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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/01/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Ducted fan with outer and inner rows of chevrons – see Figs. 3A, 4 and 9.
Unducted fan with single row of chevrons and variable pitch stator – see Figs. 3B, 5, 6, 7A-7F.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: no claim appears generic as claim 1 is directed to a variable pitch stator disclosed only in the context of the unducted fan.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-22 are 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. Claim 1: “the method comprising: operating both the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a ramjet condition without operating the first plurality of fuel injectors; and operating the first plurality of fuel injectors only during a scramjet condition without operating the second plurality of fuel injectors and without operating the at least one plasma stabilizer” raises the issue of new matter. Note that “operating the first plurality of fuel injectors only during a scramjet condition” means that the first plurality of fuel injectors cannot be operated under any condition other than during a scramjet condition, e.g. it prohibits operation of the first plurality of fuel injectors during a transition condition. Similarly, “operating both the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a ramjet condition” prohibits operation of both of these elements during every other condition, including transition. As all scramjets must transition to scramjet [higher speed] speeds from the lower speed ramjet, applicant’s claims prevent any use of the first injectors during transition as well as the plasma injector and second fuel injectors. Note that claims 2 and 3 defining the transition condition clearly conflict with the “only” requirements of claim 1. Similarly, claim 16 is similarly problematic. These requirements are conflicting and preclude any transition condition as the listed conflict with those set earlier by the “only” limitations: “operating both the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a ramjet condition without operating the first plurality of fuel injectors, … operating the first plurality of fuel injectors only during a scramjet condition without operating the second plurality of fuel injectors and without operating the at least one plasma stabilizer, wherein operating the first plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing the fuel into the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors; and operating the first plurality of fuel injectors, the second plurality of fuel injectors, and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition.” Claims 21 and 22 are similarly deficient. Restated, claim 1 is 1) prohibited from operating at transition conditions with first and second injectors and 2) conflicts with the transition condition of claims 2, 3. 3) Since any real life engine has to go through a transition between ramjet and scramjet conditions, applicant’s require the first fuel injectors to be turned off when switching between the two and raise the issue of operability / possession since applicant cannot guarantee flameout does not occur during such a transition. Claim 16 has all the problems listed above but within the same claim(s).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-22 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. Applicant’s claims are problematic as set forth above under 112 (a). Furthermore, it is unclear what the scope of the claims are since they explicitly have conflicting requirements in the dependent claims 2, 3, as well as self conflicting requirements in claim 16, 22. Accordingly, applicant’s usage of “only” renders the claims unclear..
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) 1-3, 6-14, 16-19, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micka et al “Combustion characteristics of a dual-mode scramjet combustor with cavity Flameholder” and in view of Asquith et al (5,617,717) and Nakamura et al (2020/0362795). Micka et al teach [see annotations] A method of operating an engine having an inlet tube, a first plurality of fuel injectors [downstream] disposed in the inlet tube, a second plurality of fuel injectors [upstream] disposed in the inlet tube upstream of the first plurality of fuel injectors, a combustor swirl zone [cavity] downstream of the first plurality of fuel injectors, the method comprising: operating the second plurality of fuel injectors only during a ramjet condition without operating the first plurality of fuel injectors [see paragraph 3.1] and operating only the first [downstream] plurality of fuel injectors during a scramjet condition without operating the second [upstream] plurality of fuel injections [see caption of Fig. 13, “Downstream injection of hydrogen fuel” and note this is in scramjet mode] and without operating a plasma stabilizer [no plasma stabilizer disclosed]; operating at least the first plurality of fuel injectors and the second plurality of fuel injectors during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition; (6, 17) wherein an inlet air temperature in the inlet tube during the ramjet condition is less than the inlet air temperature in the inlet tube during the scramjet condition [inherent, subsonic flow has lower temperatures than supersonic, as the flow temperature is proportional to flow speed and subsonic speed is less than supersonic]; wherein the scramjet condition includes combustion occurring in supersonic airflow [by definition]; (8) wherein operating the first plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing fuel into the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors [upstream]; wherein the first plurality of fuel injectors extends into an interior of the inlet tube [e.g. broadly by extending past the cavity], and the method further comprises dispensing the fuel into the interior of the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors; (10) wherein operating the second plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing fuel into the inlet tube with the second plurality of fuel injectors; wherein the second plurality of fuel injectors are disposed at a periphery of the inlet tube, and the method further comprises dispensing the fuel at the periphery of the inlet tube with the second plurality of fuel injectors; (16) A method of operating an engine having an inlet tube, a first plurality of fuel injectors [downstream] disposed in the inlet tube, a second plurality of fuel injectors [upstream] disposed in the inlet tube upstream of the first plurality of fuel injectors, a combustor swirl zone [cavity] downstream of the first plurality of fuel injectors, the method comprising: operating the second plurality of fuel injectors during only during a ramjet condition [see paragraph 3.1] without operating the first plurality of fuel injectors; wherein operating the second plurality of fuel injectors [downstream] includes operating dispensing fuel into the inlet tube with the second plurality of fuel injectors, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors only during a scramjet condition, without operating the second plurality of fuel injections [see caption of Fig. 13, “Downstream injection of hydrogen fuel” and note this is done in scramjet mode] and without operating a plasma stabilizer [none disclosed]; wherein operating the first plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing the fuel into the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors; and operating the first plurality of fuel injectors, the second plurality of fuel injectors, only during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
785
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Micka et al do not teach at least one plasma stabilizer nor its detailed structure [e.g. claims 12, 18 and dependents], nor operating both the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a ramjet condition nor operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer. Asquith teach at least one plasma stabilizer 20 and operating both ramjet fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a ramjet condition and (12, 18) wherein operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy 26 to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer 26; wherein adding the plasma energy to the interior of the engine includes pushing the plasma energy to the interior of the engine with air [from 25] flowing through the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein the at least one plasma stabilizer includes a high voltage center rod [unlabeled], and the method further comprises providing a voltage to the high voltage center rod [high voltage provided by magnetron 21, which is by definition high voltage], to amplify the plasma energy. Asquith teach the plasma stabilizer stabilizes combustion of the fuel injection during ramjet operation [col. 4, lines 41-44]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ both the at least one plasma stabilizer with the ramjet [second plurality] injectors during a ramjet condition, wherein operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein adding the plasma energy to the interior of the engine includes pushing the plasma energy to the interior of the engine with air flowing through the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein the at least one plasma stabilizer includes a high voltage center rod, and the method further comprises providing a voltage to the high voltage center rod to amplify the plasma energy, in the manner taught by Asquith et al, in order to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] injectors during ramjet operation.
Micka et al already teach operating the first plurality of fuel injectors only during a scramjet condition without operating the second plurality of fuel injections and without operating a plasma stabilizer [no plasma stabilizer is disclosed and thus is useable without plasma stabilization during a scramjet condition]. Alternately, Micka et al are clearly capable of operating in that way and teach a broad interpretation of the first plurality of fuel 12 injectors extends into an interior of the inlet tube. As for both the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer are in operation only during a ramjet condition [does not cover the entire range of ramjet operation] … and the first plurality of fuel injectors is in operation during a scramjet condition [does not cover the entire range of scramjet operation]. As for operating both the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer are in operation only during a ramjet condition, this is deemed obvious to use both the plasma stabilizer in the only ramjet mode in order to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] fuel injectors, as specifically taught by Asquith et al during a ramjet condition. Furthermore, it is obvious to utilize only the first plurality of fuel injectors is in operation during a scramjet condition, as the first plurality of fuel injectors is adjacent the cavity stabilizer and stabilized during those high conditions as is typical of cavity stabilizers. Alternately, this covered when the second plurality of fuel injectors are temporarily inoperable [e.g. fuel line clogged / valve malfunction] so the first plurality of fuel injectors are in operation during the scramjet conditions. Yet another alternative is to apply Nakamura et al, which teaches that operating the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a during a scramjet condition without operating the at least one plasma stabilizer [none disclosed, cavity stabilization is sufficient for scramjet mode] and injecting the fuel from the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a adjacent the cavity without operating a plasma stabilizer; the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a extends into an interior of the inlet tube. The fuel from the first plurality of fuel injectors 14, 11a causes turbulence enhanced mixing of the fuel 15d which then enters the cavity 15 [paragraphs 0047-0048] and are the fuel injectors used during scramjet condition / operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the first fuel injectors of Nakamura et al, which extends into an interior of the inlet tube, during scramjet condition / operation, to inject the fuel from the first plurality of fuel injectors adjacent / into the cavity in a manner that causes turbulence enhanced mixing of the fuel which then enters the cavity [paragraphs 0047-0048] for stabilization during scramjet condition / operation and to utilize only these first plurality of injectors during scramjet condition / operation as consistent with Micka et al’s disclosure of using only downstream main fuel injection [adjacent the cavity]. As Nakamura et al do not require the use of “second plurality of [upstream] fuel injections” during scramjet mode nor a plasma stabilizer, in combination, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors [either downstream injectors of Micka et al or replaced by the cavity injectors of Nakamura] during a scramjet condition without operating the second plurality of fuel injections [not required in Micka and not required in Nakamura as cavity stabilization in Nakamura is sufficient] and without operating the at least one plasma stabilizer [unnecessary for either Micka or Nakamura to operate in scramjet mode] would be taught by the combination of Micka and Nakamura et al. As for wherein the engine includes a plurality of stable operating conditions, and wherein: during a first stable operating condition of the engine of the plurality of stable operating conditions, operating both the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a ramjet condition without operating the first plurality of fuel injectors; and during a second stable operating condition of the engine of the plurality of stable operating conditions, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors only during a scramjet condition without operating the second plurality of fuel injectors and without operating the at least one plasma stabilizer, this is already covered by the prior art as there the ramjet and scramjet conditions are the stable operating conditions already disclosed. As for operating at least the first plurality of fuel injectors and the second plurality of fuel injectors during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition; operating the at least one plasma stabilizer during the transition condition / operating the first plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing the fuel into the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors; and operating the first plurality of fuel injectors, the second plurality of fuel injectors, and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition, it is noted that it is well known in the art to employ both sets of injectors during a switchover between conditions, so to prevent risk of complete fuel loss / flameout between switching fuel injectors rather than using a hard on-off transition [step function] between switching injectors. Since the at least one plasma stabilizer is used for stabilizing the ramjet [second plurality] injectors, it naturally flows that the plasma stabilizer should also be used during transition to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] injectors, which are operating during the transition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ both first and second fuel injectors as well as the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a transition condition, in order to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] fuel injectors and to prevent complete fuel loss / flameout during switching fuel injectors. As for wherein the engine includes a plurality of stable operating conditions, and wherein: during a first stable operating condition of the engine of the plurality of stable operating conditions, operating both the second plurality of fuel injectors and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a ramjet condition without operating the first plurality of fuel injectors, wherein operating the second plurality of fuel injectors includes operating dispensing fuel into the inlet tube with the second plurality of fuel injectors, and operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer; during a second stable operating condition of the engine of the plurality of stable operating conditions, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors only during a scramjet condition without operating the second plurality of fuel injectors and without operating the at least one plasma stabilizer, wherein operating the first plurality of fuel injectors includes dispensing the fuel into the inlet tube with the first plurality of fuel injectors; and during a third stable operating condition of the engine of the plurality of stable operating conditions, operating the first plurality of fuel injectors, the second plurality of fuel injectors, and the at least one plasma stabilizer only during a transition condition between the ramjet condition and the scramjet condition, these limitations are already taught as applied above, noting each of the first (ramjet), second (scramjet) and third (transition) conditions were previously treated and are stable conditions.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-14, 16-19, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micka et al “Combustion characteristics of a dual-mode scramjet combustor with cavity Flameholder” view of Asquith et al (5,617,717) and Nakamura et al (2020/0362795), as applied above, and further in view of either Asquith et al (5,565,118) or Herbon et al (2009/0165436). Asquith et al ‘717 illustrate and discuss the claimed plasma stabilizer but do not elaborate on all its features – rather relying on the copending application [col. 3, lines 22-31], which is now the Asquith et al ‘118 patent. To the extent not present in Asquith et al ‘717, Asquith et al ‘118 teaches (12, 18) wherein operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein adding the plasma energy to the interior of the engine includes pushing the plasma energy to the interior of the engine with air flowing through the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein the at least one plasma stabilizer includes a high voltage center rod 14, 13, and the method further comprises providing a voltage to the high voltage center rod to amplify the plasma energy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the plasma stabilizer structure of Asquith et al ‘118 as the disclosed structure usable with the plasma stabilizer of Asquith et al ‘717. Alternately, Herbon et al teach (12, 18) wherein operating the at least one plasma stabilizer includes adding plasma energy to an interior of the engine with the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein adding the plasma energy to the interior of the engine includes pushing the plasma energy to the interior of the engine with air in 12, 20 flowing through the at least one plasma stabilizer; wherein the at least one plasma stabilizer includes a high voltage center rod 16, and the method further comprises providing a voltage to the high voltage center rod 16 to amplify the plasma energy. Herbon et al teach the plasma stabilizer stabilizes the fuel and air mixture combustion, acts as an ignition source and improves the flammability of the mixture [paragraphs 0030-0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the plasma stabilizer with voltage source of the type taught by Herbon et al, in order to employ plasma stabilizer structure that stabilizes the fuel and air mixture combustion, acts as an ignition source and improves the flammability of the mixture as well as affect the flame stabilization around the entire periphery of the combustion process such to stabilize the ramjet [second plurality] fuel injectors in the manner taught by Asquith et al ‘717.
Claim(s) 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micka et al “Combustion characteristics of a dual-mode scramjet combustor with cavity Flameholder” in view of Asquith et al (5,617,717) and Nakamura et al (2020/0362795) in view of either Asquith et al (5,565,118) or Herbon et al (2009/0165436), as applied above, and further in view of Schneider et al (6,194,682) and/or Sanders et al (4,791,268). The prior art already teach providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod and flowing the air through the at least one plasma stabilizer / torch but do not teach providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod without flowing the air through the at least one plasma stabilizer. Schneider et al specifically reference the Sanders et al patent and describe the required sequence of providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod occurs first, i.e. before / without flowing the air through the at least one plasma stabilizer [col. 1, lines 35-49] and specifically teaches that the gas of Sanders et al is air. Sanders et al teach a plasma torch, which is started by providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod 14 without flowing the gas [e.g. air] through the at least one plasma stabilizer and then subsequently flowing the gas [e.g. air] through the at least one plasma stabilizer [col. 4, lines 9-31, particularly lines 9-11, 26-31]. In other words, providing the voltage to the high voltage center rod 14 occurs first, i.e. before / without flowing the gas / air through the at least one plasma stabilizer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the voltage to the high voltage center rod without flowing the air through the at least one plasma stabilizer, as taught by of Schneider et al or Sanders et al, as part of the normal start process for a plasma torch stabilizer utilized in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Applicant’s reliance on the amended claim language raises substantive issues under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) as they invoke conflicting requirements and possession.
Note that the teachings of Nakamura et al are not required for the combination, as Micka et al already do not teach the use of a plasma stabilizer during the scramjet operation and thus teach already teach operating first injectors during the scramjet operation without operating a plasma stabilizer. Nakamura et al does provide additional evidence that operating first injectors during the scramjet operation without operating a plasma stabilizer is sufficient due to the cavity stabilization as well as other supplemental features.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TED KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-4829. The Examiner can be reached on regular business hours before 5:00 pm, Monday to Thursday and every other Friday.
The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer, can be reached at 571-272-7118 Alternate inquiries to Technology Center 3700 can be made via 571-272-3700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions on Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). General inquiries can also be directed to the Inventors Assistance Center whose telephone number is 800-786-9199. Furthermore, a variety of online resources are available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent
/Ted Kim/
Telephone
571-272-4829
Primary Examiner
Fax
571-273-8300
December 17, 2025
Prosecution Insights