DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 12/29/2025 wherein claims 7 and 12 are canceled, claims 3, 11, and 17-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 are presented for examination.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(a). Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l). All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 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 recites the limitation “a set of electrodes configured to directly generate an electric arc in the plasma generating temperature of at least 1300˚K” in lines 7-8. The drawings do not show and the specification does not describe the set of electrodes directly generating an electric arc in the plasma generating temperature of at least 1300˚K. Therefore, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, which recites “generate an electric arc in the plasma generating temperature of at least 1300˚K”, the recited claim language “at least 1300˚K” is not bounded at its upper limit and therefore includes speeds temperatures ranging from at 1300˚K to infinity. The disclosure as originally filed does not enable such large temperatures.
Note: Regarding the above unbounded upper limit 35 USC § 112, first paragraph rejections, it was held in Andersen Corp v. Fiber Composites, 474 F.3d 1361, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) relying in part upon Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genetech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Scripps, the Federal Circuit held:
"Open-ended claims are not inherently improper," as for all claims, their appropriateness depends on the particular facts of the invention, the disclosure, and the prior art. They may be supported if there is an inherent, albeit not precisely known, upper limit and the specification enables one of skill in the art to approach that limit." See Scripps at 1572.
In Scripps, the inherent upper limit was blood protein purification to 100% purity. In Andersen, the court upheld the jury’s verdict of enablement of the claim language “Young’s modulus rating of greater than 500,000” based upon the testimony Michael Deaner. Mr. Deaner testified that a person of skill in the art would recognize that the upper limit of the Young’s modulus of the structural member would lie somewhere between the Young’s modulus of the wood fiber and that of the polymer used in the composition and that a person of skill in the art would be fully enabled to practice the invention based on the specification’s disclosure. The 5,539,027 patent disclosed, in Col. 9, ll. 30 – 43, and the 5,486,553 patent disclosed, in Col. 9, ll. 30 – 43 that:
“The modulus for the polyvinyl chloride compound measured similarly to the composite materials is about 430,000. The Youngs modulus is measured using an Instron Model 450S Series 9 software automated materials testing system and uses an ASTM method D-638. Specimens are made according to the test and are measured at 50% relative humidity, 73 °F with a cross head speed of 0.200 in./min.
After Table, we have found that the preferred pellet of the invention displays a Youngs modulus of at least 500,000 and commonly falls in the range greater than about 800,000, preferably between 800,000 and 2.0 x 106.”
Unlike, Scripps and Andersen, the claimed quantities (plasma generating temperature) does not have an inherent upper limit because the temperature of the plasma chamber is an engineering design variable unlike Scripps’ blood protein purity which had an inherent upper limit of 100% or Andersen’s polymer wood thermoplastic composite structural member's Young’s Modulus which was an inherent material property whose upper limit would lie somewhere between the Young’s modulus of the wood fiber and the Young’s modulus of the polymer used in the composition.
The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition, published in 1980 defines inherent as “existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute.”
For example, pure water inherently boils at 100° C (212° F) at sea level altitude.
In contrast, Appellant’s claimed plasma generating temperature can have whatever numerical value that an engineer specifies it be on paper or in a computer program. Accordingly, dependent Claims 4-6 fail the first prong of Scripps two prong test because claimed compressor speed and compression ratio do not have inherent upper limits.
Additionally, Applicant’s Claim 1 fails the second prong of Scripps two prong test because the specification fails to enable one of skill in the art to approach the claimed infinite limits. Applicant’s specification does not discuss the details of the structure(s) required to achieve the claimed plasma temperatures ranging from 1300˚K to infinity.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plasma generating temperature" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear what is meant by the “plasma generating temperature”.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 1.
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, 8, 13, 14, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) and Burton et al. (US 8,689,537).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Application No. 18/675,115 claims an air-breathing plasma jet engine (claim 1, line 1) comprising:
an inlet configured to receive input air (claim 1, line 2);
a compressor stage coupled to the inlet, the compressor being configured to compress the input air and reduce input air velocity between an entry section of the compressor stage and an exit section of the compressor stage (claim 1, lines 3-5); and
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 directly generate an electric arc to convert the compressed air to an electrically conductive plasma (claim 1, lines 6-9).
