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 . Claims 1-2 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, in Line 2 “carry distribute” should be either “carry” or “distribute”; in Line 4 “a compressor” should be “the compressor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “compressed air” in Line 6 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the motive fluid and compressed air are the same thing or two separate limitations. For the purposes of this examination the compressed air will be interpreted as the motive fluid.
Claim 2 depends from Claim 1 and is rejected accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grove (U.S. Patent No. 7,461,820), hereinafter Grove, in view of Runge (U.S. Patent No. 4,117,995), hereinafter Runge.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Grove discloses a propulsion system (Figure 1), comprising:
at least one conduit, 14 and 18, the conduit configured to carry distribute motive fluid (Column 4, Lines 28-39 – the conduit is supplied with a gas/motive fluid); and
a compressor supplies motive fluid to the at least one conduit (Column 5, Lines 1-8 – the motive fluid/compressed air is provided by a compressor) for producing thrust (Column 4, Lines 23-28 – the motive fluid is supplied to produce thrust).
Grove does not disclose the conduit further configured to collapse when not supplied with motive fluid from the compressor and inflate when supplied with motive fluid from the compressor; and at least one ejector in fluid communication with the at least one conduit, wherein the compressor supplies motive fluid to the at least one ejector for producing thrust, and wherein the at least one ejector, when not in use, is retractable into a volume of an airfoil streamlining the outside of said airfoil.
However, Runge teaches a propulsion system (Figure 1) with at least one conduit, 12 and 14, that is configured to collapse when not supplied with motive fluid from a compressor and inflate when supplied with motive fluid (Figures 2 and 3 – column 3, Lines 5-8 – when the motive fluid is not supplied to the conduit the conduit is collapsed as shown in Figure 2 and when the motive fluid is supplied the conduit is opened/inflated as shown in Figure 3); and at least one ejector, 16, in fluid communication with the at least one conduit (Figure 3 – the ejector is shown to be supplied with fluid from the conduit), wherein the at least one ejector, when not in use, is retractable into a volume of an airfoil streamlining the outside of said airfoil (Figure 2 – when the ejector is not in use it is retracted into a volume, 18, of the airfoil, 10, such that the outside of the airfoil is streamlined).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Grove by making the conduit further configured to collapse when not supplied with motive fluid from the compressor and inflate when supplied with motive fluid from the compressor; and at least one ejector in fluid communication with the at least one conduit, and wherein the at least one ejector, when not in use, is retractable into a volume of an airfoil streamlining the outside of said airfoil, as taught by Runge, resulting in wherein the compressor supplies motive fluid to the at least one ejector for producing thrust in order to creation of laminar flow to the lift augmentation stream (Runge – Column 1, Lines 35-39) thereby increasing aerodynamic efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Grove in view of Runge disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “the airfoil is a component of at least one of a VTOL, STOL or CTOL aircraft” is an intended use of the airfoil that does not imply any additional structural limitations on the propulsion system to which the claims are directed. Thus since the structural limitations of the propulsion system are met the limitation of Claim 2 is met.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Armitay (U.S. Patent No. 10,502,246) shows an fluid ejection system in a wing that is retractable.
Milde (U.S. Patent No, 8,561,935) shows a wild for a STOL/VTOL aircraft that has air ejection systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4pm EST.
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.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights