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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huenniger et al. (US 4,037,405).
Regarding claim 13, Huenniger teaches a method for operating an aircraft (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
receiving operation data indicative of the aircraft being in or initiating a takeoff operating condition (“Hence, in the take off regime for vertical lift, a valve or flow diverting means is opened exhausting the gases normal to the airplane's horizontal axis, while the plug is rotated in a closed position.”, Col. 1, lines 22-39);
in response to receiving the operation data, moving a movable portion of an outlet nozzle of an exhaust section of the aircraft from a first position that is aligned with a fixed portion of the outlet nozzle to a second position that is angled away from the fixed portion of the outlet nozzle (As described above, plug 20 in Fig. 2 is moved from the solid line position to the dashed line position);
receiving second operation data indicative of the aircraft terminating or having terminated the takeoff operating condition (“When transitioning from the vertical to the normal (horizontal) flight condition, the plug and top and bottom walls are actuated so that they cooperate to form an efficacious vectoring nozzle while metering the exhaust in order to obtain a smooth transition while the heretofore opened valve is being actuated closed.”, Col. 1, lines 22-39); and
in response to receiving the second operation data, moving the movable portion from the second position to the first position (Fig. 2 dashed line positions back to solid line position; moveable portions being the plug and top and bottom walls and the fixed portion being the tailpipe and shroud; lastly note, control system and control signals are also described: “It is apparent from the foregoing that control 22 serves to position plug 20 by relaying a control signal to dual actuators 76 and each synchronously through the connecting arm 72 and spline 78 rotates the aerodynamically balanced plug 20 to the desired positions. Additionally, controls 24 and 26 serve to actuate walls 14 and 16 through respective actuators for obtaining certain nozzle and thrust characteristics. The earlier mentioned coordination of the horizontal walls to obtain blockage of the flow from the nozzle is represented in FIG. 2 by the phantom of the plug, reference letter C. In this mode of operation the leading and trailing edges of the plug bear against horizontal walls 16 and 14 respectively. During normal flight, plug 20 will be positioned in the horizontal position indicated by reference letter D, at an angle affording the least resistance to the exhaust gas stream and aerodynamically balancing it. Horizontal walls 14 and 16 may be adjusted to vary the throat area for various aircraft flight modes. Vectoring and metering is obtained when the plug is in the position indicated by reference letter E or at any location between it and the full blockage position”, Col. 4, lines 3-24).
Regarding claim 15, Huenniger further teaches wherein the one or more components include at least one of a flap or a high lift device (Fig. 2 shows “plug” 20 and top and bottom walls are flaps or high lift devices; “top and bottom flaps control the nozzle throat area”, Col. 1, lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 16, Huenniger further teaches wherein moving the movable portion from the first position to the second position further comprises moving the movable portion away from the flap or the high lift device (Fig. 2 shows the plug 20 moving away from the top wall which is a flap or high lift device; “top and bottom flaps control the nozzle throat area”, Col. 1, lines 41-42).
Regarding claim 18, Huenniger further teaches wherein moving the movable portion further comprises actuating an actuator disposed in the outlet nozzle to rotate the movable portion about a central axis of the outlet nozzle (Fig. 2, “actuators” 76 rotate plug about a centerline of the outlet nozzle).
Regarding claim 20, Huenniger further teaches wherein moving the movable portion further comprises rotating an end of the movable portion along the fixed portion (Fig. 2, “actuators” 76 and 48 rotate plug and walls along fixed shroud and tailpipe).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riddle et al. (US 2023/0021836 A1) in view of Huenniger et al. (US 4,037,405) and Guering et al. (US 2011/0192933 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Riddle discloses an aircraft (Figs. 1-2, aircraft 10) defining a vertical direction, a lateral direction, and a downstream direction (Implicitly discloses by axes of aircraft), the aircraft comprising:
an engine (Figs. 1-5, engine 20) defining a centerline axis (Figs. 3-5, centerline axis 24),
the engine comprising a fan (Figs. 3-5, fan 22) and a turbomachine (Figs. 3-5, turbomachine 52) rotatably driving the fan (Implicitly disclosed as rotatably driving fan 22 around centerline 24 since pictured is a turbofan engine),
the turbomachine including an exhaust section (Figs. 3-5, exhaust section 36) comprising
an outlet nozzle (Figs. 3-5, outlet nozzle 40), the outlet nozzle including a fixed portion (Figs. 4-5, rim 84) and a movable portion (Figs. 4-5, core plug 44),
wherein the movable portion is movable from a first position (Fig. 4) to a second position (Fig. 5),
wherein when the movable portion is in the first position, the movable portion is aligned with the centerline axis (“In certain exemplary embodiments, bypass nozzle 40″ is un-canted or aligned with centerline axis 24. More specifically, in at least certain exemplary aspects, bypass nozzle 40″ is aligned with centerline axis 24 such that fifth angle θ.sub.5 (defined by the relative angle between centerline axis 24 and bypass outlet plane 72″) is approximately 90°. In such an example, outlet nozzle 42″ is canted or is angled relative to centerline axis 24, while bypass outlet nozzle 40″ is un-canted or is aligned with centerline axis 24 of engine 20. In a particular exemplary embodiment, fifth angle θ.sub.5 is 90° and third angle θ.sub.3 is greater than zero and equal to or less than 20°.”), Para. [0071]), and
wherein when the movable portion is in the second position, the movable portion is canted downward in the vertical direction relative to the centerline axis (Figs. 3-4; “In this example, turbomachine 52 is canted down relative to fuselage centerline 38. In other words, centerline axis 24 of turbomachine 52 is oriented (e.g., pitched or tilted) downwardly along vertical direction D relative to fuselage centerline 38 and relative to outlet axis 46. The pitch down arrangement of centerline axis 24 of turbomachine 52 provides for alignment of intake airflow with a face of fan 22. The pitch down arrangement of centerline axis 24 also enables exhaust section 36 to re-align an exhaust flow expelled from outlet nozzle 42 with a freestream of air flowing past aircraft 10 along downstream direction D.”, Para. [0058]), and
wherein the movable portion includes an end engaging the fixed portion, wherein when the movable portion is in the first position, the end defines a nonzero cant angle with the centerline axis (“More specifically, first angle θ.sub.1 is an angle formed between centerline axis 24 of turbomachine 52 and outlet axis 46 of exhaust section 36. In one example, first angle θ.sub.1 is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 10°, such as less than or equal to 7°. In this example, first angle θ.sub.1 is approximately 5°. Referring particularly to FIG. 2, second angle θ.sub.2 is an angle formed between fuselage centerline 38 and centerline axis 24 of turbomachine 52. In this example, second angle θ.sub.2 is greater than or equal to 1° and less than or equal to 10°, such as less than or equal to 8°. Fuselage centerline 38 and centerline axis 24 may be parallel to one another.”, Para. [0059]).
Riddle does not expressly disclose the movable portion as movable.
However, in an analogous aircraft turboengine art, Huenniger discloses the movable portion as movable (Best seen in Fig. 5, with shrouds and plugs shown rotating/canting downward).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle further including the movable portion as movable, as taught by Huenniger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “in order to obtain a smooth transition” from vertical to horizontal flight, as discussed by Huenniger, Col. 1, lines 22-39.
Riddle does not expressly disclose the movable portion is canted outward in the lateral direction relative to the centerline axis.
However, in an analogous aircraft turboprop art, Guering teaches the movable portion is canted outward in the lateral direction relative to the centerline axis (“It is also possible to use the movable mast according to the disclosed embodiments to contribute to the maneuverability and the takeoff of the aircraft by increasing the thrust of the engine as needed. For example, during takeoff it is possible to orient the output jet of the engine downward by orienting the nose of the engine toward the aircraft fuselage, and later to restore the engine to a horizontal position. In the same way it is possible to modify the position of the engine relative to the wing to orient the jet from the engine right and left laterally, to contribute to the lateral control of the flight path of the aircraft. It is thus possible to reduce the size of the aircraft's rudder, which normally provides lateral control, and thus to reduce the total weight of said aircraft.”, Para. [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddles to further include the movable portion is canted outward in the lateral direction relative to the centerline axis, as taught by Guering, with a reasonable expectation for success, “to reduce the size of the aircraft's rudder, which normally provides lateral control, and thus to reduce the total weight of said aircraft”, as discussed by Guering, Para. [0008].
Regarding claim 2, Riddle teaches wherein the engine is a turbofan engine, wherein during a takeoff operating condition, an amount of thrust from 5% to 25% of a total thrust of the turbofan engine is provided from the airflow through the exhaust section (“Further, in certain exemplary embodiments, the airflow through the third stream may contribute less than 50% of the total engine thrust (and at least, e.g., 2% of the total engine thrust) at a takeoff condition, or more particularly while operating at a rated takeoff power at sea level, static flight speed, 86 degree Fahrenheit ambient temperature operating conditions.”, Para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Riddle teaches wherein the exhaust section defines a plane at which the movable portion contacts the fixed portion, wherein a vector normal to the plane is angled relative to the centerline axis to define the nonzero cant angle with the centerline axis (Figs. 2-4; “In this example, turbomachine 52 is canted down relative to fuselage centerline 38. In other words, centerline axis 24 of turbomachine 52 is oriented (e.g., pitched or tilted) downwardly along vertical direction D relative to fuselage centerline 38 and relative to outlet axis 46. The pitch down arrangement of centerline axis 24 of turbomachine 52 provides for alignment of intake airflow with a face of fan 22. The pitch down arrangement of centerline axis 24 also enables exhaust section 36 to re-align an exhaust flow expelled from outlet nozzle 42 with a freestream of air flowing past aircraft 10 along downstream direction D.”, Para. [0058]; “More specifically, first angle θ.sub.1 is an angle formed between centerline axis 24 of turbomachine 52 and outlet axis 46 of exhaust section 36. In one example, first angle θ.sub.1 is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 10°, such as less than or equal to 7°. In this example, first angle θ.sub.1 is approximately 5°. Referring particularly to FIG. 2, second angle θ.sub.2 is an angle formed between fuselage centerline 38 and centerline axis 24 of turbomachine 52. In this example, second angle θ.sub.2 is greater than or equal to 1° and less than or equal to 10°, such as less than or equal to 8°. Fuselage centerline 38 and centerline axis 24 may be parallel to one another.”, Para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Huenniger further discloses further comprising a takeoff component downstream of the outlet nozzle, wherein when the outlet nozzle is in the second position, the exhaust flows out from the outlet nozzle in a direction away from the takeoff component (Seen in Fig. 2 and further described: “Hence, in the take off regime for vertical lift, a valve or flow diverting means is opened exhausting the gases normal to the airplane's horizontal axis, while the plug is rotated in a closed position. When transitioning from the vertical to the normal (horizontal) flight condition, the plug and top and bottom walls are actuated so that they cooperate to form an efficacious vectoring nozzle while metering the exhaust in order to obtain a smooth transition while the heretofore opened valve is being actuated closed”, Col. 1, lines 22-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle further comprising a takeoff component downstream of the outlet nozzle, wherein when the outlet nozzle is in the second position, the exhaust flows out from the outlet nozzle in a direction away from the takeoff component, as further taught by Huenniger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “in order to obtain a smooth transition” from vertical to horizontal flight, as discussed by Huenniger, Col. 1, lines 22-39.
Regarding claim 5, Huenniger further discloses wherein the exhaust section further comprises an actuator configured to rotate the movable portion along the fixed portion from the first position to the second position (Fig. 2, “actuators” 76 and 48 rotate plug and walls along fixed shroud and tailpipe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle wherein the exhaust section further comprises an actuator configured to rotate the movable portion along the fixed portion from the first position to the second position, as further taught by Huenniger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “in order to obtain a smooth transition” from vertical to horizontal flight, as discussed by Huenniger, Col. 1, lines 22-39.
Regarding claim 6, Huenniger further discloses wherein the actuator is configured to rotate the movable portion along the fixed portion to a third position between the first position and the second position (Fig. 2 shows at least 3 positions for the plug and top/bottom walls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle wherein the actuator is configured to rotate the movable portion along the fixed portion to a third position between the first position and the second position, as further taught by Huenniger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “in order to obtain a smooth transition” from vertical to horizontal flight, as discussed by Huenniger, Col. 1, lines 22-39.
Regarding claim 7, Huenniger further discloses wherein the exhaust section further comprises a plug disposed in the movable portion and a strut connecting the plug to the movable portion (Fig. 2, “connecting rod” 77 connects “actuators” 76 to “plug” 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle wherein the exhaust section further comprises a plug disposed in the movable portion and a strut connecting the plug to the movable portion, as further taught by Huenniger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “in order to obtain a smooth transition” from vertical to horizontal flight, as discussed by Huenniger, Col. 1, lines 22-39.
Regarding claim 8, Huenniger further discloses wherein, when the movable portion is in the first position, the plug is aligned with the centerline axis (Fig. 2, solid line position) and, when the movable portion is in the second position, the plug is offset from the centerline axis (Fig. 2, one of the dashed line positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle wherein, when the movable portion is in the first position, the plug is aligned with the centerline axis and, when the movable portion is in the second position, the plug is offset from the centerline axis, as further taught by Huenniger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “in order to obtain a smooth transition” from vertical to horizontal flight, as discussed by Huenniger, Col. 1, lines 22-39.
Regarding claim 9, Huenniger further discloses wherein, when the movable portion is in the first position, the strut is disposed adjacent to an upper portion of the fixed portion of the outlet nozzle, and when the movable portion is in the second position, the strut is disposed adjacent to a lower portion of the fixed portion of the outlet nozzle (Fig. 2 shows connecting rod 77 is adjacent the fixed tail pipe and portions of the shroud in all positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle wherein, when the movable portion is in the first position, the strut is disposed adjacent to an upper portion of the fixed portion of the outlet nozzle, and when the movable portion is in the second position, the strut is disposed adjacent to a lower portion of the fixed portion of the outlet nozzle, as further taught by Huenniger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “in order to obtain a smooth transition” from vertical to horizontal flight, as discussed by Huenniger, Col. 1, lines 22-39.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riddle et al. (US 2023/0021836 A1) in view of Huenniger et al. (US 4,037,405) and Guering et al. (US 2011/0192933 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wylie (US 2022/0018309 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Riddle does not expressly disclose wherein the outlet nozzle defines a central axis, wherein the second position is in a range from 90 to 180 degrees away from the first position about the central axis of the outlet nozzle.
However, in an analogous aircraft turboengine art, Wylie discloses wherein the outlet nozzle defines a central axis, wherein the second position is in a range from 90 to 180 degrees away from the first position about the central axis of the outlet nozzle (As shown in Figs. 3A-3B; “The offset angle 54 may be exactly or about (e.g., +/−2°) ninety degrees (90°). Of course, in other embodiments, the offset angle 54 may be more than ninety degrees (or the about ninety degrees) or less than ninety degrees (or the about ninety degrees).”, Para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle wherein the outlet nozzle defines a central axis, wherein the second position is in a range from 90 to 180 degrees away from the first position about the central axis of the outlet nozzle, as taught by Wylie, with a reasonable expectation for success, “to provide substantially vertical thrust. The aircraft propulsion system 24 may thereby be configured to move/propel the aircraft, for example, in a substantially vertical (e.g., up or down) direction”, as disccused by Wylie, Para. [0047].
Regarding claim 11, Wylie further discloses wherein the central axis of the outlet nozzle is angled relative to the centerline axis of the engine by the nonzero cant angle (As shown in Figs. 3A-3B; “The offset angle 54 may be exactly or about (e.g., +/−2°) ninety degrees (90°). Of course, in other embodiments, the offset angle 54 may be more than ninety degrees (or the about ninety degrees) or less than ninety degrees (or the about ninety degrees).”, Para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle wherein the central axis of the outlet nozzle is angled relative to the centerline axis of the engine by the nonzero cant angle, as further taught by Wylie, with a reasonable expectation for success, “to provide substantially vertical thrust. The aircraft propulsion system 24 may thereby be configured to move/propel the aircraft, for example, in a substantially vertical (e.g., up or down) direction”, as disccused by Wylie, Para. [0047].
Regarding claim 12, Huenniger further discloses wherein the exhaust section further comprises a plug including an end extending aft from the movable portion (Fig. 2, “plug” 20), wherein the end of the plug is above the central axis of the outlet nozzle in the vertical direction when the movable portion is in the first position (Fig. 2, solid line position), and wherein the end of the plug is below the central axis of the outlet nozzle in the vertical direction when the movable portion is in the second position (Fig. 2, at least one of the dashed line positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Riddle wherein the exhaust section further comprises a plug including an end extending aft from the movable portion, wherein the end of the plug is above the central axis of the outlet nozzle in the vertical direction when the movable portion is in the first position, and wherein the end of the plug is below the central axis of the outlet nozzle in the vertical direction when the movable portion is in the second position, as further taught by Huenniger, with a reasonable expectation for success, “in order to obtain a smooth transition” from vertical to horizontal flight, as discussed by Huenniger, Col. 1, lines 22-39.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huenniger et al. (US 4,037,405) in view of Riddle et al. (US 2023/0021836 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Huenniger is silent on wherein, in the second position, an amount of exhaust flowing from the outlet nozzle downward in the vertical direction is in a range from 5-25% of a total amount of exhaust flowing from the outlet nozzle.
However, in an analogous aircraft turboengine art, Riddle discloses wherein, in the second position, an amount of exhaust flowing from the outlet nozzle downward in the vertical direction is in a range from 5-25% of a total amount of exhaust flowing from the outlet nozzle (“Further, in certain exemplary embodiments, the airflow through the third stream may contribute less than 50% of the total engine thrust (and at least, e.g., 2% of the total engine thrust) at a takeoff condition, or more particularly while operating at a rated takeoff power at sea level, static flight speed, 86 degree Fahrenheit ambient temperature operating conditions.”, Para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Huenniger wherein, in the second position, an amount of exhaust flowing from the outlet nozzle downward in the vertical direction is in a range from 5-25% of a total amount of exhaust flowing from the outlet nozzle, as taught by Riddle, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as actuating the plug to reduce the outlet nozzle area disclosed by Heunniger and the percentage of engine thrust during takeoff conditions disclosed by Riddle, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Heunniger is silent on wherein at least one of the operation data or the second operation data include a Mach number of the aircraft.
However, Riddles further discloses flight operation data and ratings include a Mach number of the aircraft (“In one example, engine 20 is configured to propel aircraft 10 (and operate) at a speed of greater than Mach 0.74 (570 miles per hour) and less than Mach 0.90 (690 miles per hour). In another example, engine 20 can be configured to propel aircraft 10 (and operate) at a speed of Mach 0.79 (610 miles per hour).”, Para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Huenniger wherein at least one of the operation data or the second operation data include a Mach number of the aircraft, as taught by Riddle, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as actuating the plug 20 to reduce the outlet nozzle area in response to controls 22 disclosed by Heunniger and the rated Mach numbers for a given outlet area configuration disclosed by Riddle, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huenniger et al. (US 4,037,405) in view of Wylie (US 2022/0018309 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Heunniger does not expressly disclose wherein the second position is in a range from 90 to 180 degrees away from the first position about the central axis of the outlet nozzle.
However, in an analogous aircraft turboengine art, Wylie discloses wherein the second position is in a range from 90 to 180 degrees away from the first position about the central axis of the outlet nozzle (As shown in Figs. 3A-3B; “The offset angle 54 may be exactly or about (e.g., +/−2°) ninety degrees (90°). Of course, in other embodiments, the offset angle 54 may be more than ninety degrees (or the about ninety degrees) or less than ninety degrees (or the about ninety degrees).”, Para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Heunniger wherein the second position is in a range from 90 to 180 degrees away from the first position about the central axis of the outlet nozzle, as taught by Wylie, with a reasonable expectation for success, “to provide substantially vertical thrust. The aircraft propulsion system 24 may thereby be configured to move/propel the aircraft, for example, in a substantially vertical (e.g., up or down) direction”, as disccused by Wylie, Para. [0047].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647