Application No. 18/675,115 does not claim a nozzle stage coupled to the plasma chamber, the nozzle stage being configured to expand the electrically conductive plasma and heated air to generate impulse or that the electrodes are configured to generate a plasma temperature of at least 1300˚K.
Di Canto teaches (Figures 1-6) an air-breathing plasma jet engine (100, 200) comprising: a nozzle stage (17, at the downstream end of 201; see Figure 1) coupled to the plasma chamber (201), the nozzle stage (17, at the downstream end of 201) being configured to expand the electrically conductive plasma (PL, generated in duct 201) and heated air (Ai) to generate impulse (due to the generation of thrust power PW; see Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 to have a nozzle stage coupled to the plasma chamber, the nozzle stage being configured to expand the electrically conductive plasma and heated air to generate impulse, as taught by Di Canto, in order to create a thrust power produced by the propulsion system (Page 4, lines 1-4 of Di Canto). Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto does not claim or teach that the electrodes are configured to generate a plasma temperature of at least 1300˚K.
Burton teaches (Figures 1-8) electrodes that are configured to generate a plasma temperature of at least 1300˚K (see Column 2, lines 47-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto to have the electrodes are configured to generate a plasma temperature of at least 1300˚K, as taught by Burton, in order to increase the temperature of the plasma to increase the velocity of the plasma as it discharges to produce thrust (Column 8, lines 11-23 of Burton).
Regarding Claim 8, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton does not claim or teach, as discussed so far, wherein the compressor stage is configured to generate heat, wherein at least half of the heat generated at the compressor stage is passed to the plasma chamber to be combined with heat generated there at, wherein the at least half of the heat generated at the compressor stage and the heat generated at the plasma chamber contribute to the impulse generation.
Di Canto teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the compressor stage (3, 5) is configured to generate heat (due to the heat of compression) to be combined with heat generated in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) both of which contribute to the impulse generation (due to the structural arrangement shown in Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
It is additionally noted that "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 13, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton does not teach, as discussed so far, a coil system coupled to the plasma chamber, wherein the coil system is configured to generate a magnetic field to confine plasma generated in the plasma chamber.
Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) a coil system (13, 14, 16) coupled to the plasma chamber (201), wherein the coil system (14, 16) is configured to generate a magnetic field (B) to confine plasma (PL) generated in the plasma chamber (201).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton to have a coil system coupled to the plasma chamber, wherein the coil system is configured to generate a magnetic field to confine plasma generated in the plasma chamber, as taught by Di Canto, in order to increase the speed of the air (see abstract of Di Canto).
Regarding Claim 14, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the plasma chamber includes an electrode to introduce inductively-coupled plasma currents to the electrically conductive plasma of the plasma chamber.
Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the plasma chamber (201, 202) includes an electrode (11, 12) to introduce inductively-coupled plasma currents to the electrically conductive plasma (Pages 13-14) of the plasma chamber (201, 202).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton to have the plasma chamber include an electrode to introduce inductively-coupled plasma currents to the plasma currents of the plasma chamber, as taught by Di Canto, for the same reasons above in claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton claims and teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton does not claim or teach wherein the nozzle stage comprises a convergent-divergent nozzle configured to convert the output heat and pressure into the impulse.
Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the nozzle stage (17, at the downstream end of 201) comprises a convergent-divergent nozzle (converging at the downstream end of 201 and diverging at the downstream end of 17; see Figures 1-3 and Page 11) configured to convert the output heat and pressure into the impulse (due to the generation of thrust power PW; see Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton to have the nozzle stage comprises a convergent-divergent nozzle configured to convert the output heat and pressure into the impulse, as taught by Di Canto, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) and Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lowery et al. (US 2019/0186746).
Regarding Claim 2, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton claims and teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto teaches an engine having an axial compressor (see Figures 1-3). Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton does not claim or teach that the compressor stage is configured with a radial compressor, the radial compressor comprising airfoils or blades configured to rotate to move gas or working fluid non-parallel to an axis of rotation of the airfoils or blades.
Lowery teaches (Figure 9) a compressor stage (at 902) that can be configured with a radial compressor or an axial compressor (see Paragraph 0239), the radial compressor comprising airfoils or blades configured to rotated or move gas or working fluid non-parallel to an axis of rotation of the airfoils or blades (the compressor may be a centrifugal compressor; see Paragraph 0239).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton to have the compressor stage configured with a radial compressor, the radial compressor comprising airfoils or blades configured to rotate to move gas or working fluid non-parallel to an axis of rotation of the airfoils or blades, as taught by Lowery, in order to increase the pressure at the exit of the compressor (Paragraph 0239 of Lowery).]
It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, an axial compressor) for another (in this case, a centrifugal compressor) to obtain predictable results (in this case, increase the pressure of the air from the intake) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) and Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alstad et al. (US 2017/0218848).
Regarding Claim 4, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto claims and teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) a compressor (3, 5) that includes airfoils and blades (P1, P2). Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto does not claim or teach wherein the compressor stage comprises a gearbox configured to rotate the airfoil or blade at a speed between 4,000 and 10,000 revolutions per minute.
Alstad teaches (Figures 1-19) a compressor stage (32, 60) that comprises a gearbox (60) configured to rotate the compressor (32) at the correct speed which allows the engine to start (Paragraph 0036). Therefore, the speed of the compressor, and its blades/airfoils, are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that rotating the compressor at a correct speed allows the engine to start.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of speed of the compressor can be increased, were disclosed in the prior art by Alstad, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the speed as taught by Alstad in order to allow the engine to start. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) and Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alstad et al. (US 2017/0218848) and Alstad et al. (US 2019/0112984).
Regarding Claim 5, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton claims and teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) a compressor (3, 5) that includes airfoils and blades (P1, P2). Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto does not claim or teach wherein the compressor stage comprises an electric motor configured to rotate the airfoil or blade at a speed between 50,000 and 200,000 revolutions per minute.
Alstad ‘848 teaches (Figures 1-19) a compressor stage (32, 60) that comprises a gearbox (60) and a starter turbine (64) configured to rotate the compressor (32) at the correct speed which allows the engine to start (Paragraph 0036). Therefore, the speed of the compressor, and its blades/airfoils, are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that rotating the compressor at a correct speed allows the engine to start.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of speed of the compressor can be increased, were disclosed in the prior art by Alstad, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the speed as taught by Alstad in order to allow the engine to start. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Alstad ‘984 teaches (Figures 1-18) that either a starter turbine or an electric starter may be employed through suitable gearing to turn the driveshaft of the compressor (see Paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto, Burton, and Alstad ‘848 to include the electric motor as taught by Alstad ‘984, in order to deliver power to turn the compressor, thereby allowing the engine to start (Paragraph 0036 of Alstad ‘984).
It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a starter turbine) for another (in this case, an electric starter) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to rotate the compressor so that the engine can start) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) and Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGowan (US 2003/0221409).
Regarding Claim 6, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto claims and teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto does not claim or teach the compressor stage is configured to provide a compression ratio between 10 and 60.
McGowan teaches that the use of a high pressure ratio leads to increased efficiency in jet engines (Paragraph 0005). Therefore, the compression ratio of the compressor stage is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the compression ratio leads to an increase in the efficiency of the engine.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the compression ratio can be increased, were disclosed in the prior art by McGowan, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the compression ratio as taught by McGowan in order to increase the efficiency in the engine. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 9 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) and Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lugg (US 8,720,205).
Regarding Claim 9, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton claims and teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton does not claim or teach, as discussed so far, wherein the compressor stage comprises an airflow channel defined by a first outer diameter region and a second outer diameter region, wherein the second outer diameter region has a smaller diameter than the first outer diameter region, and where the electric motor is located in the second outer diameter region.
Lugg teaches (Figures 1-12) a compressor stage (at 113) that comprises an airflow channel (annotated below) defined by a first outer diameter region (annotated below) and a second outer diameter region (annotated below), wherein the second outer diameter region (annotated below) has a smaller diameter than the first outer diameter region (see annotation below), and where an electric motor (106) is located in the second outer diameter region (annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton to have the compressor stage comprise an airflow channel defined by a first outer diameter region and a second outer diameter region, wherein the second outer diameter region has a smaller diameter than the first outer diameter region, and where the electric motor is located in the second outer diameter region, as taught by Lugg, in order to drive the compressor rotor and generate higher torque by driving the rotors from the tip of the blade at the circumference of the rotor (Column 7, lines 6-17 of Lugg).
PNG
media_image1.png
752
1380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton claims and teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto does not claim or teach, as discussed so far, wherein the compressor stage comprises an airflow channel defined by a first outer diameter region and a second outer diameter region, wherein the electric motor is operatively coupled, via one or more cables, to a power electronics modules configured to drive the electric motor.
Lugg teaches (Figures 1-12) a compressor stage (at 113) that comprises an airflow channel (annotated above) defined by a first outer diameter region (annotated above) and a second outer diameter region (annotated above), wherein the electric motor (at 106) is operatively coupled, via one or more cables (at 100; see Figures 1, 5, and Column 3, lines 64-67), to a power electronics modules (103) configured to drive the electric motor (106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton to have the compressor stage comprises an airflow channel defined by a first outer diameter region and a second outer diameter region, wherein the electric motor is operatively coupled, via one or more cables, to a power electronics modules configured to drive the electric motor, as taught by Lugg, in order to drive the compressor rotor and generate higher torque by driving the rotors from the tip of the blade at the circumference of the rotor (Column 7, lines 6-17 of Lugg).
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) and Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larrieu et al. (US 2004/0194941).
Regarding Claim 15, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton claims and teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton does not claim or teach wherein the plasma chamber includes a film cooling system, a boil off cooling system, or heat exchanger.
Larrieu teaches (Figures 1-13) a heat exchanger (10) that may be used in a plasma chamber (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto and Burton to have the plasma chamber include the heat exchanger, as taught by Larrieu, in order to take away heat received by the panel being exposed to high temperature or high heat flux (Paragraphs 0001-0002 of Larrieu).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) in view of Burton et al. (US 8,689,537).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Di Canto teaches (Figures 1-6) an air-breathing plasma jet engine (100, 200) comprising:
an inlet (at 1; see Figures 1-3) configured to receive input air (A);
a compressor stage (3, 5) coupled to the inlet (at 1; see Figures 1-3), the compressor stage (3 or 5) being configured to compress the input air (due to stators and rotors 3a, 3b, p1 and p2) and reduce input air velocity (due to the stationary stators 3b; see Figure 1) between an entry section (at the inlet of 3; see Figures 1-3) of the compressor stage (3 or 5) and an exit section (at the outlet of 5, to turbine 10; see Figures 1-3) of the compressor stage (3, 5);
a plasma chamber (at 201, 202) operatively coupled to the compressor stage (3 or 5) to receive compressed air (A) from the compressor stage (3 or 5), the plasma chamber (201) comprising a set of electrodes (11, 12) configured to directly generate an electric arc (x, at the inlet of 201) to convert the compressed air (A, from 3 or 5) to an electrically conductive plasma (PL, generated in duct 201; see Figure 1 and Page 6, lines 7-10); and
a nozzle stage (17, at the downstream end of 201; see Figure 1) coupled to the plasma chamber (201), the nozzle stage (17, at the downstream end of 201) being configured to expand the electrically conductive plasma (PL, generated in duct 201) and heated air (Ai) to generate impulse (due to the generation of thrust power PW; see Figures 1-3).
Although Di Canto teaches temperatures up to 1273˚K (Page 16), Di Canto does not teach that the electrodes are configured to generate a plasma temperature of at least 1300˚K.
Burton teaches (Figures 1-8) electrodes that are configured to generate a plasma temperature of at least 1300˚K (see Column 2, lines 47-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Canto to have the electrodes are configured to generate a plasma temperature of at least 1300˚K, as taught by Burton, in order to increase the temperature of the plasma to increase the velocity of the plasma as it discharges to produce thrust (Column 8, lines 11-23 of Burton).
Regarding Claim 8, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the compressor stage (3, 5) is configured to generate heat (due to the heat of compression) to be combined with heat generated in the plasma chamber (201, 202), both of which contribute to the impulse generation (due to the structural arrangement shown in Figures 1-3).
It is additionally noted that "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 13, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) a coil system (13, 14, 16) coupled to the plasma chamber (201), wherein the coil system (14, 16) is configured to generate a magnetic field (B) to confine plasma (PL) generated in the plasma chamber (201).
Regarding Claim 14, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the plasma chamber (201, 202) includes an electrode (11, 12) to introduce inductively-coupled plasma currents to the electrically conductive plasma (Pages 13-14) of the plasma chamber (201, 202).
Regarding Claim 16, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the nozzle stage (17, at the downstream end of 201) comprises a convergent-divergent nozzle (converging at the downstream end of 201 and diverging at the downstream end of 17; see Figures 1-3 and Page 11) configured to convert the output heat and pressure into the impulse (due to the generation of thrust power PW; see Figures 1-3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) in view of Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lowery et al. (US 2019/0186746).
Regarding Claim 2, Di Canto and Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto teaches an engine having an axial compressor (see Figures 1-3). Di Canto in view of Burton does not teach that the compressor stage is configured with a radial compressor, the radial compressor comprising airfoils or blades configured to rotate to move gas or working fluid non-parallel to an axis of rotation of the airfoils or blades.
Lowery teaches (Figure 9) a compressor stage (at 902) that can be configured with a radial compressor or an axial compressor (see Paragraph 0239), the radial compressor comprising airfoils or blades configured to rotated or move gas or working fluid non-parallel to an axis of rotation of the airfoils or blades (the compressor may be a centrifugal compressor; see Paragraph 0239).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Canto in view of Burton to have the compressor stage configured with a radial compressor, the radial compressor comprising airfoils or blades configured to rotate to move gas or working fluid non-parallel to an axis of rotation of the airfoils or blades, as taught by Lowery, in order to increase the pressure at the exit of the compressor (Paragraph 0239 of Lowery).]
It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, an axial compressor) for another (in this case, a centrifugal compressor) to obtain predictable results (in this case, increase the pressure of the air from the intake) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) in view of Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alstad et al. (US 2017/0218848).
Regarding Claim 4, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) a compressor (3, 5) that includes airfoils and blades (P1, P2). Di Canto in view of Burton does not teach wherein the compressor stage comprises a gearbox configured to rotate the airfoil or blade at a speed between 4,000 and 10,000 revolutions per minute.
Alstad teaches (Figures 1-19) a compressor stage (32, 60) that comprises a gearbox (60) configured to rotate the compressor (32) at the correct speed which allows the engine to start (Paragraph 0036). Therefore, the speed of the compressor, and its blades/airfoils, are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that rotating the compressor at a correct speed allows the engine to start.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of speed of the compressor can be increased, were disclosed in the prior art by Alstad, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the speed as taught by Alstad in order to allow the engine to start. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) in view of Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alstad et al. (US 2017/0218848) and Alstad et al. (US 2019/0112984).
Regarding Claim 5, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) a compressor (3, 5) that includes airfoils and blades (P1, P2). Di Canto in view of Burton does not teach wherein the compressor stage comprises an electric motor configured to rotate the airfoil or blade at a speed between 50,000 and 200,000 revolutions per minute.
Alstad ‘848 teaches (Figures 1-19) a compressor stage (32, 60) that comprises a gearbox (60) and a starter turbine (64) configured to rotate the compressor (32) at the correct speed which allows the engine to start (Paragraph 0036). Therefore, the speed of the compressor, and its blades/airfoils, are recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that rotating the compressor at a correct speed allows the engine to start.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of speed of the compressor can be increased, were disclosed in the prior art by Alstad, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the speed as taught by Alstad in order to allow the engine to start. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Alstad ‘984 teaches (Figures 1-18) that either a starter turbine or an electric starter may be employed through suitable gearing to turn the driveshaft of the compressor (see Paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Canto in view of Burton and Alstad ‘848 to include the electric motor as taught by Alstad ‘984, in order to deliver power to turn the compressor, thereby allowing the engine to start (Paragraph 0036 of Alstad ‘984).
It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a starter turbine) for another (in this case, an electric starter) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to rotate the compressor so that the engine can start) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) in view of Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGowan (US 2003/0221409).
Regarding Claim 6, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto in view of Burton does not teach the compressor stage is configured to provide a compression ratio greater than 10.
McGowan teaches that the use of a high pressure ratio leads to increased efficiency in jet engines (Paragraph 0005). Therefore, the compression ratio of the compressor stage is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the compression ratio leads to an increase in the efficiency of the engine.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the compression ratio can be increased, were disclosed in the prior art by McGowan, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the compression ratio as taught by McGowan in order to increase the efficiency in the engine. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) in view of Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lugg (US 8,720,205).
Regarding Claim 9, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto in view of Burton does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the compressor stage comprises an airflow channel defined by a first outer diameter region and a second outer diameter region, wherein the second outer diameter region has a smaller diameter than the first outer diameter region, and where the electric motor is located in the second outer diameter region.
Lugg teaches (Figures 1-12) a compressor stage (at 113) that comprises an airflow channel (annotated below) defined by a first outer diameter region (annotated below) and a second outer diameter region (annotated below), wherein the second outer diameter region (annotated below) has a smaller diameter than the first outer diameter region (see annotation below), and where an electric motor (106) is located in the second outer diameter region (annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Canto in view of Burton to have the compressor stage comprise an airflow channel defined by a first outer diameter region and a second outer diameter region, wherein the second outer diameter region has a smaller diameter than the first outer diameter region, and where the electric motor is located in the second outer diameter region, as taught by Lugg, in order to drive the compressor rotor and generate higher torque by driving the rotors from the tip of the blade at the circumference of the rotor (Column 7, lines 6-17 of Lugg).
PNG
media_image1.png
752
1380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto in view of Burton does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the compressor stage comprises an airflow channel defined by a first outer diameter region and a second outer diameter region, wherein the electric motor is operatively coupled, via one or more cables, to a power electronics modules configured to drive the electric motor.
Lugg teaches (Figures 1-12) a compressor stage (at 113) that comprises an airflow channel (annotated above) defined by a first outer diameter region (annotated above) and a second outer diameter region (annotated above), wherein the electric motor (at 106) is operatively coupled, via one or more cables (at 100; see Figures 1, 5, and Column 3, lines 64-67), to a power electronics modules (103) configured to drive the electric motor (106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Canto in view of Burton to have the compressor stage comprises an airflow channel defined by a first outer diameter region and a second outer diameter region, wherein the electric motor is operatively coupled, via one or more cables, to a power electronics modules configured to drive the electric motor, as taught by Lugg, in order to drive the compressor rotor and generate higher torque by driving the rotors from the tip of the blade at the circumference of the rotor (Column 7, lines 6-17 of Lugg).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) in view of Burton et al. (US 8,689,537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larrieu et al. (US 2004/0194941).
Regarding Claim 15, Di Canto in view of Burton teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto in view of Burton does not teach wherein the plasma chamber includes a film cooling system, a boil off cooling system, or heat exchanger.
Larrieu teaches (Figures 1-13) a heat exchanger (10) that may be used in a plasma chamber (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Canto in view of Burton to have the plasma chamber include the heat exchanger, as taught by Larrieu, in order to take away heat received by the panel being exposed to high temperature or high heat flux (Paragraphs 0001-0002 of Larrieu).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Di Canto does not teach a set of electrodes that are configured to directly generate an electric arc. In response, it is noted that Di Canto does teach a set of electrodes (11, 12) that are configured to directly generate an electric arc (X; see Pages 6 and 13-14). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are refuted by the reference.
Applicant also argues that Di Canto’s compression does not generate heat. In response, it is noted that when a gas is compressed it will inherently generate heat. According to Applicant’s Paragraph 0007, a compression stage that generates compressed and heated airflow that is passed to a plasma chamber that is configured to add heat to the compressed and heated airflow and this heat is converted to an impulse using a converging-diverging (De Laval) nozzle. It is noted that Di Canto teaches a compression stage (at 5) that generates compressed and heated airflow (see Figure 1) that is passed to a plasma chamber (201, 202) that is configured to add heat (X) to the compressed and heated airflow and this heat is converted to an impulse using a converging-diverging nozzle (see Figure 1). It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments are addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights