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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/20/2024. These drawings are not acceptable.
The figures include improper shading which impacts legibility and understanding of the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84(m) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “Accelerating” shouldn’t be capitalized. 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one of the conduits allowing retraction of the at least one thrust augmentation device and exposure inside and outside a wing and fuselage” in line 9, this is unclear because the claim appears to state that a single thrust augmentation device can be retracted into a wing and a fuselage at the same time. Which are two different parts of the aircraft. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted to say “exposure inside and outside a wing or a fuselage”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the conduits" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ejectors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evulet (10207812).
Regarding claim 4, Evulet discloses a method of flying an aircraft or hovercraft comprising: accelerating a compressor to maximum power (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the highest power requirements for an aircraft is during vertical flight and takeoff, therefore during the claimed flight regimes the power needs would be at their maximum and thus power output from the compressor would need to be at its maximum) with feeding distribution valves (1703, fig 27a) and supplying multiple thrust augmenting devices (801, fig 27a) and balancing an attitude of the aircraft by closing and opening control valves distributing compressed air to the thrust augmenting devices (col 29, lines 11-56) and for vertical hovering, take-off and landing (col 30, lines 14-18); positioning flaps of said aircraft to receive efflux of said thrust augmenting devices to augment the amount of lift while minimizing the required forward speed of said aircraft (col 32, lines 59-67); and positioning wings of said aircraft to exploit low-pressure areas of the thrust augmenting devices such that boundary layer ingestion results preventing the wings and flaps from stalling (col 32, lines 50-59).
Regarding claim 5, Evulet discloses a method of flying level an aircraft or hovercraft comprising: accelerating or decelerating a compressor (col 29, lines 40-51, 57-63 the operating parameters of the compressor are being controlled by the controller, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that controlling the output of the compressor would be based off of the RPMs, therefore changing the operating parameters would comprise accelerating and decelerating the compressor) to produce more or less flow to thrust augmenters supplied with compressed air from compressor output; Opening or closing a distribution valve (1703, fig 27a) to supply or block a portion of the compressed air to the thrust augmenters in communication with a fluid network (gas generator 800 and supply conduits 251, fig 27a); opening or closing control valves that distribute the compressed air to thrust augmenters to control roll, yaw and pitch (col 12, lines 15-31); opening and closing several conduits to bypass the conduits communicating with the thrust augmenters and direct the flow to a conduit leading to a propulsion nozzle pointing mainly in the direction opposite to the direction of flight (the propulsion nozzles point in the direction opposite of flight to provide thrust in the direction of flight); and rotating or swiveling the thrust augmenting devices into and out of wings and fuselage of said aircraft (col 31, lines 50-59).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evulet in view of Shmilovich (8087618).
Regarding claim 1, Evulet discloses a propulsion system comprising: at least one compressor (2601, fig 26b); multiple conduits (251, fig 27a); at least one thrust augmentation device (801, fig 27a), wherein the at least one compressor includes an intake opening (800, fig 26b, there is an inlet of the gas generator) and at least one outlet port (conduits 251 are compressor bleed ports meaning they would be a compressor outlet port) in fluid communication with the valve (the outlet ports lead to the valves, fig 27a), the valve being in fluid communication with the conduits, at least one of the conduits allowing retraction of the at least one thrust augmentation device and exposure inside and outside a wing and fuselage (col 31, lines 50-59), respectively, of an aircraft or vessel (fig 8b); a series of flaps (201, fig 17a-c) that can be retracted, tilted and operated in conjunction with the at least one thrust augmentation device for maximum lift and thrust generation; a converging channel (204, fig 22e) in fluid communication with the valve configured to allow expansion to ambient of a compressed air stream (via 203, fig 22e) in a preferred single direction (direction of the outlet of 22e) , the at least one thrust augmentation device each containing a mixing section (204, fig 22e), a throat section (222, fig 22e) and a diffusor (downstream of the throat, 222e), whereby each said augmentation device receives compressed air from the at least one compressor via at least one of the conduits and valve and uses pressurized air as motive gas to generate thrust by fluidically entraining ambient air, mixing it with the motive gas and ejecting the motive gas at high velocities via the diffusor (compressed air is injected through 203 and used to generate thrust as claimed, fig 22e).
Evulet does not disclose a multi-way valve.
Shmilovich teaches a compressed air distribution system for an aircraft (100, fig 1) which uses a multi-way valve (206, fig 2) to control output to multiple conduits (210,212,214, fig 2) to produce lift (col 6, lines 1-26)
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 ejector nozzles disclosed by Evulet by having a multi-way valve to control the compressor fluid based on the teachings of Shmilovich. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the usage of a single multi-way valve would reduce how many parts would be required to used saving space and weight.
Regarding claim 2, Evulet discloses wherein the compressor is driven by a mechanical device (turbine 2602, fig 26b).
Regarding claim 3, Evulet discloses wherein the multiple conduits are in communication with the valve and can modulate the flow to multiple thrust augmentation devices to assist the attitude control of the aircraft powered by said propulsion system (col 29, lines 11-56).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evulet as modified by Shmilovich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Denning (3677501).
Regarding claim 6, Evulet as modified by Shmilovich does not disclose wherein the ejectors contain one or more fuel injection nozzles for augmentation of thrust during short periods of time.
Denning teaches a VTOL aircraft with a series of ejector nozzles (N2, fig 2), wherein the ejectors contain one or more fuel injection nozzles (28, fig 5) for augmentation of thrust during short periods of time.
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 ejector nozzles disclosed by Evulet as modified by Shmilovich by having the ejectors contain one or more fuel injection nozzles based on the teachings of Denning. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using fuel injection nozzles would allow for the ejectors to individually increase thrust rapidly when power from the compression system is insufficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741