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 .
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the transition " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition the meaning of the phrase “the second end of 15% of the length” is unclear. There is no discussion regarding a “start” of a transition in Applicant disclosure which further results in the public not knowing how the claim is infringed. For purposes of compact prosecution the instant phrase is interpreted as “the second end [[of]] and 15% of the length”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 8,327,617 (Gustafsson).
Regarding claim 1, Gustafsson discloses (see figs. 2-5 and 8) an exhaust nozzle 1 comprising: an elongate channel 1 having a first end (at location 2) and a second end (at location 3), the elongate channel 1 having an inlet 2 at the first end comprising a continuous curved (see col. 4, ll. 5-10) cross-sectional shape (see fig. 2) and an exit at the second end having a polygonal (see “rectangle” at col. 4, l. 49) in cross-sectional shape (see fig. 2), the elongate channel 1 configured for fluidic-thrusting vectoring (see col. 5, ll. 35-40; gasses such as air, see col. 1, ll. 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, ll. 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, ll. 10-20 and col. 5, ll. 5-10) by directing exhaust gasses (see col. 1, ll. 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, ll. 50-55 and control of “pitch” at col. 2, ll. 50-55) and/or angular velocity of a vehicle (see title).
Regarding claim 4, Gustafsson discloses (see fig. 2) the inlet 2 has a circular cross-section (see col. 4, ll. 5-10 and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Gustafsson discloses (see figs. 2) the exit 3 has a rectangular cross-section (see “rectangle” at col. 4, l. 49; also see col. 4, ll. 1-5 wherein the rectangle can include rounded corners as discussed at col. 4, or non-rounded corners as shown for example in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Gustafsson discloses (see figs. 2-3) a jet engine 200 comprising the exhaust nozzle 1 according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Gustafsson discloses (see figs. 2-3) an aircraft (see “aircraft” in title) comprising the exhaust nozzle 1 according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Gustafsson discloses (see figs. 2-3) wherein a continuous curved (see col. 4, ll. 5-10) cross-sectional shape (see fig. 2) matches a cross-section of a turbine 31 exit (see gasses flowing from turbine 31 to inlet 2 in fig. 3; see also fig. 1 jet engine 2 that includes turbine 31 is matched up with exhaust nozzle at aft end of the jet engine 200; also see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (inlet 2 of nozzle 1 is circular; see fig. 2; inlet 2 is matched with aft end of jet engine that includes turbine 31 exit; see figs. 2-3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (nozzle 1; see fig. 2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (openings 7; see fig. 2)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 16, Gustafsson discloses (see figs. 2-3) wherein the inlet 2 is configured to receive the exhaust gasses from the turbine exit used for the fluidic-thrusting vectoring (see col. 1, ll. 9-16: fluid injection changes the direction of exhaust gasses from the jet engine in order to provide thrust vectoring; such fluid injection occurs by way of openings 7,8 in the exhaust nozzle 1).
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) 1-6, 10, 11, 12-14 and 17-20 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).
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 elongate channel (see annotated figure below) for directing exhaust gasses (the primary exhaust flow travels through the elongate channel, such primary exhaust flow being vectored by way of the injection shown in fig. 1; (see page 2, I. Introduction, second paragraph, bottom) having a first end (see annotated figures below) and a second end (see annotated figures below), the elongate channel having an inlet (see annotated figures below) at the first end comprising 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) and an exit (see annotated figures below) at the second end having a cross-sectional shape (circular; see annotated figure 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 second end cross-sectional shape being polygonal.
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) and 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)). Wu further teaches a second end (see annotated figures below) cross-sectional shape being polygonal (rectangular). 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.).
PNG
media_image3.png
322
333
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (elongate channel)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
323
339
media_image4.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]
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 second end cross-sectional shape being polygonal (rectangular) of Wu for the second end cross-sectional shape being polygonal 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.
PNG
media_image7.png
217
240
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
307
313
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (second end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first end)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses an expansion region (see annotated figures above) having the inlet (see annotated figures above), wherein in the expansion region a cross-sectional area of the exhaust nozzle increases (see annotated figure above) with distance (see expansion region increasing cross-sectional area, e.g. at locations normal to the X-axis shown in fig. 3(a), in annotated figures above) from the inlet towards a contraction region (contraction region); and the contraction region coupled to the expansion region (the contraction region is coupled (see annotated figures above) to the expansion region, see annotated figures above) at the end of the expansion region (see annotated figures above) opposite the inlet, the contraction region having the exit (see annotated figures above), wherein the a cross-sectional area of the exhaust nozzle decreases with distance (see annotated figures above) from the coupling of the expansion region and the contraction region towards the exit (see decreasing cross-section area of contraction region, the shape of the exit, of the combination, being modified in the claim 1 analysis above), wherein the expansion region and contraction region together define the elongate channel (see annotated figures above).
