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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12358613. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The claims each recite, not in the same order, the method steps below:
positioning one or more serpentine plasma actuators on a top or bottom surface of one or more airfoils near a tip of an airfoil of an aircraft;
activating the one or more serpentine plasma actuators during a flight of the aircraft,
positioning one or more fan-shaped plasma actuators on an end surface of a tip of one or more airfoils of an aircraft;
activating the one or more fan-shaped plasma actuators during the flight of the aircraft,
at least one tip vortex generated by the flight of the aircraft is reduced by an introduction of one or more airflows generated by the one or more fan-shaped plasma actuators on the end surface of the tip of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft,
the one or more fan-shaped plasma actuators comprise dielectric barrier discharge actuators having two asymmetrically placed electrodes separated by a dielectric material which are configured to ionize ambient air into plasma, wherein an individual fan-shaped plasma actuator comprises a plurality of bent blade members that radially extend from a circular center of the individual fan-shaped plasma actuator.
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 1, 8, 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khozikov et al (US 8251318) in view of Smullin et al (US 10495121).
In regards to claim 1, Khozikov discloses a method of reducing tip vortices comprising:
positioning one or more plasma actuators on a top or bottom surface of one or more airfoils near a tip of an airfoil of an aircraft (as seen in Fig. 1 ref. 102 wing/airfoil, C4:25 discloses ref. 104 plasma actuators/generators); and
activating the one or more plasma actuators during a flight of the aircraft (refs. 104),
wherein at least one tip vortex generated by the flight of the aircraft is reduced by an introduction of one or more airflows generated by one or more serpentine plasma actuators on the top or bottom surface of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft (C4:9 “these array elements 104 may operate as described herein selectively to control the separation point 208B along the surface of the airfoil 102B”).
Khozikov does not expressly disclose: the plasma actuators are serpentine.
Smullin teaches serpentine plasma actuators (Fig. 5A, B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Khozikov with Smullin by providing the plasma actuators are serpentine actuators in order to allow the actuators to cover a greater amount of wing surface.
In regards to claim 8, Khozikov as combined discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more airfoils comprise at least one blade of a rotary-wing aircraft (Smullin C2:1 “Examples of such applications include drag reduction, controlled modification of turbulence, or other modification of the flow around various moving objects such as…airplanes, gliders, various airborne objects, propellers, and rotors”, thus it would be obvious to be used in rotor blades of rotorcraft).
In regards to claim 9, Khozikov as combined discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more airfoils comprise at least one wing of a fixed-wing aircraft (Khozikov Fig. 1 ref. 102 wing/airfoil).
Claim 2, 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khozikov, Smullin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shmilovich et al (US 8016244).
In regards to claim 2, Khozikov as combined discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: but does not expressly disclose: positioning one or more blowing holes on an end surface of a tip of one or more airfoils of an aircraft;
Shmilovich teaches blowing holes on an end surface of a tip of an airfoil of an aircraft (Fig. 22 comprising ref. 1590, abstract), the airflow is supplied by pressurized fluid from an external source (Fig. 22 ref. 2232).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Khozikov with Shmilovich by providing the means for positioning one or more blowing holes on an end surface of a tip of one or more airfoils of an aircraft in order to provide further vortex dissipation at the tip.
Khoxikov as combined further discloses:
activating the one or more blowing holes during the flight of the aircraft (Khozikov as combined, Shmilovich Fig. 22 ref. 2233 controller for activating system),
wherein at least one tip vortex generated by the flight of the aircraft is reduced by an introduction of one or more airflows generated by the one or more blowing holes on the end surface of the tip of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft (Khozikov as combined, Shmilovich abstract, discloses vortex dissipation).
In regards to claim 4, Khozikov as combined discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising positioning one or more blowing holes on an end surface of a tip of one or more airfoils of an aircraft, wherein airflow is supplied to the one or more blowing holes by pressurized fluid from an external source.
Shmilovich teaches blowing holes on an end surface of a tip of an airfoil of an aircraft (Fig. 22 comprising ref. 1590, abstract), the airflow is supplied by pressurized fluid from an external source (Fig. 22 ref. 2232).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Khozikov with Shmilovich by providing the means for positioning one or more blowing holes on an end surface of a tip of one or more airfoils of an aircraft and supplying airflow to the one or more blowing holes by pressurized fluid from an external source in order to provide further vortex dissipation at the tip.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khozikov, Smullin, Shmilovich as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Land et al (US 20100284825).
In regards to claim 3, Khozikov as combined discloses the method of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose: wherein airflow is supplied to the one or more blowing holes by one or more plasma jets within an internal chamber of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft.
Land teaches blowing hole/air jet plasma actuator from internal chamber ([0013] “the RSMA is capable of creating high pressure in the chamber by using an electrical discharge to create plasma inside of the chamber, rapidly heating air and expelling it through an orifice”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Khozikov with Land by providing the means for providing airflow supplied to the one or more blowing holes by plasma jets within an internal chamber of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft in order to allow for quicker response time during actuation.
Claim 10, 19, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al (US 20100187366) in view of Khozikov in view of Smullin.
In regards to claim 10, Gupta discloses a system of reducing tip vortices comprising:
one or more airfoils of an aircraft (Fig. 9 ref. 901, shape of ref. 901);
one or more plasma actuators positioned on an end surface of a tip of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft (Gupta ref. 920);
Gupta does not expressly disclose: a sinusoidal voltage source coupled to the one or more serpentine plasma actuators,
Khozikov teaches sinusoidal voltage source power source for plasma actuator (Figs. 6-9, C7:3 “FIG. 9 illustrates examples of power supply systems, denoted generally at 900, for supplying voltage to the electrodes”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Gupta with Khozikov by providing a sinusoidal voltage source coupled to the one or more plasma actuators as the power source is well known in the art.
wherein the voltage source is configured to activate the one or more serpentine plasma actuators during a flight of the aircraft in order to reduce at least one tip vortex generated by a flight of the aircraft by an introduction of one or more vortices generated by the one or more serpentine plasma actuators on the end surface of the tip of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft (Gupta as combined, Figs. 7-9 of Khozikov indicate the voltage source activating the one or more serpentine plasma actuators during a flight).
Gupta does not expressly disclose: the plasma actuators are serpentine.
Smullin teaches serpentine plasma actuators (Fig. 5A, B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Gupta with Smullin by providing the plasma actuators are serpentine actuators in order to allow the actuators to cover a greater amount of wing surface.
In regards to claim 19, Gupta as combined discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more airfoils comprise at least one blade of a rotary-wing aircraft (Smullin C2:1 “Examples of such applications include drag reduction, controlled modification of turbulence, or other modification of the flow around various moving objects such as…airplanes, gliders, various airborne objects, propellers, and rotors”, thus it would be obvious to be used in rotor blades of rotorcraft, Gupta [0027]).
In regards to claim 20, Gupta as combined discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more airfoils comprise at least one wing of a fixed-wing aircraft (Smullin C1:67, Gupta [0027]).
Claim 11, 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta, Khozikov Smullin as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Land.
In regards to 11, Gupta discloses the system of claim 10, while Gupta discloses plasma actuators at the end surface of the tip of the one or more airfoil (Figs. 9, 10), Gupta does not expressly disclose: further comprising: one or more blowing holes on the end surface of the tip of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft;
Land teaches blowing hole/air jet plasma actuator from internal chamber ([0013] “the RSMA is capable of creating high pressure in the chamber by using an electrical discharge to create plasma inside of the chamber, rapidly heating air and expelling it through an orifice”), actuators at a end surface of a tip ([0016] “compressor blade tip leakage mitigation in gas turbine engines, turbine blade tip leakage mifigation”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Khozikov with Land by providing the means for providing one or more blowing holes on the end surface of the tip of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft in order to allow for quicker response time during actuation.
Gupta as combined further discloses:
wherein the sinusoidal voltage source is further configured to activate the one or more blowing holes during the flight of the aircraft (Gupta as combined, Khozikov Figs. 7-9, at least), wherein at least one tip vortex generated by the flight of the aircraft is reduced by an introduction of one or more airflows generated by the one or more blowing holes on the end surface of the tip of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft (Gupta abstract).
In regards to claim 12, Gupta as combined discloses the system of claim 11, wherein airflow is supplied to the one or more blowing holes by one or more plasma jets within an internal chamber of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft (Gupta as combined, Land [0013] discloses plasma actuator).
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta, Kuzikov, Smullin as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Shmilovich.
In regards to claim 13, Gupta as combined discloses the system of claim 10, while Gupta discloses plasma actuators at the end surface of the tip of the one or more airfoil (Figs. 9, 10), Gupta does not expressly disclose: further comprising: one or more blowing holes on the end surface of the tip of the one or more airfoils of the aircraft, wherein airflow is supplied to the one or more blowing holes by pressurized fluid from an external source.
Shmilovich teaches blowing holes on an end surface of a tip of an airfoil of an aircraft (Fig. 22 comprising ref. 1590, abstract), the airflow is supplied by pressurized fluid from an external source (Fig. 22 ref. 2232).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Gupta with Shmilovich by providing the means for positioning one or more blowing holes on an end surface of a tip of one or more airfoils of an aircraft and supplying airflow to the one or more blowing holes by pressurized fluid from an external source in order to provide further vortex dissipation at the tip.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display actuators for influencing air flow over a body including plasma actuated and mechanical actuated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights