DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the improper use of shading. Shading is permitted if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m):
(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
However, the drawings appear to be the grayscale conversion of color drawings or photographs. In the event that photographs or color drawings are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention, 37 C.F.R. 1.84(a)(2), (b)(1) and (b)(2) set forth the requirements for submitting color drawings and black and white or color photographs:
(a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications:
*****
(2) Color. Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and the specification must contain the reference required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. On rare occasions, color drawings may be necessary as the only practical medium by which to disclose the subject matter sought to be patented in a utility patent application. The color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. Color drawings are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13 ). The Office will accept color drawings in utility patent applications only after granting a petition filed under this paragraph explaining why the color drawings are necessary. Any such petition must include the following:
(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h);
(ii) One (1) set of color drawings if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, or three (3) sets of color drawings if not submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system; and
(iii) An amendment to the specification to insert (unless the specification contains or has been previously amended to contain) the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
(b) Photographs.—
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
(2) Color photographs. Color photographs will be accepted in utility and design patent applications if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) of this section.
No petition under 37 C.F.R. 1.84(a)(2) has been received or granted to accept color drawings. It does not appear that photographs or color drawings are the only practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention as permitted by 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) and (b)(1), nor do the drawings have satisfactory reproduction characteristics as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l):
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. 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.
In the present case, the aforementioned figures can be replaced with black and white line drawings to better illustrate the subject matter such that all the details are reproducible in the printed patent. As such, the grayscale drawings are not accepted. Applicant may replace the drawings as requested or file the petition for colored drawings set forth in 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0051] on page 10 of the specification, “main combustor portion 42” should likely read, “main combustor portion 44” in the passage, “The supersonic combustion engine 41 illustrated in FIG. 4 may include an air-tube inlet 42 feeding a main combustor portion 42 upstream from a diverging portion 46,” as reference number 42 has already been used for “air-tube inlet 42” and reference 44 is present in figure 4 but not mentioned in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the limitation, “further comprising a control surface, wherein the plurality of plasma actuators are flush with a control surface”, the second occurrence of “a control surface” should likely read, “the control surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 8: the limitation, “further comprising at least two sensors” introduces a new set of sensors without indicating any link to the “at least one sensor” of claims 1 and 7, from which claim 8 depends. As such it is not clear whether the newly recited sensors share the limitations of the previously recited at least one sensor or whether they are required distinct from and in addition to the at least one sensor.
Regarding claim 17: it is not clear whether the recited temperature sensor and humidity sensor are part of or distinct from and required in addition to the “at least one sensor” introduced in claim 13, from which claim 17 depends.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 102798149 A to Zie et al. (for all citations to the text of CN 102798149 A to Zie et al., refer to the appended machine translation document).
Regarding claim 1:
Nie teaches an aircraft (¶ 0044: hypersonic aircraft) comprising:
a combustion engine (¶ 0031, 0044) including a fuel injector (¶ 0036, 0050: fuel injector 9);
a plurality of plasma actuators (¶ 0032-0035: dielectric barrier discharge plasma actuators; ¶ 0036: plasma actuator arrays 1-7) disposed in the combustion engine downstream of the fuel injector (fig. 2: arrays 3-7 and the aft half of fuel injection array 2 are disposed downstream of the fuel injector 9);
a control processing unit (¶ 0039: control system 14, having microprocessor 12) communicatively coupled to each plasma actuator of the plurality of plasma actuators (¶ 0041-0042, 0047-0048; fig. 2: through power supply 10); and
at least one sensor (sensor 13) communicatively coupled to the control processing unit (as shown in fig. 2; see also ¶ 0039-0040),
wherein the control processing unit commands the fuel injector and at least one plasma actuator of the plurality of plasma actuators to generate plasma in response to a signal from the at least one sensor (¶ 0041-0042: according to the received sensor information, the microprocessor 12 of control system 14 controls the plasma actuators of the plasma cavity; see also ¶ 0045-0048).
Regarding claim 13:
Nie teaches an aircraft control system (fig. 2: control system 14) comprising:
a control processing unit (¶ 0039: microprocessor 12);
at least one sensor (13) communicatively coupled to the control processing unit (as shown in fig. 2; see also ¶ 0039-0040); and
at least one plasma actuator (¶ 0032-0035: dielectric barrier discharge plasma actuators; ¶ 0036: plasma actuator arrays 1-7) disposed in a combustion engine of an aircraft (¶ 0031, 0044), the at least one plasma actuator communicatively coupled to the control processing unit (¶ 0041-0042, 0047-0048);
wherein the control processing unit commands the at least one plasma actuator to generate plasma in response to at least one signal from the at least one sensor (¶ 0041-0042: according to the received sensor information, microprocessor 12 controls the plasma actuators of the plasma cavity; see also ¶ 0045-0048).
Regarding claims 2 and 14:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor detects at least one aerodynamic characteristic (¶ 0040, 0045) during at least one of supersonic flight and hypersonic flight (see ¶ 0044-0046); and
the aircraft control system of claim 13, wherein the at least one signal is representative of at least one aerodynamic characteristic during supersonic or hypersonic flight (¶ 0044-0046: flight height, flying attack angle and flight speed).
Regarding claim 6:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a vibration sensor, a static pressure sensor and a differential pressure sensor (¶ 0040: sensor 13 is disclosed to comprise at least a static pressure sensor).
Regarding claims 9 and 16:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 1 and the aircraft control system of claim 13, wherein the control processing unit is configured to adjust at least one of a plasma delay, a plasma pulse rate, or a plasma magnitude (¶ 0038, 0041-0042: driving the plasma actuators at the required power and frequency; ¶ 0046-0048: the microprocessor determines the plasma power source parameter and generates the corresponding control signal to generate the excitation voltage applied to plasma actuator arrays 1-7; ¶ 0050-0051 disclose the excitation pulse frequency and amplitude).
Regarding claim 10:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the control processing unit is configured to determine a plurality of control target values including at least one of a target injection angle, a target fuel mass flow rate, a target fuel pulse rate, a target duration, a target plasma pulse rate, a target delay, or a target plasma magnitude (¶ 0046-0048, 0050-0051, as discussed above regarding claims 9 and 16; the microprocessor generates a control signal to achieve a determined plasma power source parameter, which is disclosed to include at least a plasma pulse frequency and amplitude; a commanded value for an actuator is a control target value).
Regarding claim 11:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 10, wherein the control processing unit is configured to transmit the plurality of control target values to at least one of a fuel injector articulator, the fuel injector, or one of the plurality of plasma actuators (¶ 0046-0048: to the plasma actuator arrays 1-7 through plasma actuator power system 10).
Regarding claim 17:
Nie teaches the aircraft control system of claim 13, further comprising:
an airspeed indicator (¶ 0040: flight speed sensor); and
at least one of a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor and an altitude gauge (¶ 0040, 0045: in addition to a pressure sensor and flight speed sensor, sensor 13 comprises a temperature sensor and senses flight altitude).
Regarding claim 19:
Nie teaches the aircraft control system of claim 13, wherein the aircraft control system is operable in a range from 500 Hz to 50 kHz (¶ 0046: the control system is disclosed to operate with pulse frequencies of 8.9 kHz, 20 kHz, 18 kHz and 25 kHz; see also ¶ 0049, 0054-0055: 2 kHz excitation voltage pulse, ¶ 0051: 8 kHz excitation voltage, ¶ 0053: 5 kHz excitation voltage pulse).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102798149 A to Zie et al. in view of US 10,472,060 B2 to Mackin et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 18:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 2 and the aircraft control system of claim 13.
Nie does not specifically disclose that the at least one aerodynamic characteristic comprises or the at least one signal is representative of at least one of a shockwave magnitude and a shockwave frequency.
Mackin teaches an aircraft comprising a shock wave monitoring system which determines at least one aerodynamic characteristic comprising at least one of a shockwave magnitude and a shockwave frequency (c. 23, ℓ. 19-39: strength calculator 624 determines a measure of strength of a shock wave using sensor information) in order to calculate optimal commands to apply to actuators of the aircraft, such as optimal engine speed or thrust parameters, optimal positions for control surfaces such as slats, flaps, or elevators (c. 20, ℓ. 48–c. 21, ℓ. 26; c. 25, ℓ. 14-31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the control processing unit of the aircraft and aircraft control system of Nie to use at least one of a shockwave magnitude and a shockwave frequency, using the teachings of Mackin, for the purpose of calculating optimal control commands.
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 1 and the aircraft control system of claim 13, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a flight attitude sensor for measuring aircraft pitch, yaw and roll, and a pressure sensor used to measure flow static pressure, total pressure, and pressure pulsation (¶ 0040), but does not specifically disclose that the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a turbulence sensor, a humidity sensor, or a gyroscope.
Mackin teaches an aircraft comprising a shock wave monitoring system using sensors (670) comprising at least one of a turbulence sensor, a humidity sensor, or a gyroscope (c. 20, ℓ. 64-67: sensors 670 may include a gyro sensor), to provide flight condition information used to calculate optimal commands to apply to actuators of the aircraft, such as optimal engine speed or thrust parameters, optimal positions for control surfaces such as slats, flaps, or elevators (c. 20, ℓ. 48–c. 21, ℓ. 26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the aircraft and aircraft control system of Nie such that the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a turbulence sensor, a humidity sensor, or a gyroscope, using the teachings of Mackin, for the purpose of calculating optimal control commands.
Regarding claim 20:
Nie, as modified, provides the aircraft control system of claim 18, further comprising:
an airspeed indicator (Nie ¶ 0040: flight speed sensor);
wherein the aircraft control system is operable in a range from 500 Hz to 50 kHz (Nie ¶ 0046, 0049, 0053-0055: as discussed above regarding claim 19, the control system is disclosed to operate with pulse frequencies of 2 kHz, 5 kHz, 8.9 kHz, 18 kHz, 20 kHz and 25 kHz).
Nie discloses at least one aircraft orientation sensor (Nie ¶ 0040), but is silent to specifically a global positioning system (GPS), a Lidar, or a gyroscope. Nie does not specifically disclose that the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a strain gauge, a microphone, and a vibration sensor; and that the at least one signal is representative of a shockwave magnitude and frequency.
Mackin teaches an aircraft comprising a shock wave monitoring system comprising
at least one of a global positioning system (GPS), a Lidar, or a gyroscope (c. 20, ℓ. 48-67: sensors 670 may include a gyro sensor),
at least one sensor comprising at least one of a strain gauge, a microphone, and a vibration sensor (c. 6, ℓ. 33-48, c. 10, ℓ. 45-62: measuring strain to determine shock wave parameters from the degree of deformation),
wherein at least one sensor signal is representative of a shockwave magnitude and frequency (c. 23, ℓ. 19-39: strength calculator 624 determines a measure of strength of a shock wave, see also c. 8, ℓ. 12-31: position or strength; c. 10, ℓ. 45–c. 11, ℓ. 3: optical fibers 150 are used to determine a degree of deformation and adjust a characterization, such as a position or strength, of the shock wave 104, see also c. 5, ℓ. 62–c. 6, ℓ. 14, c. 6, ℓ. 33-48).
The collected information is used to calculate optimal commands to apply to actuators of the aircraft, such as optimal engine speed or thrust parameters, optimal positions for control surfaces such as slats, flaps, or elevators (c. 20, ℓ. 48–c. 21, ℓ. 26; c. 25, ℓ. 14-31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aircraft control system of Nie using the teachings of Mackin such that
the aircraft further comprises at least one aircraft orientation sensor comprising at least one of a global positioning system (GPS), a Lidar, or a gyroscope, such as by providing the orientation sensor in the form of a gyro sensor, and
the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a strain gauge, a microphone, and a vibration sensor, such as by providing a strain gauge to adjust measured values,
for the purpose of providing flight conditions of the aircraft using a known sensor and in order to adjust measured shock wave parameters and to alert the pilot when sensor readings may not be accurate (Mackin c. 25, ℓ. 45–c. 26, ℓ. 2).
The system of Mackin is disclosed to calculate the differences in strength and position of a shock wave during different time periods and the differences between different shock waves during the same time period (c. 24, ℓ. 3-23; see also c. 4, ℓ. 53-58) to determine commands for control surface positions and engine settings (c. 13, ℓ. 39-42, c. 17, ℓ. 27-41; see also c. 33, ℓ. 19-60, c. 34, ℓ. 4-21, c. 35, ℓ. 4-43). The control system may record sensor data and obtained flight condition information, calculated strengths and positions of shock waves in a database (c. 26, ℓ. 27-31; c. 5, ℓ. 60-61) and obtain from the database calculated differences and the information used to calculate differences (c. 25, ℓ. 5-13).
Information from the database may be used to generate alerts based on the strength and position of shock waves and calculated differences (c. 25, ℓ. 32-53), and a pilot may review an alert trend analysis (c. 26, ℓ. 24-26), which would comprise a trend analysis of shock wave parameters, but Mackin does not explicitly teach that the at least one signal used to command the plasma actuators to generate plasma is representative of both a shockwave magnitude and frequency.
However, the aircraft of Nie is disclosed to be a hypersonic aircraft with a scramjet engine (Nie ¶ 0044) which in one example is disclosed to operate with a combustor air flow speed of Mach 2.01 (¶ 0044). Nie measures hypersonic flight status to control operation of the engine (¶ 0045), including controlling the plasma actuators based on a comparison between the measured flight speed and design conditions in order to enhance stable combustion performance (¶ 0046).
It is considered that shock wave parameters, including both magnitude and frequency, would be relevant to operation of the engine of Nie. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the frequency of shock wave events may be readily determined from a database of previously measured or calculated shock wave parameters, such as that used by the control system of Mackin.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aircraft control system of Nie such that the at least one signal is representative of a shockwave magnitude and frequency, using the teachings of Mackin, for the purpose of ensuring desired engine performance.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102798149 A to Zie et al. in view of US 2019/0186746 A1 to Lowery et al.
Regarding claim 4:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the control processing unit commands the fuel injector to adjust at least one of an injection angle, a fuel mass flow rate, or a fuel pulse rate.
Lowery discloses an aircraft control system which commands plasma actuators and a fuel injector (¶ 0127, 0264, 0315, figs. 14, 18, 38-39), and commands the fuel injector to adjust at least one of an injection angle, a fuel mass flow rate, or a fuel pulse rate (¶ 0112, 0199: controller 402 may control fuel pump 504, for example to set a fuel injection rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the aircraft of Nie such that the control processing unit commands the fuel injector to adjust at least one of an injection angle, a fuel mass flow rate, or a fuel pulse rate, using the teachings of Lowery, for the purpose of enabling the control processing unit to control the supply of fuel to the fuel injector.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102798149 A to Zie et al. in view of US 3,017,140 to Barnard.
Regarding claims 7 and 8:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least two sensors (¶ 0039-0040: a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, flight speed and attitude sensors), but Nie is silent to the locations of the sensors and accordingly does not specifically disclose that at least one sensor is disposed on an underside of the aircraft.
Barnard teaches a supersonic aircraft comprising at least one sensor disposed on the underside of the aircraft proximate an aircraft nose (as shown in fig. 1; c. 3, ℓ. 7-9: “A Mach number sensing device 70 is shown on the underside of the fuselage near the nose of the vehicle”). Information from the sensor is used to command actuation of movable components of the engine inlet (c. 3, ℓ. 64–c. 4, ℓ. 25: shock generator 50 and compression lip 54).
One of the sensors disclosed by Nie is a flight speed sensor (Nie ¶ 0040), and the flight speed in one disclosed example is given as a Mach number (Nie ¶ 0044). Accordingly, the Mach number sensing device disclosed by Barnard is considered to be relevant to the teachings of Nie.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aircraft of Nie using the teachings of Banard to have at least one sensor, such as a Mach number sensor, disposed on the underside of the aircraft proximate an aircraft nose, in order to determine the Mach number of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102798149 A to Zie et al. in view of US 8,371,104 B2 to Wells et al.
Regarding claim 12:
Nie teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Nie teaches plasma actuators which may be flush with the surface (¶ 0035), but is silent to a control surface and accordingly does not specifically disclose that the plurality of plasma actuators are flush with a control surface.
Wells teaches an aircraft (fig. 1: 11) comprising a combustion engine (c. 2, ℓ. 60-67) with an exhaust system (15), further comprising control surfaces (fig. 5: movable portions 81) with flow control effectors (c. 1, ℓ. 41-54, c. 2, ℓ. 4-14: fluidic or flow control effectors; see also c. 5, ℓ. 7-20), which may be plasma devices (c. 4, ℓ. 11-15), flush with the control surface (fig. 5: effectors 41 are shown to be flush with the exterior of movable portions 81).
The control surfaces may be movable portions of the sidewalls downstream of the nozzle exit (c. 5, ℓ. 21-36; as shown in fig. 5, aft of nozzle exit station 38) or alternatively located aft of the nozzle deck and “comprise deflecting surfaces analogous to an aircraft rudder” (c. 5, ℓ. 36-38; see also fig. 4 for nozzle deck 33). Advantageously, the control surfaces are notably smaller than those of a conventional thrust vectoring nozzle (c. 5, ℓ. 39-47) and provide thrust vectoring without compromising thrust efficiency (c. 5, ℓ. 48-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aircraft of Nie, using the teachings of Wells, to provide plasma actuators flush with a control surface, such as by adding thrust vectoring control surfaces as taught by Wells in the exhaust system of the engine, for the purpose of providing thrust vectoring.
In so doing, the plasma actuators flush with the control surface would still be located in the combustion engine downstream of the fuel injector, since the exhaust is downstream of the fuel injector.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,725,586 B2 to Lowery et al., US 8,365,510 B2 to Lugg, US 5,442,907 to Asquith et al. and CN 116221778 A to Huang et al. disclose aircraft combustion engines comprising fuel injectors and plasma actuators. US 2004/0011917 A1 to Saeks et al. teaches an aircraft using plasma actuators to attenuate shockwaves and DE 10 2008 035 978 A1 to Rein teaches an aircraft using plasma actuators downstream from fuel injectors on an exterior surface of the aircraft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00 to 7:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647