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 the 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 5, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches the exit has a rectangular cross-section. See annotated figure above regarding Wu regarding Wu’s teaching of the second end having a rectangular shape, such teaching applied to Deere in the claim 1 analysis above.
Regarding claim 6, Deere in view of Wu teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Deere further discloses (see annotated figure below that is an expanded view of figure 4) the elongate channel comprises surfaces that meet at an angle of between 120 degrees and 180 degrees. When A1 = A2, the geometry in the annotated figure above exists. Thus tan (θ1) = h/l1 and h = l1 tan (θ1). Therefore, tan (θ4) = l1/h and tan (θ5) = l2/h. Therefore when (see table 3, 12th row of numbers), for example, θ1 = 10 degrees and l1 = 2.836 and l2 = 1.374, then θ4 = 80 degrees and θ5 = 70 degrees and thus θ4 + θ5 = 150 degrees such that the annotated surfaces below meet at an angle of 150 degrees.
PNG
media_image11.png
186
322
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (θ1)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (h)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (θ32)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (θ4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (θ5)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (surfaces)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
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 a continuous curve (see continuous curvature at the annotated coupling) to the exit cross-sectional shape (see annotated figures above) in the contraction region (see annotated figures 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); Vivace taught evidence of such a transition), 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 the 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 the 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 2.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deere in view of Wu, as evidenced by Vivace, as applied to claim 2 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. The combination teaches changing a cross-sectional shape of the elongate channel 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 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. Deere does not disclose the contraction region comprises a plurality of joined tessellated panels to change the cross-sectional shape.
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).
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, 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 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 length (see annotated figures above) of the exhaust nozzle. Deere does not disclose the transition is between the second end and 20% of the 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_image13.png
379
565
media_image13.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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/04/2025 with respect to the 102 rejection of claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 3D nozzle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments with respect to Deere in view of Wu have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that it is not known to transition from a circular cross section shape to a rectangular cross section shape in the same nozzle. In response, this shape transition was shown by Vivace in the non-final office action and is shown by Gustafsson in the 102 section above. Applicant argues that Applicant structure is unique and novel because it is “3D” nozzle. Applicant disclosure does not explain what is meant by a 3D nozzle. In prior art nozzles, a 3D is normally a nozzle that is axisymmetric wherein when such nozzles have thrust vectoring such vectoring is not limited to pitch control in comparison to an example 2D rectangular nozzle such as on the F-22 that provides thrust vectoring in the up and down direction or on other words regarding pitch of the aircraft (see applicant discussion of the F-22 nozzle on page 1, ll. 15-20). Additional examples are known in the art that such that it does not appear to be unreasonable to combine Deere and Wu. Johnson (US 2006 0242942) teaches a rectangular fluidic injection thrust vector nozzle 22 (see figs. 1-2 and par. 54 pointing out that the nozzle 22 can be rectangular) wherein there is a circular shape upstream of the rectangular shape at the exit of rectangular nozzle 22. In addition Wu cites Deere when discussing fluidic vectoring (see left column on page 14) showing the two are related. In light of this it appears that combining Wu with Deere would be a simple substitution under KSR. Applicant has provided no evidence that Wu is not compatible with Wu. 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.).
It is further noted that the types of exhaust nozzles of Deere and Wu are considered similar in the prior art for example relating to Yuichi (JP 2020084779 A) and the combination of Deere and Wu is consistent changing the shape of the outlet 18 for example of the fluidic thrust vectoring nozzle 10 in fig. 7(b) with the polygonal outlet 18 of the fluidic thrust vectoring nozzle 10 of fig. 7(a) (the instant figures are shown below). The basic structure of the shape transition from circular to the polygonal is known in the art by way of prior art Vivace duct 35 in fig. 1 that transitions from circular 36 to polygonal 37.
It is further noted that it is also known in the art for a contraction region to transition from a curved shape to a polygonal shape at an exit (see NPL “Design Enhancements of the Two-Dimensional, Dual Throat Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Nozzle Concept” (Flamm) at fig. 5 below showing rounded shape at coupling region (where expansion region is coupled to the contraction region within the axial length l) transitioning to 2d rectangular shape at exit. In light of this knowledge of one of ordinary skill it appears the combination of Deere in view of Wu is reasonable.
PNG
media_image15.png
390
521
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
297
473
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
turbofan engine has compressor and fan: NPL A Computational Study of a New Dual Throat Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Nozzle Concept (p. 2, section I, top of sec. par.)
appears to be 102 reference for claim 1: US 4351479; and
related art: US 5833139 US 20150354498.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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).