitations of claims 14 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 16-20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llamas Sandin (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 CFPEEPAD) on an edge of an airfoil of an aircraft (aerodynamic improvement device, ABSTRACT; wing 8, edge: §[0032]-[0033]), wherein CFPEEPAD comprises at least a first electrode that is unexposed and embedded under a surface of the airfoil (an electrode from group 22 or an electrode from group 23, Fig. 3) and a second electrode positioned on or in a top surface of the airfoil (an electrode from group 21, an electrode from group 22, or an electrode from group 23; Fig. 3), wherein the first electrode comprises a point electrode (at least one tip, §[0104]; tip 222 or tip 223 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] reproduced here: In some embodiments, both the first electrode and the second electrode may each comprise at least one tip. The shape of the first electrode and the second electrode may influence the location of the plasma generation. With first electrode and the second electrode arranged so as to comprise portions in which they are more proximate to each other than in other portions, the location of the air plasma generated upon application of an ionizing voltage can be predetermined. In particular, first electrode and/or the second electrode comprising tips oriented toward each other allow to predetermine specific points or paths at which an air plasma will be generated); and
activating the one or more CFPEEPADs to create a plasma force during a flight of the aircraft (§[0042]), wherein a dynamic stall angle of a pitching airfoil is increased during the flight of the aircraft by forcing plasma over the leading edge of the pitching airfoil (at least §§ [0033]-[0034], [0042], [0085], [0095], [0184]-[0185], Fig. 4).
Sandin does not appear to disclose that the activating of the one or more CFPEEPAD’s to create a plasma force specifically generating a force that flows from the second electrode to the first electrode and around a leading edge of the airfoil.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the electrodes as needed to generate the type of flow and/or plasma forcing desired for the method on the intended particular airfoil leading edge; Specifically, an arrangement that wherein upon activation of the one or more CFPEEPAD’s, the plasma force generated specifically flows from the second electrode to the first electrode and around a leading edge of the airfoil, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, the office notes the particular positioning of the upper and lower electrodes would be dependent on the particulars of the airfoil, e.g., at least the geometry and flight plan as is evidenced by the following teachings in Sandin:
Figure 4 teaches the positioning of electrodes on the leading edge of a wing of an aircraft.
At least §§ [0109] and [0130] teaches that the method comprises various embodiments and scenarios to precisely control airflow along an aerodynamic surface of an aircraft in an adaptive and very effective manner, depending on the particular aerodynamic situation and aircraft.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the edge of the airfoil is a leading edge of the airfoil (§[0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second electrode comprises a single unexposed embedded point electrode (in the instance where the second electrode comprises an electrode from the group 22 or the group 23, the second electrode comprises a respective single unexposed embedded point electrode 222 or 233, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator devices comprise a multiple counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator device (Fig. 3),
wherein the second electrode comprises an unexposed embedded point electrode (in the instance where the second electrode comprises an electrode from the group 22 or the group 23, the second electrode comprises a respective unexposed embedded point 222 or 233, Fig. 3),
wherein the multiple counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator device, further comprises an additional unexposed embedded point electrode (23 with tip 233; §§ [0161], [0181]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a geometric shape of the second electrode is linear (Examiner notes in the instance where the second electrode is an electrode from group 21, a geometric shape of the second electrode is linear, as detailed in § [0166]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a geometric shape of the second electrode varies spatially (Examiner notes in the instance where the second electrode is an electrode from group 22 or group 23, a geometric shape of the second electrode varies spatially as is depicted in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sandin discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the geometric shape of the second electrode is triangular (§[0100]).
Regarding claim 17, Sandin discloses a system (aerodynamic improvement device, ABSTRACT) comprising:
one or more airfoils of an aircraft (wing 8);
one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator devices attached to an edge of an airfoil of the aircraft (§[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 or an electrode from group 23, Fig. 3), and a second electrode positioned on or in a top surface of the airfoil (an electrode from group 21, an electrode from group 22, or an electrode from group 23; Fig. 3); wherein the first electrode comprises a point electrode (222 or 223; Fig. 3);
one or more voltage sources coupled to the one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator devices (18, specifically via voltage generator 30, see ABSTRACT), wherein the one or more voltage sources are configured to activate the one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator devices during a flight of the aircraft (at least §§ [0033]-[0034], [0042], [0085], [0095], [0184]-[0185], Fig. 4), 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; §§[0035]-[0043]).
