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 .
Claim objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 L. 1 “the shape” should be “a shape”; and
Claims 2-10 are also objected for being dependent on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Regarding Claim 10: Claim 10 recites “compresses the incoming air stream isentropically”. An isentropic process is an idealized process that is both adiabatic and reversible, as this process is idealized, such a process is not physically possible and thus inoperable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claim 10: Claim 10 recites “compresses the incoming air stream isentropically” which corresponds to a process that is not physically possible, thus the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10: Claim 10 recites the limitations “compresses the incoming air stream isentropically”. It is not clear what the term “isentropically” mean, as an isentropic process is not physically realizable process. To further advance prosecution the above limitation is interpreted as “compresses the incoming air stream”.
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.
Claims 1-2; 5-6; and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Falempin (US 5, 004, 187).
Regarding Claim 1: Falempin discloses a method (the disclosure of the apparatus discloses its method of operation) of controlling the shape (see Figs. 8-9) of a shapeable waverider inlet manifold (inlet displayed Figs. 8-9) for a hypersonic scramjet (see title), the method comprising: measuring a flight Mach number of the hypersonic scramjet (Col. 1 L 14-18, Col. 2 L. 19-43 wherein the geometry is changed depending on the Mach number therefor the Mach number is measured); comparing the measured Mach number to a current Mach-number-specified-by- position (Col. 1 L 14-18, Col. 2 L. 19-43 wherein the geometry is adjusted i.e. the measured Mach number is compared to a Mach number corresponding to the current geometry);adjusting an inlet stream surface (see annotated figure ‘187) of the shapeable waverider inlet manifold towards a desired disposition based on the comparing (position updated to the measured Mach number); iteratively ensuring that the flight Mach number matches the Mach-number- specified-by-position by correcting the disposition of the inlet stream surface until a difference between the Mach numbers is within a predetermined tolerance (the shape of the inlet is changed back and forth depending on the Mach number and predetermined tolerance is necessarily present).
PNG
media_image1.png
816
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Falempin discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses the shapeable waverider inlet manifold comprises an inlet lower cowling (see annotated figure ‘187), a mounting surface (see annotated figure ‘187), and the inlet stream surface movably coupled to the mount surface (see Figs. 8-9), wherein the inlet lower cowling and an inlet profile (see annotated figure ‘187) of the inlet stream surface define an opening (see annotated figure ‘187) of the shapeable waverider inlet manifold allowing fluid flow therethrough; and the inlet stream surface is configured to have a first disposition relative (Fig. 8) to the inlet lower cowling defining a first inlet shape (shape in Fig. 8) of the opening and a second disposition (Fig. 9) relative to the inlet lower cowling different from the first disposition defining a second inlet shape (shape in Fig. 9) of the opening, thereby providing respective first and second flow characteristics through the shapeable waverider inlet manifold during flight (Figs. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 5: Falempin discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein adjusting the inlet stream surface of the shapeable waverider inlet manifold towards the desired disposition based on the comparing is performed by actuators (15; Fig. 9) attached to the mount surface and to the inlet stream surface (see annotated figure ‘187).
Regarding Claim 6: Falempin discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the actuators are linear actuators (see Figs. 8-9 wherein the actuators are pistons/cylinder system).
Regarding Claim 8: Falempin discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the inlet stream surface comprises a plurality of rigid tiles (see 12 and 13 Figs. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 9: Falempin discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the shapeable waverider inlet is three- dimensional in design (Figs. 8-9 is a cross section of a 3D object), varying in geometry in three dimensions (Figs. 8-9 show an object in 3D that varies thus the geometry varies in 3D), enabling integration with scramjets of varying geometries (see preamble of Claim 1), including axisymmetric and cylindrical (see Figs. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 10: Falempin discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and further discloses wherein the shapeable waverider inlet compresses the incoming air stream isentropically (see 101 rejection above), resulting in less entropy-production and stagnation pressure losses in post shock flow as compared to nonwaverider shapeable inlets (see Col. 2 L.10-12 wherein boundary layer separations is avoided thus reducing entropy generation and pressure loss).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falempin (US 5, 004, 187) in view of Bichler (US 5,078,341).
Regarding Claim 7: Falempin discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding the inlet stream surface is a continuous flexible surface configured to be actuated at any number of locations in order to form a curved shape that conforms to an inflowing airstream.
However, Bichler discloses a hypersonic jet (see title) having an inlet stream surface (14; Figs. 2a-e) being a continuous flexible surface (Figs. 2a-e) configured to be actuated at any number of locations (location of actuator 18; Figs. 2a-e) in order to form a curved shape (Figs. 2a-e) that conforms to an inflowing airstream (air flow on 14; Figs. 2a-e).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of Falempin, to have the inlet stream surface is a continuous flexible surface configured to be actuated at any number of locations in order to form a curved shape that conforms to an inflowing airstream. Such a modification would enable to have a smoother transition between the different position of the inlet.
Allowable subject matter
Regarding Claims 3-4: Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to
to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art fails to teach, “a change from the first disposition to the second disposition includes a change in shape of the inlet profile of the inlet stream surface in response to varying flight conditions to maintain attachment of a shock wave generated by the inlet stream surface along an entire length of a leading edge of the inlet stream surface, thereby ensuring that the shapeable waverider inlet manifold remains a waverider” (for Claim 3): and “the inlet stream surface includes variations in local stiffness across its extent, and wherein the inlet stream surface is configured to change from the first disposition to the second disposition via a temperature-based shaping resulting from differences in local stiffness” (for Claim 4).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights