DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Computational Study of an Axisymmetric Dual Throat Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Nozzle for a Supersonic Aircraft Application” (Deere) in view of NPL “Performance Assessment of the Dual-Throat Nozzle Thrust Vector Control in a 3D Rectangular Nozzle” (Wu), as evidenced by US Patent 4,706,453 (Vivace), US 12,343,691 B2 (Kerton) and Pub. No. US 20080016872 A1 (Toffan).
Regarding claim 1, Deere discloses (see figs. 1 and 3(a)) an exhaust nozzle (see page 2, middle, first paragraph, bottom discussing the general concept of exhaust nozzle; and see annotated figure below showing claimed exhaust nozzle at annotated shading; either light shading or dark shading) comprising:
an expansion region (see annotated figures below);
a contraction region (see annotated figures below), the expansion region and the contraction region forming an elongate channel (see annotated figures below) having a first end (see annotated figures below) and a second end (see annotated figures below), the expansion region having an inlet (see annotated figures below) at the first end of the elongate channel, and the contraction region having an exit (see annotated figures below) at the second end of the elongate channel, where the second end is opposite (see annotated figures below) to the first end, the contraction region being downstream (see “Streamlines” in annotated figures below) of the expansion region in a fluid direction, the expansion region being a continuous curved cross-sectional shape (circular shape, see fig. 3(a); wherein fig. 3(a) is a view of fig. 1 showing pitch thrust vectoring; see page 3, II. Nozzle Design, first paragraph), wherein a cross-sectional area of the continuous curved cross-sectional shape increases (see annotated figures below) with distance from the inlet towards the contraction region, and the contraction region being a cross-sectional shape, wherein a cross-sectional area of the cross-sectional shape decreases (see annotated figures below) with an increase in distance from a coupling (see annotated figures below) to the expansion region toward the exit (see annotated figures below),
the elongate channel configured for fluidic-thrusting vectoring (fluid is injected as shown in fig. 1 in order to provide thrust vectoring to change pitch of a flight vehicle; see page 3, section II, first paragraph; also see section I on page 2 discussing pitch and yaw control of “business jets” and “air vehicles” by way of ”Fluidic thrust vectoring”) by directing exhaust gasses to control attitude and/or angular velocity of a vehicle (see “flight vehicle” in the instant first paragraph). Deere does not disclose the contraction region cross-sectional shape is polygonal.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
333
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (elongate channel)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
323
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (second end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first end; inlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first end; inlet; circular cross-section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second end; exit)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (expansion region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (contraction region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (exhaust nozzle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (first end; inlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (length)][AltContent: textbox (coupling)][AltContent: arrow]
Wu teaches an exhaust (see page 13, 1. Introduction, third paragraph, top) nozzle (see title) for fluidic (see page 13, 1. Introduction, second paragraph, top, and see “slot injector” in fig. 4(c)) thrust-vectoring (see title and see fig. 1). Wu further teaches a contraction region (see annotated figure below) (downstream from annotated expansion region that is similar to Deere above) cross-sectional shape is polygonal (rectangular). Wu teaches a rectangular exit shape. It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the exit shape (rectangular) of Wu for the exit shape (circular) of Deere for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing an outlet for exhaust of the combination. It is thought that there is a reasonable expectation of success of this combination because Vivace is evidence of transitioning from a circular cross-section to a polygonal cross-section regarding an exhaust nozzle (Vivace teaches, see figs. 1-2, a transition (transition duct 32 of gas turbine engine 10 near the location of the exhaust nozzle 26)(to change the cross-sectional shape from circular 36 to rectangular 37)). In addition Kerton is evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art had the skill to form the instant combination as discussed. Kerton discloses (see fig. 1A) a venturi 100 wherein expanding region 110 can be circular (see col. 6, ll. 45-50) and the contracting region 114 can by polygonal (see col. 7, ll. 35-40) wherein venturi is related to thruster 702 with thrust vectoring (see col. 27, ll. 5-10) in figs. 17-18. References which do not qualify as prior art because they postdate the claimed invention may be relied upon to show the level of ordinary skill in the art at or around the relevant time. See Ex parte Erlich, 22 USPQ2d 1463 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Kerton postdates applicant disclosure by 10 months (i.e. Kerton filing date is 11/22/2022 and applicant effective filing date is 02/18/2022). Toffan is evidence of how the combination could be configured (i.e. using Toffan’s tessellated panels to transition from Deere’s continuous curve cross-sectional shape to Wu’s rectangular exit shape).
PNG
media_image5.png
217
240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
307
313
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (contraction region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (expansion region)][AltContent: arrow]
Claim 1 is further rejected as obvious to try. In terms of the claim language the exit shape is changed from continuous curved exit shape disclosed by Deere to a polygonal exit shape disclosed by Wu. When considering exit shapes there can only be either a continuous curved exit shape or a polygonal exit shape. Thus given the finite number of solutions it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to try a polygonal cross sectional shape because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Deere focuses on improving “thrust vectoring efficiencies” as pointed out ag page 3, top. Thus it would have been obvious to try a polygonal exit shape in order to improve such efficiencies. Although both Deere and Wu general cross-sectional shapes don’t change considerably across the length direction of the nozzles, using this to prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from trying new solutions would accord such person very little creativity. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (MPEP 2141.03).
Regarding claim 3, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses the contraction region (see length l2 in fig. 4) forms between 15% and 40% of a length (see l in fig. 4) of the exhaust nozzle (see annotated figures above). See: embodiment (a) in fig. 15: (l2/l) = 1.22/5.26 = .23 = 23%; embodiment (b) in fig. 15: (l2/l) = 0.985/4.21 = .23 = 23%; embodiment (c) in fig. 15: (l2/l) = 1.374/4.21 = .33 = 33%. Also see Table 3 showing all the embodiments.
Regarding claim 4, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses the inlet (see annotated figures above) has a circular cross-section (see annotated figures above; also see title pointing out the structure in fig. 1 is axisymmetric).
Regarding claim 10, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses an engine (with a fan and compressor) (see page 2, I. Introduction, second paragraph, top) comprising the exhaust nozzle (see annotated figure above), but does not explicitly disclose the engine is a jet engine.
Wu teaches a jet engine (abstract, bottom). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the jet engine of Wu for the engine of Deere in view of Wu for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing an engine to propel the aircraft disclosed by Deere (see page 2, I. Introduction, first paragraph, top), of Deere in view of Wu.
Regarding claim 11, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses an aircraft (see page 2, I. Introduction, first paragraph, top) comprising the exhaust nozzle (see annotated figures above) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of the exhaust nozzle (see page 2, middle, first paragraph, bottom discussing the general concept of exhaust nozzle; and see annotated figure above showing claimed exhaust nozzle at annotated shading; either light shading or dark shading) transitions (see annotated figures above) from the continuous curve (see continuous curvature at the annotated coupling) cross-sectional shape (see annotated figures above) to an exit cross-sectional shape in the contraction region (see Wu annotated figure above). It is noted that the exit cross-sectional shape of the Deere in view Wu has been modified in the claim 1 analysis above to be polygonal.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches (see annotated figures above regarding Deere) a transition (a cross-sectional shape of the exhaust nozzle from a continuous curve (the entire shape of the elongate channel disclosed by Deere is axisymmetric circular cross section and thus is continuously curved by way of the circumferential shape; see annotated figures above) to the exit cross-sectional shape (the cross-sectional shape at the exit is rectangular by way of the teaching of Wu applied to Deere in the claim 1 analysis above); and the second end (of the length) (see annotated figures above) of the exhaust nozzle. Deere further discloses a start of (of the contraction) occurs between the second end a % of a length of the exhaust nozzle when measured from the second end (see Table I, row 2, for example wherein the contraction region l2 is 23% of the length l of the exhaust nozzle; and see fig. 4 that is similar to annotated figure 1 above regarding l and l2). Deere does not disclose 15% of the length. It is further noted that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention that Applicant claimed structure is not patentably distinct from the prior art Deere in view of Wu because an exhaust nozzle with the transition occurring between the second end and 23% of the second end when measured from the second end would not perform differently than an exhaust nozzle with the transition occurring between the second end and 15% of the second end when measured from the second end (e.g., Applicant most preferred structure is that with 25% regarding the instant percentages; see Applicant page 3, ll. 30-35).
Regarding claim 14, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses the contraction region (see length l2 in fig. 4) forms between 15% and 25% of a length (see l in fig. 4) of the exhaust nozzle (see annotated figures above). See: embodiment (a) in fig. 15: (l2/l) = 1.22/5.26 = .23 = 23%; embodiment (b) in fig. 15: (l2/l) = 0.985/4.21 = .23 = 23%. Also see Table 3 showing all the embodiments.
Regarding claim 17, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses a vehicle (fluid is injected as shown in fig. 1 in order to provide thrust vectoring to change pitch or yaw of a flight vehicle; see page 3, section II.A., first paragraph; see also first sentence of section I on page 2 and title) comprising the exhaust nozzle of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses wherein the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of an aircraft see title), a spacecraft or a maritime vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses wherein the vehicle comprises a prime mover with an outlet (“exhaust flow” is provided from an outlet of the “engine”, see section I, second par., top), where the outlet of the prime mover is attached to the inlet (the “engine” provides “exhaust flow” to the exhaust nozzle and therefore the two must be attached as part of the aircraft) of the exhaust nozzle.
Regarding claim 20, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses wherein the prime mover is a jet engine or a rocket motor, where the jet engine is selected from a group consisting of a ramjet, scramjet, turboprop, turbofan (the phrase “bleed air from the engine compressor or fan” in the second par. of section I represents a turbofan engine having the compressor and fan; one of ordinary skill is knowledgeable of this; see Pertinent Prior Art section infra), turbojet, turboshaft engine or a waterjet engine.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deere in view of Wu, as evidenced by Vivace, Kerton and Toffan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vivace and Pub. No. US 20080016872 A1 (Toffan).
Regarding claim 7, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere discloses the contraction region is downstream (see annotated figures above) from the expansion region. The combination teaches changing a cross-sectional shape of the exhaust nozzle from the continuous curve cross-sectional shape (the entire shape of the elongate channel disclosed by Deere is axisymmetric circular cross section and thus is continuously curved by way of the circumferential shape; see annotated figures above) to an intermediate cross-sectional shape before the exit cross-sectional shape is formed (the cross-sectional shape at the exit is rectangular by way of the teaching of Wu applied to Deere in the claim 1 analysis above). Thus there exists an intermediate cross-sectional shape between the circular cross-sectional shape of the combination and the rectangular cross-sectional shape of the combination (a tessellated polygonal shape that was evidenced by Toffan in the claim 1 analysis above). Deere does not disclose the contraction region comprises a plurality of joined tessellated panels to change the cross-sectional shape of the exhaust nozzle.
Vivace teaches see (figs. 1-2) a region (transition duct 32 of gas turbine engine 10 near the location of the exhaust nozzle 26) to change a cross-sectional shape (from circular 36 to rectangular 37). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the type of region of Vivace (i.e. a region that includes a change in cross-sectional shape) for the region of Deere in view of Wu (i.e. the contraction region) for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing a contraction region to channel exhaust to accommodate the rectangular exit taught by Wu of Deere in view of Wu. This results in the contraction region of the combination remaining a contraction region with the instant contraction region including the cross-sectional shape form taught by Vivace. Because the size of the second end was not changed in the claim 1 analysis above (just the shape was changed to a polygonal shape of the rectangular variety), under the principles of conservation of mass in fluid mechanics, the mass flow would remain the same at the outlet and thus the instant contraction region would remain a contraction in order to reach the instant same mass flow.
Toffan teaches an exhaust system (see par. 3) and further teaches (see fig. 2) a region 13 comprises a plurality of joined tessellated panels (see panels at 13; panel can be interpreted as “a separate or distinct part of a surface”, Merriam-Webster online; the triangular portions at location 13 are separate or distinct from the surface portions upstream and downstream thereof; one of ordinary skill is knowledgeable that such structure at 110 are panels; see pertinent prior art infra) to change a cross-sectional shape (from circular to rectangular; see par 29)(of a channel 9,13,12 for the exhaust system). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the cross-sectional shape of the region1 of Toffan (i.e. a region that includes joined tessellated panels) for the contraction region of Deere in view of Wu and Vivace (i.e. a contraction region without joined tessellated panels) for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing a contraction region with joined tessellated panels to channel exhaust to accommodate the rectangular exit taught by Wu of Deere in view of Wu and Vivace.
Regarding claim 8, Deere in view of Wu, Vivace and Toffan teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches each panel (see panels of Toffan fig. 2 at location 13) is triangular (see Toffan fig. 2) and arranged such that adjacent panels are inverted relative to each other (see Toffan fig. 2) so as to form a uniform exit plane (see exit plane at horizontal arrows “R” and “L” in Toffan fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Deere in view of Wu, Vivace and Toffan teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The teachings of Wu applied to in the claim 1 analysis above include wherein the exit has a rectangular cross-section (the cross-sectional shape at the exit is rectangular by way of the teaching of Wu applied to Deere in the claim 1 analysis above).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deere in view of Wu, as evidenced by Vivace, Kerton and Toffan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vivace and NPL “Performance Analyses of Fluidic Thrust Vector Control System Using Dual Throat Nozzle” (Maruyama).
Regarding claim 9, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches a cross-sectional shape of the exhaust nozzle (see annotated figures above regarding Deere) transitions from the continuous cross-sectional shape (the entire shape of the elongate channel disclosed by Deere is axisymmetric circular cross section and thus is continuously curved by way of the circumferential shape; see annotated figures above) to an exit cross-sectional shape (the cross-sectional shape at the exit is rectangular by way of the teaching of Wu applied to Deere in the claim 1 analysis above), and the length (see annotated figures above) of the exhaust nozzle. Deere does not disclose the transition is between the second end and 20% of a length of the exhaust nozzle when measured from the second end.
Vivace teaches (see figs. 1-2) a transition (transition duct 32 of gas turbine engine 10 near the location of the exhaust nozzle 26)(to change the cross-sectional shape from circular 36 to rectangular 37). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the type of transition of Vivace (i.e. a region that includes a change in cross-sectional shape) for the transition of Deere in view of Wu for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing a transition to channel exhaust to accommodate the rectangular exit taught by Wu of Deere in view of Wu. This results in the transition from the continuous curve to the exit cross-sectional shape occurring by way of the contraction.
PNG
media_image9.png
379
565
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (exhaust nozzle)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (contraction region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first end)][AltContent: arrow]
Maruyama teaches (see fig. 3) an exhaust nozzle (see annotated figure above) and further teaches a second end (see annotated figure above) and 20% of the length of the exhaust nozzle when measured from the second end. The length is: 0.3 + 1.18 + 0.35 = 1.83. A value of 20% of the length is 0.37. Therefore the contraction region is within the 20% of the length of the nozzle. It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the length of the contraction region in comparison to the length of the exhaust nozzle of Maruyama for the length of the contraction region in comparison to the length of the exhaust nozzle of Deere in view of Wu and Vivace for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of providing a length of a contraction region of the exhaust nozzle of the combination. This results in the transition from a continuous curve to the exit cross-sectional shape between the second end and 20% of the length of the exhaust nozzle when measured from the second end because the instant transition takes place within the contraction region of the combination.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 10-12, 17-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0213198 A1 (Arbona) as evidenced by US 2,809,491 (Wosika), in view of US 8327617 (Gustafsson).
Regarding claim 1, Arbona discloses (see fig. 1) an exhaust nozzle comprising:
an expansion region (see annotated figure below);
a contraction region (see annotated figure below), the expansion region and the contraction region forming an elongate channel (see par. 31: “exhaust gasses that are emitted from the gas turbine engine through the exhaust nozzle”) having a first end (see annotated figure below) and a second end (at location 14), the expansion region having an inlet (see annotated figure below) at the first end of the elongate channel, and the contraction region (see annotated figure below) having an exit 14 at the second end of the elongate channel, where the second end is opposite to (see annotated figure below) the first end, the contraction region being downstream of (see annotated figure below regarding the flow of exhaust gases from the gas turbine engine) the expansion region in a fluid direction, the expansion region being a continuous curved cross-sectional shape (circular; see annotated figure below; when a “cross-section” is taken at for example at the annotated location below the outer portion of the cross-section will be circular), wherein a cross-sectional area (one of ordinary skill would understand that elongate channel portion formed by the expansion region to also have an expanding shape and thus an increasing cross-sectional area; this is evidence by Wosika showing this is a diffusing section; see Wosika fig. 1 diffusing section 20) of the continuous curved cross-sectional shape increases with distance from the inlet towards the contraction region, and the contraction region (see annotated figure below) being a polygonal cross-sectional shape (panels 22 create polygonal cross-section; see fig. 1), wherein a cross-sectional area of the polygonal cross-sectional shape decreases (see fig. 1) with an increase in distance from a coupling (see annotated figure below) to the expansion region toward the exit 14,
Arbona does not disclose the elongate channel configured for fluidic-thrusting vectoring by directing exhaust gasses to control attitude and/or angular velocity of a vehicle.
Gustafsson teaches (see figs. 2-5 and 8) an exhaust nozzle 1 and further teaches elongate channel 1 configured for fluidic-thrusting vectoring (see col. 5, II. 35-40; gasses such as air, see col. 1, II. 15-20, is exhausted out of openings 7,8 shown in fig. 2 into the elongate channel 1 by way of means 10 such as valves, see col. 6, II. 25-30; the claim does not require the fluid of the claimed "fluidic" to come from any specific source; figs. 4, 5 and 8 are different embodiments of the openings 8; for example fig. 4 shows embodiment with openings 107a-c and 108a-c, see col. 3, II. 10-20 and col. 5, II. 5-10) by directing exhaust gasses (see col. 1, II. 9-16: fluid injection changes the direction of exhaust gasses from the jet engine in order to provide thrust vectoring)) to control attitude (see "yaw vectoring" at col. 4, II. 50-55 and control of "pitch" at col. 2, II. 50-55) and/or angular velocity of a vehicle (see title).
PNG
media_image11.png
309
450
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (expansion region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (contraction region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first end; inlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (cross-section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (coupling)][AltContent: arrow]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Arbona with the elongate channel configured for fluidic-thrusting vectoring by directing exhaust gasses to control attitude and/or angular velocity of a vehicle as taught by Gustafsson in order to facilitate improved aircraft control with reduced radar signature due to smaller control surfaces (see Gustafsson col. 1, ll. 45-50, col. 2, ll. 55-50 and col. 3, ll. 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Arbona in view of Gustafsson teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Arbona discloses wherein the inlet has a circular (see annotated figure above) cross-section.
Regarding claim 7, Arbona in view of Gustafsson teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Arbona discloses wherein the contraction region, which is downstream of the expansion region, comprises a plurality of joined tessellated panels 22 to change a cross-sectional shape of the exhaust nozzle from the continuous curve cross-sectional shape (that shape of expansion region) to an intermediate cross-sectional shape (at “contraction region” annotation location in annotated figure above) before an exit cross-sectional shape (exit has apexes 28 and is smaller shape than intermediate cross-sectional shape) is formed.
PNG
media_image13.png
179
290
media_image13.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (exhaust nozzle central axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 10, Arbona in view of Gustafsson teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Arbona discloses a jet engine (see par. 11) comprising the exhaust nozzle according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Arbona in view of Gustafsson teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Arbona discloses an aircraft (see discussion of “thrust” in par. 3; thus one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the gas turbine engine of Arbona to be for an aircraft) comprising the exhaust nozzle according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Arbona in view of Gustafsson teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Arbona discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of the exhaust nozzle transitions (see annotated figure above) from the continuous curve cross-sectional shape to an exit cross-sectional shape (at 14 in fig. 1) in the contraction region.
Regarding claims 17-20, Arbona in view of Gustafsson teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Arbona discloses vehicle (see title regarding radar cross section; thus the Arbona gas turbine is for an aircraft) comprising the exhaust nozzle of claim 1; wherein the vehicle is selected from a group consisting of an aircraft, a spacecraft or a maritime vehicle; wherein the vehicle comprises a prime mover with an outlet (outlet of gas turbine engine), where the outlet of the prime mover is attached to (see par. 31 regarding exhaust gasses) the inlet of the exhaust nozzle; wherein the prime mover is a jet engine or a rocket motor, where the jet engine (gas turbine) is selected from a group consisting of a ramjet, scramjet, turboprop, turbofan, turbojet, turboshaft engine or a waterjet engine (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the Arbona gas turbine engine is one of turboprop, turbofan or turbojet).
Regarding claim 22, Arbona in view of Gustafsson teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Arbona discloses wherein the plurality of joined tessellated panels 22 comprises surfaces (at 22 in fig. 1) that meet at an angle of between 120 degrees and 180 degrees (see fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the angle formed by the instant meet annotated bold line and the exhaust nozzle central axis is between 120 and 180 degrees (see annotated figure above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against Deere (NPL “Computational Study of an Axisymmetric Dual Throat Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Nozzle for a Supersonic Aircraft Application”) and Wu (NPL “Performance Assessment of the Dual-Throat Nozzle Thrust Vector Control in a 3D Rectangular Nozzle”) that “However, these are not ‘discrete parts’ which can be merely substituted, but rather each of the nozzles in Deere and Wu are unitary, configured to achieve its intended results. In response to applicant's argument that “However, these are not ‘discrete parts’ which can be merely substituted, but rather each of the nozzles in Deere and Wu are unitary, configured to achieve its intended results”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is common to substitute one exit shape for another regarding exhaust nozzles. For example, US 2679725 at col. 7 ll. 45-55 points out “The jet discharge end of the unit has been illustrated as employing a circular exit for exhaust gases, but it will be understood that a rectangular aperture may be provided in substitution for the circular aperture”.
Applicant argues that Deere discusses variable such as cavity length and Wu discusses numerous design properties. However neither Deere nor Wu does teach away from substituting one exit shape for another.
Applicant argues the combination involves undue experimentation. However applicant has provided no evidence of this. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.") (MPEP 2145 I.).
Applicant argues that Vivace is not applicant because it does not fully address the change in cross-sectional area. However newly cited reference Arbona (US 2006/0213198) shows a continuous curve expansion section followed by a polygonal contraction section showing that such configurations are consistent with known jet flows for thrust. Applicant argues against Toffan (Pub. No. US 20080016872 A1) because of a reversal of features. In response Arbona fig. 1 shows similar features without the instant reversal. Applicant argues that KSR teaching, suggestion, motivation is not addressed. In response the office action used KSR simple substitution regarding combining Deere and Wu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 Although the instant region of Toffan is not specifically taught as a contraction region, one of ordinary skill is knowledgeable that the instant jointed tessellated panels are applicable to contraction regions by varying the dimensions of the panels (for example see pertinent prior art US 6328790 fig. 1 at 110).
Prosecution Insights