DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection in response to application filed 9/30/25. Claims 4-5, 7, 10, 12-14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26-29, 31, 34, 36, and 39-40 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 17, 26, and 28 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 26. "for generating for generating" should read "for generating," and "separate to the active region" should read "separate from the active region.". Regarding claim 13, "the rotor of the each respective rotor stage" should read "the ring-shaped rotor of each respective rotor stage.". Regarding claim 17,"an electrical connect" should read "an electrical connection.". Regarding claim 28, "is/are" should be replaced with a single verb form. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "mechanical thrust generator for generating acceleration of the fluid" and "plasma arcing generator configured for generating a plasma arc" in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4-5, 7, 10, 12-14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26-29, 31, 34, 36, 39-40 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "an intake fluid" "an enclosed airflow path" and "an exhaust end" and then introduces each of these a second time. It is unclear whether the body elements are the same as or different from the preamble elements. Later references to these elements are therefore also unclear, including "the exhaust end" in claim 7. For examination, they are treated as the same elements.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "substantive temperature increase." This term is relative and
appears twice. The specification provides no standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination, any temperature increase is treated as meeting the limitation.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the enclosed airflow". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The claim also recites "a second airflow path" while the specification describes a second airflow path portion. It is unclear whether the second airflow path is part of the enclosed airflow path or a separate path.
Claim 19 and 21 recites "its corresponding support frame". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations because a support frame is introduced only in claim 13. Claims 21, 23, and 39 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 17 depends from canceled claim 16, so its scope cannot be determined. For examination, claim 17 is treated as depending from claim 14.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the fluid flow from the rotor assembly". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the heated fluid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 26 recites "the fluid that received a substantive temperature increase".
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the solenoid". The solenoid is recited in claim 34 only within an
optional "and/or" alternative. When that alternative is not selected, "the solenoid" lacks antecedent basis.
The subsequent dependent claims are rejected because they depend from a rejected
claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 depends from canceled claim 16, so it does not refer to a claim previously set forth.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaciti et al. (US 2022/0297827) in view of Graber et al. (US 2024/0392761).
Regarding independent claim 26, Colaciti teaches a reaction engine 20 for producing thrust with respect to an intake fluid, wherein the intake fluid is configured to move from an intake end to an exhaust end of the reaction engine along an enclosed airflow path [0028-0031,0038-0039] the reaction engine comprising:
a thrust generating assembly (shroud 100 with blades 30) for generating acceleration of an intake fluid (air) within a first airflow path portion of an enclosed airflow path, wherein the thrust generating assembly comprises:
an input end (inlet side) for receiving the intake fluid;
an output end (outlet side) for delivering accelerated fluid; and
a mechanical thrust generator 30 for generating for generating acceleration of the fluid within an active region of the first airflow path portion, wherein the first airflow path portion comprises a free region separate to the active region, wherein the thrust generating assembly is configured to cause inductive airflow within the free region due to airflow within the active region [0034].
Colaciti is silent to an airflow heating arrangement comprising a plasma arcing generator configured for generating a plasma arc within at least a portion of a second airflow path of the enclosed airflow within the airflow heating arrangement and to thereby cause a substantive temperature increase of the fluid; before the fluid that received a substantive temperature increase exits the reaction engine at an exhaust end of the reaction engine to thereby provide thrust.
Graber teaches an air-breathing plasma jet engine 100 for electric aircraft (FIGS. 1A–1C, [0009, 0044]). Its compression stage 104 has an impeller 106 driven by an electric motor 108 [0046]. The compression stage feeds a plasma chamber 110 with a set of electrodes 112 that ionize the air and heat it to about 2000–3000 K [0050]. A nozzle 130 then increases the velocity of the escaping air by converting the added heat into impulse [0052].
Graber also discloses a test arrangement (FIG. 4) in which an electric ducted fan 402 supplies compressed air directly to the electrodes 412 in the plasma chamber [0072-0073]. Graber further teaches that electric ducted fans have limitations, and that the plasma jet engine provides higher power density and efficiency than electric ducted fans [0041, 0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Colaciti with Graber. The modification would place Graber's plasma chamber 110, with electrodes 112, and nozzle 130 within Colaciti's enclosed flow path downstream of blades 30. As Graber teaches arc-heating the airflow delivered by an electrically driven fan or compressor, before it exits through the nozzle, increases exhaust velocity and impulse and provides higher power density than an electric ducted fan alone [0043, 0052].
Regarding dependent claim 4, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti further teaches wherein the mechanical thrust generator comprises a rotor assembly comprising one or more rotor stages, each rotor stage comprising: a ring-shaped rotor (100,102) having an internal volume encompassing at least part of the first airflow path portion and defining a central axis about which the ring-shaped rotor rotates [0034-0035], wherein the ring-shaped rotor is controllably driven for generating acceleration of the fluid [0037,0040]; and an arrangement of blades 30 about an inner circumference 102a of the ring-shaped rotor, each blade of the arrangement of blades extending inwards from the ring-shaped rotor by a distance smaller than a radius of the ring-shaped rotor,wherein the active region corresponds to a volume of the first airflow path portion through which the arrangement of blades moves during rotation of the ring-shaped rotor, wherein the arrangement of blades is thereby configured to cause acceleration of the fluid within the active region, and wherein the free region corresponds, in substance, to a remaining volume of the first airflow path portion [0034].
Regarding dependent claim 10, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti further teaches wherein the arrangement of blades 30 of each rotor stage are configured such that an interaction between adjacent rotor stages is such as to generate opposing vortices directed towards central axes of the adjacent rotor stages and/or wherein each blade of the arrangement of blades comprises a structure configured to induce vortices due to a difference in fluid flowrate from a root of the blade to a tip of the blade between a lower surface of the blade and an upper surface of the blade [0034]; and/or wherein each blade of the arrangement of blades comprises a variable blade angle that changes between a root of the blade and a tip of the blade ([0034], it should be noted this limitation is not necessary as it is in the alternative).
Colaciti in view of Graber is silent to a distributed pitch profile of around 45 degrees. However, Colaciti teaches that the pitch angle determines how much thrust the airscrew provides and how much force is required to turn it [0005]. Pitch is therefore a recognized result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the pitch profile of Colaciti's blades through routine experimentation to balance thrust against drive torque. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Regarding dependent claim 13, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti further teaches wherein each rotor stage comprises a support frame 22/200, and wherein the rotor 100 of the, or each respective rotor stage being rotatably mounted to the support frame of the particular rotor stage [0025,0035].
Regarding dependent claim 14, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti further teaches wherein each support frame comprises an annular support frame bearing structure and wherein the corresponding rotor comprises a complementary annular rotor bearing structure [0035], and wherein the rotor is rotatably mounted to its corresponding support frame via an interface between the annular complementary support frame bearing structure and the complementary annular rotor bearing structure.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti further teaches wherein the rotor of each rotor stage is driven by a controllable electromotive force and for this purpose at least one rotor comprises an arrangement of magnets 14 proximal to an outside circumference of the rotor, and wherein its corresponding support frame comprises an arrangement of one or more accelerator units 12 configured to generate the controllable electromotive force [0024, 0026, 0032, 0037].
Regarding dependent claim 21, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti further teaches for each rotor stage, a plurality of the one or more accelerator units 12 arranged around an inside circumference of the corresponding support frame, wherein the plurality of the one or more accelerator units are configured to produce an electromagnetic force using AC electrical power received from an AC power supply [0026,0037].
Colaciti does not exressly state that the coils are equally spaced. Equal circumferential spacing of stator coils is the conventional arrangement for producing a uniform rotating field and smooth torque. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Colaciti in view of Graber to space Colaciti's coils equally around the support frame because it has been held that merely rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art - MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Regarding dependent claim 23, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti further teaches wherein a rotation rate of each rotor is controllable, at least in part, by control of a frequency of the received AC electrical power; and/or further comprising, wherein the alternating current generator is controllable such as to control at least one parameter of the generated AC electrical power supply [0026,0037].
Colaciti is silent to comprising a battery electrically coupled to an alternating current generator configured to generate the AC electrical power supply based on a DC battery power supply.
Graber teaches comprising a battery 116 electrically coupled to electronic modules 115 [0062].
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Colciti with Graber by electrically coupling a battery to motor controller 50 so that the control generates the AC electrical power from a DC battery power supply. Doing so probidfes onboard power source for the engine, and Colaciti also identifies “batter-engine controller-brushless DC motor aeropropulsive thrust generator as the common architecture of electric multirotors [0004].
Regarding dependent claim 27, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Graber further teaches wherein the plasma arcing generator comprises a first electrode 824a and a second electrode 824b, wherein the first electrode is located spaced apart from the second electrode such as to generate an electrical potential difference within the second airflow path [0050, 0098-0099].
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaciti in view of Graber and further in view of Zhou (CN 115045715).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 7, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti in view of Graber is silent to wherein the rotor assembly comprises a plurality of said one or more rotor stages arranged in axial flow sequence to generate inductive airflow within the free region due to the fluid acceleration within the active region of the one or more rotor stages; and
wherein a first one of the plurality of rotor stages is an input rotor stage located proximal the intake end of the reaction engine and a final one of the plurality of rotor stages is an output rotor stage located proximal the exhaust end of the reaction engine, and wherein the first airflow path portion corresponds to a combination of internal volumes of the plurality of rotor stages wherein each of the plurality of rotor stages is associated with a rotation direction corresponding to the direction in which its rotor is configured for rotation in order to cause acceleration of the fluid towards the exhaust end, and
wherein the plurality of rotor stages are arranged in a sequence of alternating rotation directions.
Zhou teaches wherein the rotor assembly comprises a plurality of said one or more rotor stages arranged in axial flow sequence [0020,0023] to generate inductive airflow within the free region due to the fluid acceleration within the active region of the one or more rotor stages; and
wherein a first one of the plurality of rotor stages 7 is an input rotor stage located proximal the intake end of the reaction engine and a final one of the plurality of rotor stages is an output rotor stage 7a located proximal the exhaust end of the reaction engine [00020], and wherein the first airflow path portion corresponds to a combination of internal volumes of the plurality of rotor stages [0020] wherein each of the plurality of rotor stages is associated with a rotation direction corresponding to the direction in which its rotor is configured for rotation in order to cause acceleration of the fluid towards the exhaust end, and
wherein the plurality of rotor stages are arranged in a sequence of alternating rotation directions [0024].
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Colciti in view of Graber with Zhou by providing a second, counter rotating, electrically driven rotor stage in axial sequence upstream of Graber’s plasma chamber. This increases the airflow delivered to the plasma heating stage and reduces vibration, as taught by Zhou [0007, 0026].
Regarding dependent claim 12, Colaciti in view of Graber and further in view of Zhou teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti in view of Graber and further in view of Zhou is silent to wherein the output rotor stage has a smaller free region than that of the input rotor stage and wherein a rotor of the output rotor stage has a smaller inner circumference than that of a rotor of the input rotor stage.
Zhou teaches that downstream of the counter-rotating turbines the flow path converges, pressurization cavity B and plasma chamber C are each conical [0020]. Graber teaches a converging nozzle portion 132 that increases flow velocity [0052] and a compressor flow channel who’s second outer diameter region is smaller than its first [0017].
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Colaciti in view of Graber and further in view of Zhou to size the output rotor stage smaller than the input rotor stage, giving it a smaller inner circumference and a smaller free region. The stages would then follow the converging flow path taugt by Zhou and Graber and accelerate the fluid.
It is noted that the use of a known, to improve a similar was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III C.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaciti in view of Graber and further in view of Di Canto (WO 2016/151609).
Regarding dependent claim 28, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Graber teaches wherein the plasma arcing generator comprises a first electrode 112 and a second electrode 112, the first electrode and the second electrode are spaced apart from one another to generate an electrical potential difference within the second airflow path [0050].
Colaciti in view of Graber are silent to wherein one or more of the blades of at least one of the rotor stages is/are electrically conductive and provide the first electrode of the plasma arcing generator.
Di Canto teaches wherein one or more of the blades of at least one of the rotor stages is/are electrically conductive and provide the first electrode of the plasma arcing generator (pg. 4, l. 14-20 and pg. 16 l. 4-20).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Colaciti in view of Graber with the blades of Di Canto, as Di Canto teaches using the moving blades as arc electrodes produces repeated arcs distributed through the air the blades are move that heats the flow as it is accelerated without a separate stationary electrode array in the flow path (pg. 16, l. 7-20).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaciti in view of Graber and Di Canto and further in view of Zhou.
Regarding dependent claim 29, Colaciti in view of Graber and Di Canto teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Colaciti in view of Graber and Di Canto is silent to wherein each of the one or more electrically conductive blades comprises an electrical connector at its root being electrically coupled to a rotor contact of its corresponding rotor stage configured to provide an electrical contact at an outside circumference of the rotor of the respective rotor stage.
Zhou teaches electrically conductive blades 12 comprising an electrical connector at its root [0020, 0023].
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Colaciti in view of Graber and Di Canto with the blades of Zhou, as Zhou teaches providing conductive blades with a root connector coupled to a contact on the rotor ring that carries the blades delivers current reliably to the rotating blades [0025].
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaciti in view of Graber and further in view of Lugg (US 2020/0040846).
Regarding dependent claim 39, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Graber teaches magnets 14 on the rotor, a support frame 22/200, and arc electrodes 112 driven by power electronic modules 115.
Colaciti in view of Graber is silent to wherein the plasma arcing generator comprises a high voltage DC power supply configured to generate a sufficient direct current potential difference for generating the plasma arc during operation of the reaction engine, the high voltage DC power supply comprising one or more DC induction scavenging units (ISU) arranged on one or more support structures, wherein each DC ISU comprises an ISU coil positioned such that the arrangement of magnets of the corresponding rotor move in proximity past the ISU coil to thereby generate an electromotive force within the ISU coil, and wherein each DC ISU comprises an ISU output circuit for generating an output DC voltage forming at least a portion of the high voltage DC power supply.
Lugg teaches wherein the plasma arcing generator comprises a high voltage DC power supply configured to generate a sufficient direct current potential difference for generating the plasma arc during operation of the reaction engine, the high voltage DC power supply comprising one or more DC induction scavenging units (ISU) arranged on one or more support structures [0102], wherein each DC ISU comprises an ISU coil 50,52,54 positioned such that the arrangement of magnets of the corresponding rotor move in proximity past the ISU coil to thereby generate an electromotive force within the ISU coil [0085,0087,0090], and wherein each DC ISU comprises an ISU output circuit for generating an output DC voltage forming at least a portion of the high voltage DC power supply [0090].
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Colaciti in view of Graber with the induction coils of Lugg, as Lugg teaches drawing plasma discharge power from coils energized by the engine’s own rotating magnets, which integrates power generation within the engine without require a separate generator [0011,0102].
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaciti in view of Graber and further in view of Daggett (US 2003/0140634).
Regarding dependent claim 40, Colaciti in view of Graber teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Graber teaches cooling the engine by bleed air or evaporative cooling [0095]. Colaciti in view of Graber is silent to further comprising a water injection assembly configured to inject water into the airflow.
Daggett teaches a water injection assembly configured to inject water into the airflow [0015].
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Colaciti in view of Graber with the water cooling of Daggett, as Daggett teaches providing water injection nozzles at the intake increases thrust, and the water acts as a heat sink in the airflow [0018].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG SANG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1418. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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.
/CRAIG KIM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3741
