DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 6/30/2026 wherein claims 7 and 12 are canceled, claims 3, 11, and 17-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 13-16 are presented for examination.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.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “drive set of electrodes” (Claim 8, line 5) is believed to be in error for - - drive the set of electrodes - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “power electronic module is configured to drive set of electrodes” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim limitation “the power electronics module is configured to drive set of electrodes” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 0064 merely repeats the claim language and does not disclose the corresponding structure of the claimed “power electronics module”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 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).
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 ionize and convert the compressed air to an electrically conductive plasma (claim 1, lines 6-9).
Application No. 18/675,115 does not claim an initial chamber pressure of the entry section of the compressor stage is between 0.1 and 3.0 MPa, wherein the compressor stage is configured to generate heat that is captured to be combined with heat generated in the plasma chamber, both of which contribute to the impulse generation, a magnetic containment system configured to generate a magnetic field to confine the electrically conductive plasma in the plasma chamber and to insulate the heat generated in the plasma chamber from an interior surface of the plasma chamber, 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, wherein no turbine section is employed in a later stage of the plasma chamber to generate thrust.
Di Canto teaches (Figures 1-6) an air-breathing plasma jet engine (100, 200) comprising: wherein an initial chamber pressure of the entry section of the compressor stage is between 0.1 and 3.0 MPa (see Page 16, lines 1-3), wherein the compressor stage (3, 5) is configured to generate heat (see Page 16, lines 1-3) that is captured to be combined with heat generated in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202), both of which contribute to the impulse generation (see Figures 1-3), a magnetic containment system (13, 14, 15, 16) configured to generate a magnetic field to confine the electrically conductive plasma (PL) in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) and to insulate the heat generated in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) from an interior surface of the plasma chamber (see Figures 1-3), 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), wherein no turbine section is employed in a later stage of the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) to generate thrust (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 an initial chamber pressure of the entry section of the compressor stage is between 0.1 and 3.0 MPa, wherein the compressor stage is configured to generate heat that is captured to be combined with heat generated in the plasma chamber, both of which contribute to the impulse generation, a magnetic containment system configured to generate a magnetic field to confine the electrically conductive plasma in the plasma chamber and to insulate the heat generated in the plasma chamber from an interior surface of the plasma chamber, 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, wherein no turbine section is employed in a later stage of the plasma chamber to generate thrust, 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).
Regarding Claim 13, Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the magnetic containment system comprises 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) wherein the magnetic containment system comprises (see Figures 1-3) 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 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 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Application No. 18/675,115 in view of Di Canto 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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) 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) 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 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 of the compressor stage 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, 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) 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).
Claim 8 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spanjers et al. (US 2009/0139206).
Regarding Claim 8, 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 a power electronic module operatively coupled to a battery, wherein the power electronic module is configured to drive set of electrodes.
Spanjers teaches (Figures 1-3) a power electronics module (20, 30) operatively coupled to a battery (28), wherein the power electronics module (20, 30) is configured to drive the set of electrodes (26).
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 a power electronic module operatively coupled to a battery, wherein the power electronic module is configured to drive set of electrodes, as taught by Spanjers, in order to electrically accelerate the exhaust propellant to a high exhaust velocity, store energy, and charge the energy storage unit (Paragraph 0022 of Spanjers).
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) 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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 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 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Di Canto (WO 2016/151609).
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), wherein an initial chamber pressure of the entry section of the compressor stage is between 0.1 and 3.0 MPa (see Page 16, lines 1-3);
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 ionize and 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), wherein the compressor stage (3, 5) is configured to generate heat (see Page 16, lines 1-3) that is captured to be combined with heat generated in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202), both of which contribute to the impulse generation (see Figures 1-3)
a magnetic containment system (13, 14, 15, 16) configured to generate a magnetic field to confine the electrically conductive plasma (PL) in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) and to insulate the heat generated in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) from an interior surface of the plasma chamber (see Figures 1-3); 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),
wherein no turbine section is employed in a later stage of the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) to generate thrust (see Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 13, Di Canto teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto further teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the magnetic containment system (see Figures 1-3) comprises 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 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 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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) in view of Spanjers et al. (US 2009/0139206).
Regarding Claim 8, Di Canto teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto does not teach a power electronic module operatively coupled to a battery, wherein the power electronic module is configured to drive set of electrodes.
Spanjers teaches (Figures 1-3) a power electronics module (20, 30) operatively coupled to a battery (28), wherein the power electronics module (20, 30) is configured to drive the set of electrodes (26).
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 a power electronic module operatively coupled to a battery, wherein the power electronic module is configured to drive set of electrodes, as taught by Spanjers, in order to electrically accelerate the exhaust propellant to a high exhaust velocity, store energy, and charge the energy storage unit (Paragraph 0022 of Spanjers).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Canto (WO 2016/151609) in view of Lowery et al. (US 2019/0186746).
Regarding Claim 2, Di Canto teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto teaches an engine having an axial compressor (see Figures 1-3). Di Canto 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 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 Alstad et al. (US 2017/0218848).
Regarding Claim 4, Di Canto 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 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 Alstad et al. (US 2017/0218848) and Alstad et al. (US 2019/0112984).
Regarding Claim 5, Di Canto 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 does not teach wherein the compressor stage comprises an electric motor configured to rotate the airfoil or blade of the compressor stage 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 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 McGowan (US 2003/0221409).
Regarding Claim 6, Di Canto teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto 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 Lugg (US 8,720,205).
Regarding Claim 9, Di Canto teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto 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 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 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto 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 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 Larrieu et al. (US 2004/0194941).
Regarding Claim 15, Di Canto teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Di Canto 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 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 an initial chamber pressure of the entry section of the compressor stage is between 0.6 and 3.0MPa, wherein the compressor stage is configured to generate heat that is captured to be combined with heat generated in the plasma chamber, both of which contribute to the impulse generation, a magnetic containment system configured to generate a magnetic field to confie the electrically conductive plasma in the plasma chamber and to insulate the heat generated in the plasma chamber from an interior surface of the plasma chamber, or wherein no turbine section is employed in a later stage of the plasma chamber to generate thrust, as required by claim 1. In response and as discussed in the body of the rejection above, Di Canto teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein an initial chamber pressure of the entry section of the compressor stage is between 0.1 and 3.0 MPa (see Page 16, lines 1-3); wherein the compressor stage (3, 5) is configured to generate heat (see Page 16, lines 1-3) that is captured to be combined with heat generated in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202), both of which contribute to the impulse generation (see Figures 1-3); a magnetic containment system (13, 14, 15, 16) configured to generate a magnetic field to confine the electrically conductive plasma (PL) in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) and to insulate the heat generated in the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) from an interior surface of the plasma chamber (see Figures 1-3); and wherein no turbine section is employed in a later stage of the plasma chamber (at 201, 202) to generate thrust (see Figures 1-3). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are refuted by the prior art.
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