DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A, Sub-species I(b), Sub-species II(b), and Sub-species III(a) in the reply filed on 04/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 8, 9 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions (regarding inventions II and III on page 2 of the restriction requirement mailed 03/03/2025) and species (shown on pages 5-7 of the instant restriction requirement), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The specification is objected to:
in pars. 42 and 43, it is thought that the following changes should be made: “electrode feeding assembly [[108]] 112”; and
in par. 97, it is thought that the following changes should be made:
in each of lines 4, 9 and 10: “nozzle stage 118 [[108]]”
in line 7: “nozzle stage 118 [[108]]”.
controller is identified with “312” in par. 113; and drive roller mechanism is identified with “312” in par. 79 and other paragraphs such as par. 72; this should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 2015/0211499 A1 (Morin) in view of US Patent 2,942,420 (Clark).
Regarding claim 1, Morin discloses (see fig. 2) an engine 20 comprising: an inlet (at 21) configured to receive input air (input air is provided to compressor 25, see par. 51, middle); a compressor stage 25 coupled to the inlet, the compressor stage 25 being configured to compress the input air (intended use; see par. 51, middle) and reduce velocity (intended use; axial speed of portion of air colliding with compressor spools will be reduced) of the input air between an entry section (just forward of most upstream compressor spool 28) of the compressor stage 25 and an exit section (just aft of most downstream compressor spool 28) of the compressor stage 25; a plasma chamber (2; or chamber in annotated figure below) operatively coupled (plasma chamber 2 ionizes and heats, see par. 45, incoming airflow 13, to create heated airflow 14 that mixes with bypass airflow 15 in chamber 3, the mixed flow entering turbine 26, see par. 56, to create thrust, see par. 66) to the compressor stage 25 to receive compressed air from the compressor stage 25, the plasma chamber configured to generate an electric arc 12 to convert the compressed air 13 to an electrically conductive plasma (intended use; the air 13 is ionized via plasma chamber (2; or chamber in annotated figure below) wherein plasma is created, see pars. 9 and 45, and is thus electrically conductive)). Morin does not explicitly disclose the plasma chamber comprising a set of continuously-fed electrodes (i.e., the heating arc 12 created by electrodes cathode 9 and anode 6 is not disclosed as using continuously fed electrodes).
Clark teaches (see fig. 1) a plasma generation structure 12 for aircraft application (see col. 2, ll. 1-5) and further teaches a plasma chamber 17 comprising a set of continuously-fed electrodes (graphite rod anode 22, see col. 2 ll. 33-35, is continuously fed to the plasma chamber 17, by feeder mechanism 52 wherein ref. charact. 52 is shown in fig. 4; the continuously fed anode 22 is used to create, in conjunction with cathode 24, heating arc 26 in plasma chamber 17 to heat air entering the plasma chamber 17 in order to create plasma stream 28; see col. 2, ll. 42-48: “air … is introduced into the … [plasma] chamber 17 … through … inlet nozzle 28” wherein the instant air is first compressed via a pump as discussed at col. 4, ll. 49-52).
PNG
media_image1.png
179
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (nozzle stage)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (expanded portion of fig. 2)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (plasma chamber)][AltContent: arrow]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Morin with the plasma chamber comprising a set of continuously-fed electrodes by as taught by Clark for the purpose improved arc gap control and thus current flow via the arc to provide optimal heating performance of the compressed air of the combination (see Clark col. 4, ll. 30-70). This results in the inner center electrode 9 of Morin being a continuously fed positively charged anode, and the outer electrode 6 being a negatively charged cathode, as taught by Clark. One of ordinary skill in the art is familiar with this configuration as discussed by Manzoni and Woodruff cited in the pertinent prior art infra.
Regarding claim 4, Morin in view of Clark teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches the set of continuously-fed electrodes (the continuously fed anode 22 of Clark fig. 1 is used to create, in conjunction with cathode 24, heating arc 26 in plasma chamber 17 to heat air entering the plasma chamber 17 in order to create plasma stream 28) is configured to be consumed during operation (Clark teaches, in Col 3, ll. 40 – 45 and ll. 70 – 75, the electrode 22 and the striker wire 70 being eroded, i.e., consumed, during operation; Clark teaches, in Col 4, ll. 30 – 35, a portion of the electrode 22 was consumed during operation) and converted to an exhaustible gas (intended use; the plasma stream of the combination is corresponds heated air flow 14 (see Morin par. 63) that is expanded in turbine 26 and exits the engine 20 at exhaust 23 (see Morin fig. 2)).
Regarding claim 7, Morin in view of Clark teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Morin teaches a nozzle stage (see annotated figure above) coupled to the plasma chamber (plasma chamber in annotated figure above), the nozzle stage (see annotated figure above) being configured to expand the electrically conductive plasma (the air 13 is ionized via the plasma chamber wherein plasma is created, see pars. 9 and 45, and is thus electrically conductive) and heated air (air 13 is heated via electric arc 12; see par. 45) to generate an impulse (thrust is generated at exhaust 23; see par. 52, bottom; impulse being thrust is consistent with applicant par. 47, bottom; it is noted that the claim does not require the nozzle stage to be at the aft portion of the engine).
Regarding claim 11, Morin in view of Clark teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches (see Clark fig. 1) a drive roller (52 wherein ref. charact. 52 is shown in fig. 4) configured to drive the set of continuously-fed electrodes (graphite rod anode 22, see col. 2 ll. 33-35; also see col. 4, ll. 30-40) into the plasma chamber (17 in Clark fig. 1; and 2 in Morin fig. 2).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin in view of Clark as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by (US Patent 4,061,557) Nishizawa, and further in view of US Patent 3,308,623 (Ferrie).
Regarding claim 2, Morin in view of Clark teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches the set of continuously-fed electrodes (anode 22 in Clark fig. 1), as anodes (anode 22 in Clark fig. 1), includes at least one rigid (Nishizawa points out that graphite rods used as electrodes are rigid, see col. 3, ll. 30-31) graphite rod (see Clark col. 2, ll. 33 to 35) drawn (the instant anode rod is drawn through feeder 52 in fig. 1 wherein ref. charact. 52 is shown in fig. 4). The combination does not teach graphite rod drawn from a cassette.
Ferrie teaches (see fig. 14) rods 38 used as electrodes with an ionization chamber (see col. 6, ll. 5-15) for aerospace propulsion (see col. 1, ll. 38-42) and further teaches such rods being drawn from a cassette (i.e., magazine loader 39 in fig. 14; this is similar to cassette 330 in applicant elected fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Morin in view of Clark, as evidenced by Nishizawa, with graphite rod drawn from a cassette as taught by Ferrie in order to facilitate automatic feeding of the rods (see Ferrie col. 6, ll. 48-52).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin in view of Clark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2022/0412329 A1 (Harrison).
Regarding claim 5, Morin in view of Clark teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches a cathode (24; see Clark fig. 1). The combination does not teach the cathode being made of copper, graphite, or copper tungsten composite.
Harrison teaches (see e.g., fig. 33) an air-breathing (see compressor 1) engine using plasma (see plasma chamber 10) for propulsion (see abstract) and further teaches a cathode (for a plasma torch for example, see par. 103) being made of copper or graphite (see par. 118). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Morin in view of Clark with the cathode being made of copper or graphite as taught by Harrison (i.e., to substitute the copper or graphite material taught by Harrison for the material of the cathode of Morin in view of Clark) for the purpose of substituting one known element for another to yield the predictable result of providing an electrode to create a heating arc for the plasma creation of Morin in view of Clark (e.g., see the claim 1 analysis above regarding converting compressed air to an electrically conductive plasma)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin in view of Clark and Harrison as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US Patent 3,271,619 (Lafferty).
Regarding claim 6, Morin in view of Clark and Harrison teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination does not teach the cathode is configured to produce a transverse magnetic field to force an electric arc generated in an airflow stream of the compressed air to rotate.
Lafferty teaches creating an arc between electrodes for plasma generation (see col. 4, ll. 1-5) and further teaches an electrode is configured (by using slots in electrodes 33,34 in fig. 4) to produce a transverse magnetic field (this technique produces a radial magnetic field similar to using magnets; see col. 6, ll. 10-36 and col. 4, ll. 45-55) to force an electric arc generated to rotate (see “arc rotation” at col. 6, l. 36). As an overview Clark teaches using a spinning fluid to stabilize the arc for heating plasma (see col. 4, ll. 49-57). One of ordinary skill is also knowledgably that magnets may also be used to stabilize and rotate the arc by creating a magnetic field (see Gaber in Pertinent Prior Art infra). Lafferty goes on to point out that grooves in electrodes can rotate the arc in a similar way to a magnetic field (this is similar to slots in applicant par. 68 and fig. 3B regarding cathode electrode 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Morin in view of Clark and Harrison with the cathode is configured to produce a transverse magnetic field to force an electric arc generated in an airflow stream of the compressed air to rotate as taught by Lafferty in order to facilitate increasing the life of the cathode and shorten the time between shutoff and start of the engine (without the instant grooves the cathode may stay charged and there would be a risk of re-arcing as pointed out in col. 4, ll. 33-40).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin in view of Clark and Harrison as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Pub. No.: US 2012/0318886 A1 (Manzoni).
Regarding claim 10, Morin in view of Clark and Harrison teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches a placement and/or shape of the electric arc generated between the set of continuously-fed electrodes, as an anode 22, and the cathode 24 (see Clark fig. 1) (Clark teaches it is important to confine the arc in the plasma chamber 17 in order to improve current density and thus heating of the incoming air; see col. 4, ll. 50-60). The combination does not teach a magnetic confinement device adjacent to the plasma chamber.
Manzoni teaches (see fig. 13) a magnetic confinement device (magnets placed outside a plasma chamber, the plasma chamber being at the inlet 355 of nozzle 340, wherein a plasma stream 370 if formed by an arc at 355; see par. 88) adjacent to a plasma chamber (the plasma chamber being at the inlet 355 of nozzle 340). Magnet 135 is shown in the embodiment of fig. 4B just before the expanding portion of nozzle assembly 120 towards location 145 (fig. 2 shows this location is where electrodes 60,65 generate the plasma and thus the instant magnets 135 are adjacent to the plasma chamber; see pars. 68 and 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Morin in view of Clark and Harrison with a magnetic confinement device adjacent to the plasma chamber as taught by Manzoni in order to facilitate reduced heat loss to the plasma chamber walls (see Manzoni par. 39).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin in view of Clark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,800,716 (Smith) and Pub. No.: US 2022/0106944 A1 (Woodruff).
Regarding claim 12, Morin in view of Clark teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination does not teach a controller (wherein controller is interpreted as a computer controller; applicant specification par. 72 discusses the controller as being avionics) operatively coupled to the drive roller, the controller being configured to adjust the drive roller operation based on one or more of (i) measured arc voltages, (ii) arc current, or (iii) airflow speed.
Smith teaches (see figs. 1 and 2) a controller 48B (for arcjet thruster 10) coupled to a drive mechanism 28, the controller 48B being configured to adjust a drive motor 26 coupled to the drive mechanism 28 (of moveable electrode 48E that is axially moveable; see col. 3, ll. 45-50) based on one or more of (i) measured arc voltages, (ii) arc current 48C, or (iii) airflow speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Morin in view of Clark with a controller (wherein controller is interpreted as a computer controller; applicant specification par. 72 discusses the controller as being avionics) operatively coupled to the drive roller, the controller being configured to adjust the drive roller operation based on arc current in order to facilitate reducing erosion and for optimal performance (see Smith col. 2, ll. 15-30). Morin in view of Clark and Smith teach the current invention as claimed and discussed thus far. The combination does teach the controller is a computer controller.
Woodruff teaches (see figs. 5 and 31B) a computer controller 505 operatively connected to a stepper motor 120,510 (see pars. 80, middle and 141, bottom) used to operate a drive spool 110 of a plasm thruster (see title). It is further noted that providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 III.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Morin in view of Clark and Smith with the controller is a computer controller for the purpose of automating the control functionality of adjusting the drive roller operation of Morin in view of Clark and Smith based on arc current.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11 and 12 of the instant application 18/675,115 ("the patent application") rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 copending application 18/696,665 (Pub. No. US 2024/0392761; "the copending application") in view of Clark. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claims of the patent in view of prior art reference Clark make obvious the claims of the application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1 of the patent application, the copending application claim 1 claims an engine comprising: an inlet configured to receive input air; a compressor stage coupled to the inlet, the compressor stage being configured to compress the input air and reduce velocity of the input air between an entry section of the compressor stage and an exit section of the compressor stage; a plasma chamber operatively coupled to the compressor stage to receive compressed air from the compressor stage, the plasma chamber comprising a set of electrodes configured to generate an electric arc to convert the compressed air to an electrically conductive plasma. The copending application does not claim the set of electrodes being continuously-fed.
Clark teaches (see fig. 1) a plasma chamber 17 comprising a set of continuously-fed electrodes (graphite rod anode 22, see col. 2 ll. 33-35, is continuously fed to the plasma chamber 17, by feeder mechanism 52 wherein ref. charact. 52 is shown in fig. 4; the continuously fed anode 22 is used to create, in conjunction with cathode 24, heating arc 26 in plasma chamber 17 to heat air entering the plasma chamber 17 in order to create plasma stream 28; see col. 2, ll. 42-48: “air … is introduced into the … [plasma] chamber 17 … through … inlet nozzle 28” wherein the instant air is first compressed via a pump as discussed at col. 4, ll. 49-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the patent application claim 1 with a set of continuously-fed electrodes by as taught by Clark for the purpose improved arc gap control and thus current flow via the arc to provide optimal heating performance of the compressed air of the combination (see Clark col. 4, ll. 30-70).
Regarding claim 4 of the patent application, the combination teaches the set of continuously-fed electrodes (see Clark fig. 1: the continuously fed anode 22 is used to create, in conjunction with cathode 24, heating arc 26 in plasma chamber 17 to heat air entering the plasma chamber 17 in order to create plasma stream 28) is configured to be consumed during operation and converted to an exhaustible gas (intended use; claim 1 of the patent points out that the plasma and heated air are expanded in a nozzle to create an impulse or thrust and thus the expanded gas can be exhausted via nozzle).
Regarding claim 7 of the patent application, the copending application claim 1 claims a nozzle stage coupled to the plasma chamber, the nozzle stage being configured to expand the electrically conductive plasma and heated air to generate an impulse.
Regarding claim 11 of the patent application, the combination teaches (see Clark fig. 1) a drive roller (52 wherein ref. charact. 52 is shown in fig. 4) configured to drive the set of continuously-fed electrodes (graphite rod anode 22, see col. 2 ll. 33-35) into the plasma chamber (22 in Clark fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12 of the patent application, the combination teaches (see Clark fig. 1) a controller (solenoid 54 with power source, see col. 3, ll. 44-45) operatively coupled to the drive roller (52 wherein ref. charact. 52 is shown in fig. 4), the controller (solenoid 54 with power source, see col. 3, ll. 44-45) being configured to adjust the drive roller 52 operation based on one or more of (i) measured arc voltages, (ii) arc current (), or (iii) airflow speed. The phrase configured to adjust the drive roller 52 operation based on one or more of (i) measured arc voltages, (ii) arc current (), or (iii) airflow speed is intended use and the combination is capable performing the intended use. For example, if the gap between electrodes 22 and 24 decreases then this would decrease the arc current and thus reducing heating and plasma production (see Clark col. 4, ll. 60-70). Therefore the controller 54 could increase the feeding speed of anode 22 to increase thrust of the combination.
Claim 2 of the patent application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the copending application in view of Clark, and further in view of Ferrie. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claims of the patent in view of prior art references Clark and Ferrie make obvious the claims of the application.
Regarding claim 2 of the patent application, the combination teaches the set of continuously-fed electrodes (anode 22 in Clark fig. 1), as anodes (anode 22 in Clark fig. 1), includes at least one rigid graphite rod (see Clark col. 2, ll. 33 to 35) drawn (the instant anode rod is drawn through feeder 52 in fig. 1 wherein ref. charact. 52 is shown in fig. 4). The combination does not teach graphite rod drawn from a cassette.
Ferrie teaches (see fig. 14) rods being drawn from a cassette (i.e., magazine loader 39 in fig. 14; this is similar to cassette 330 in applicant elected fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the copending patent application claim 1 in view of Clark with graphite rod drawn from a cassette as taught by Ferrie in order to facilitate automatic feeding of the rods (see Ferrie col. 6, ll. 48-52).
Claim 5 of the patent application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the copending application in view of Clark, and further in view of Harrison. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claims of the patent in view of prior art references Clark and Harrison make obvious the claims of the application.
Regarding claim 5 of the patent application, the combination teaches a cathode (24; see Clark fig. 1). The combination does not teach the cathode being made of copper, graphite, or copper tungsten composite.
Harrison teaches (see e.g., fig. 33) an air-breathing (see compressor 1) engine using plasma (see plasma chamber 10) for propulsion (see abstract) and further teaches a cathode (for a plasma torch for example, see par. 103) being made of copper or graphite (see par. 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the copending patent application claim 1 in view of Clark with the cathode being made of copper or graphite as taught by Harrison in order to facilitate a convenient design of electrodes with durability (see Harrison par. 7).
Claim 6 of the patent application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the copending application in view of Clark and Harrison, and further in view of Lafferty. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claims of the patent in view of prior art references Clark, Harrison and Lafferty make obvious the claims of the application.
Regarding claim 6 of the patent application, the combination does not teach the cathode is configured to produce a transverse magnetic field to force an electric arc generated in an airflow stream of the compressed air to rotate.
Lafferty teaches creating an arc between electrodes for plasma generation and further teaches an electrode is configured (by using slots in electrodes 33,34 in fig. 4) to produce a transverse magnetic field (this technique produces a radial magnetic field similar to using magnets; see col. 6, ll. 10-36 and col. 4, ll. 45-55) to force an electric arc generated to rotate (see “arc rotation” at col. 6, l. 36). As an overview Clark teaches using a spinning fluid to stabilize the arc for heating plasma (see col. 4, ll. 49-57). One of ordinary skill is also knowledgably that magnets may also be used to stabilize the arc by creating a magnetic field (see Gaber in Pertinent Prior Art infra). Lafferty goes on to point out that grooves in electrodes can rotate the arc in a similar way to a magnetic field (this is similar to slots in applicant par. 68 and fig. 3B regarding cathode electrode 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the copending patent application claim 1 in view of Clark and Harrison with the cathode is configured to produce a transverse magnetic field to force an electric arc generated in an airflow stream of the compressed air to rotate as taught by Lafferty in order to facilitate increasing the life of the cathode and shorten the time between shutoff and start of the engine (without the instant grooves the cathode may stay charged and there would be a risk of re-arcing as pointed out in col. 4, ll. 33-40).
Claim 10 of the patent application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the copending application in view of Clark and Harrison, and further in view of Manzoni. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claims of the patent in view of prior art references Clark, Harrison and Manzoni make obvious the claims of the application.
Regarding claim 10 of the patent application, the combination teaches a placement and/or shape of the electric arc generated between the set of continuously-fed electrodes, as an anode 22, and the cathode 24 (see Clark fig. 1) (Clark teaches it is important to confine the arc in the plasma chamber 17 in order to improve current density and thus heating of the incoming air; see col. 4, ll. 50-60). The combination does not teach a magnetic confinement device adjacent to the plasma chamber.
Manzoni teaches (see fig. 13) a magnetic confinement device (magnets placed outside a plasma chamber, the plasma chamber being at the inlet 355 of nozzle 340, wherein a plasma stream 370 if formed by an arc at 355; see par. 88) adjacent to a plasma chamber (the plasma chamber being at the inlet 355 of nozzle 340).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the copending patent application claim 1 in view of Clark and Harrison with a magnetic confinement device adjacent to the plasma chamber as taught by Manzoni in order to facilitate reduced heat loss to the plasma chamber walls (see Manzoni par. 39).
Claim 12 of the patent application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the copending application in view of Clark, and further in view of Smith and Woodruff. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the claims of the patent in view of prior art references Smith and Woodruff make obvious the claims of the application.
Regarding claim 12 of the patent application, the combination does not teach a controller (wherein controller is interpreted as a computer controller; applicant specification par. 72 discusses the controller as being avionics) operatively coupled to the drive roller, the controller being configured to adjust the drive roller operation based on one or more of (i) measured arc voltages, (ii) arc current, or (iii) airflow speed.
Smith teaches (see fig. 2) a controller 48B (for arcjet thruster 10) coupled to the drive roller, the controller 48B being configured to adjust a drive (of moveable electrode 48E) based on one or more of (i) measured arc voltages, (ii) arc current 48C, or (iii) airflow speed. Woodruff teaches a computer controller 505 operatively connected to a stepper motor 120,510 (see pars. 80, middle and 141, bottom; see figs. 5 and 31B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the copending application claim 1 in view of Clark with a controller (wherein controller is interpreted as a computer controller; applicant specification par. 72 discusses the controller as being avionics) operatively coupled to the drive roller, the controller being configured to adjust the drive roller operation based on arc current in order to facilitate reducing erosion and for optimal performance (see Smith col. 2, ll. 15-30).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Manzoni (US 20120318886)
plasma stream 370 ejected from thruster nozzle 340 at outlet 375 in fig. 13 (see par. 88) is considered a “plasma torch” (see par. 42, bottom).
the polarities can be reversed such that the central electrode 345 can be a positively charged anode (see par. 67) wherein before the reversal the center electrode 345 is a negatively charged cathode (the cathode releases electrons during plasma production and thus would be negatively charged, see par. par. 37, bottom).
Woodruff (US 20220106944)
Fiber fed plasma thruster 100 (see fig. 2A)
fiber aligned with central axis of nozzle 170, the nozzle (see par. 81, bottom) being formed by cathode 170 surrounding continuously fed fiber anode 135.
Harrison (US 20220412329)
plasma torch (see e.g. par. 103) used for thrust production in air-breathing engine (see fig. 33; this figure is similar to non-elected applicant fig. 2C)
Gaber (US 11533802)
either swirl of fluid or an external magnetic field (see col. 1, ll. 40-45) can be used to rotate the arc of plasma in a plasma chamber 112 for stability (see fig. 3)
Schneider (US 2949520)
slotted electrodes
Smith (US 4800716)
axially movable electrode provides current regulation for optimal performance of arcjet thruster (see col. 2, ll. 15-25)
Winglee (US 20200263674 A1)
airbreathing arcjet thruster with inner anode and outer cathode
NPL Chen
air breathing arcjet (fig. 2).
magnetic confinement: US 20120167548 8635850
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741