Sandin does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more voltage sources coupled to the one or more CFPEEPAD’s to create a plasma force during flight of the aircraft specifically create the plasma force flowing from the second electrode to the first electrode and around a leading edge of the airfoil.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the voltage source in a manner that it generates the particular type of flow and/or plasma forcing desired for the system on the intended particular airfoil leading edge during the particular intended flight plan/flight path of the aircraft; Specifically, a voltage that wherein upon application of the voltage source the activation of the one or more CFPEEPAD’s during flight of the aircraft, creates the plasma force specifically flowing from the second electrode to the first electrode and around a leading edge of the airfoil, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the office notes the particular voltage application would be dependent on the particulars of the airfoil, e.g., at least the geometry and flight plan as is evidenced by at least the following teachings in Sandin: §§ [0035]-[0039], [0110], [0127], [0135], [0169].
Regarding claim 18, modified Sandin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the edge of the airfoil is a leading edge of the airfoil (§§[0033], [0085]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sandin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator devices comprises a linear counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator device (per §[0166]),
wherein the second electrode comprises a single unexposed embedded point electrode (in the instance where the second electrode comprises an electrode from the group 22 or the group 23, the second electrode comprises a respective single unexposed embedded point electrode 222 or 233, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sandin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator devices comprise a multiple counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator device (Fig. 3),
wherein the second electrode comprises an unexposed embedded point electrode (Examiner notes in the instance where the second electrode is an electrode from group 22 or group 23, the second electrode comprises a respective unexposed embedded point electrode 222, 233; Fig. 3),
wherein the multiple counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator device, further comprises an additional unexposed embedded point electrode (23 with tip 233; §§ [0161], [0181]).
Regarding claim 22, modified 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, modified 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, modified Sandin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein a geometric shape of the second electrode is linear (Examiner notes in the instance where the second electrode is an electrode from group 21, a geometric shape of the second electrode is linear, as detailed in § [0166]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Sandin discloses the system of claim 17, wherein a geometric shape of the second electrode varies spatially (Examiner notes in the instance where the second electrode is an electrode from group 22 or group 23, a geometric shape of the second electrode varies spatially as is depicted in Fig. 3).
Claims 5-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sandin, as applied to claims 1 and 17, respectively, and further, in view of Wood et al. (US 2010/0224733 A1), hereinafter Wood.
Regarding claim 5, claim 6, claim 7, claim 8, Sandin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator 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 the one or more counter-flow point embedded electrode plasma actuator 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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sandin, as applied to claim 13, and further, in view of Smullin et al. (US 2019/0145443 A1), hereinafter Smullin.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Sandin discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the geometric shape of the second electrode may comprise different possible shapes such as a finger, a triangle, a rectangle, etc. (§[0100]), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the geometric shape of the second electrode comprises a square or comprises a sinusoid.
However, Smullin teaches a plasma actuator in the same field of endeavor including an electrode with a specific geometric shape that comprises a square (§[106], square-wave) or that comprises a sinusoid (Fig. 5B).
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 geometric shape of electrode comprising a square, and the geometric shape of electrode comprising a sinusoid as taught by Smullin, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the geometric shape of the second electrode comprises a square or comprises a sinusoid, respectively. The benefit being the ability to select the specific geometry of the second electrode to produce the predictable outcome of enhanced actuation efficiency of the device and/or increased longevity of the device (Smullin, §[0102]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iizuka (US 2025/0201532) teaches a system of plasma actuators (§[0079]) and a voltage application (Fig. 6) configured to force plasma flow in opposing directions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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 at 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights