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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an environmental control system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the environmental control system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system, and an anti-icing system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the anti-icing system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system” (claim 27) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 21-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of “the closed loop, vapor-cycle system to operate independently from the environmental control system” (claim 1). The originally filed specification, claims, and drawings have support for “Each of the valves operates independently of the other valves”, and the naturally the closed loop, vapor-cycle system is spatially independent from the environmental control system (naturally by occupying different spaces) but do not teach the “the closed loop, vapor-cycle system to operate independently from the environmental control system”. As such, the limitations are deemed to be new matter.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of “an environmental control system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the environmental control system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system, and an anti-icing system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the anti-icing system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system” (claim 27). The originally filed specification, claims, and drawings have support for an environmental control system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the environmental control system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system but do not teach the “an environmental control system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the environmental control system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system, and an anti-icing system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the anti-icing system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system”. As such, the limitations are deemed to be new matter.
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 26-27 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 26 recites the limitation of “an environmental control system”, wherein it is unclear what “an environmental control system” is referring to since the exact term “an environmental control system” has already been recited in the claim 8 from which the claim depends. Is the term “an environmental control system” requiring that there are multiple “an environmental control system” or is the term referring back to the previously recited term? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- the environmental control system -- for clarity.
Claim 27 recites the limitation of “an environmental control system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the environmental control system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system, and an anti-icing system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the anti-icing system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system”, wherein it is unclear what “and an anti-icing system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system” is referring to. Specifically, it appears from fig 2, that the air travels to 242a to be cooled by the primary cooling system, but this air does not travel to the deicing system after exiting 252. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the air travelling to the de icing system is generally considered to be the cooled supply air, since both the cooled air supply and the non cooled air supply have the same source, and thus are considered one in the same.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 12-13, 18, 21-22, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al.
Re claim 1, Foutch et al. teach an aircraft system comprising: a supply air system including an air compressor (266) configured to receive (via 504) bypass fan air from a turbine engine (210, 212) and generate compressed fan air at a first temperature, the supply air system to provide the compressed fan air having the second temperature as a supply fluid to an environmental control system (via compressor outlet, col 1, col 6).
Foutch et al. fail to explicitly teach details of the loop.
GALZIN teach and a closed loop, vapor-cycle system (annotated fig, noting the term “system” is broad, and a portion of the system is a closed loop vapor cycle and other portions of the system are coupled to the closed loop vapor cycle parts, to include the heat exchanger and the secondary loop thermally coupled to the vapor cycle loop) upstream from an environmental control system,
the closed loop, vapor-cycle system to operate independently from the environmental control system (para 87),
the closed loop, vapor-cycle system
to operate in a cooling mode
to reduce the first temperature of the compressed fan air provided by the air compressor to a second temperature that is less than the first temperature (the vapor cycle system can cool air from system 19 traveling to cabin 13 via 64 , paras 89 and 98; the vapor cycle system is upstream of what is considered to be the ECS, since the outlet of the supply air into the cabin “inlet of the first cabin” (para 98), “inlet of the second cabin” (para 102), “inlet of the third cabin” (para 104), is considered to be the ECS, and temperature sensors 70, 71, 78, 93, 94, noting coupling where conduits directly connect to and introduce air into the cabin are considered parts of the ECS in addition to the conduits themselves, including the air inlets into the cabin, and the walls/housing of the cabin which create and area for passengers to occupy which has some separation from the fuselage , some major aircraft systems etc as is known in the art, paras 1-2; and additionally noting the combination of the fuselage and walls create a volume which is pressurized in flight) , the supply air system to provide the compressed fan air having the second temperature as a supply fluid to an inlet of the environmental control system (in the instant combination noting the supply air of the primary reference in supplied to 21, 22 of the secondary reference in the instant combination) to condition air from a compressed source being supplied into an aircraft cabin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner.
For clarity, the recitation “…the closed loop, vapor-cycle system to operate independently from the environmental control system …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Foutch et al. teach wherein the air compressor is to operatively couple to a turbine engine of an aircraft (fig 4 ).
GALZIN teach, and wherein the closed loop, vapor-cycle system includes a vapor-cycle compressor (38) to operatively couple to the turbine engine (noting all components are operatively coupled in the instant combination) to provide additionally cooling in the closed loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner.
Re claim 3, Foutch et al. teach further including a first driveshaft coupled to the vapor-cycle compressor, the first driveshaft to be driven by a primary driveshaft driven by the turbine engine (col 8 lines 35-45).
Re claim 6, GALZIN teach the closed loop, vapor-cycle system is to operate in a heating mode to increase the temperature of the supply air to the environmental control system (noting the system is capable of meeting the claim limitations, even if by being deactivated and allowing for temperature rise by non operation, ) to condition air from a compressed source being supplied into an aircraft cabin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner.
For clarity, the recitation “…is to operate in a heating mode to increase the temperature of the supply air to the environmental control system …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 8, Foutch et al. teach a system for an aircraft, the system comprising: a supply air system including a supply air compressor (266), the supply air compressor having a supply air compressor inlet (via 504) configured to receive fan air, the supply air compressor to compress the fan air to generate supply air for a plurality of aircraft systems of the aircraft (col 5 last para),
wherein the supply air system includes an outlet (outlet of 266) that provides supply air to respective inlets of the plurality of aircraft systems (noting various systems described naturally have inlets, col 5 last para, col 1, col 6).
Foutch et al. fail to explicitly teach details of the loop.
GALZIN teach and a vapor-cycle system (annotated fig, see the rejection of claim 1, noting the term “system” is broad, and a portion of the system is a closed loop vapor cycle and other portions of the system are coupled to the closed loop vapor cycle parts, to include the heat exchanger and the secondary loop thermally coupled to the vapor cycle loop) to modify a temperature of the supply air exiting the outlet provided by the supply air compressor (in the instant combination noting the supply air of the primary reference in supplied to 21, 22 of the secondary reference in the instant combination), the vapor-cycle system to operate in at least one of a cooling mode or a heating mode (the vapor cycle system can cool air from system 19 traveling to cabin 13 via 64 , paras 89 and 98; the vapor cycle system is upstream of what is considered to be the ECS, since the outlet of the supply air into the cabin “inlet of the first cabin” (para 98), “inlet of the second cabin” (para 102), “inlet of the third cabin” (para 104), is considered to be the ECS, and temperature sensors 70, 71, 78, 93, 94, noting coupling where conduits directly connect to and introduce air into the cabin are considered parts of the ECS in addition to the conduits themselves; , including the air inlets into the cabin, and the walls/housing of the cabin which create and area for passengers to occupy which has some separation from the fuselage, some major aircraft systems etc as is known in the art, paras 1-2 ; and additionally noting the combination of the fuselage and walls create a volume which is pressurized in flight), the vapor-cycle system to reduce a temperature of the supply air when operating in the cooling mode, the vapor-cycle system to increase the temperature of the supply air when operating in the heating mode, the vapor-cycle system to employ the fan air to cool a working fluid of the vapor-cycle system the supply air system and the vapor-cycle system being separate from an environmental control system of the aircraft (para 87; see the rejection of claim 1) to condition air from a compressed source being supplied into an aircraft cabin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner.
Re claim 10, Foutch et al. teach the supply air compressor and the vapor-cycle compressor to be driven by an engine of the aircraft (fig 4 ).
GALZIN teach, wherein the vapor-cycle system includes a vapor-cycle compressor (38) to operatively couple to the turbine engine (noting all components are operatively coupled in the instant combination) to provide additionally cooling in the closed loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner.
Re claim 12, GALZIN teach the vapor-cycle system includes a vapor-cycle compressor (38), a condenser (39), an evaporator (37) and an expansion valve (42) to provide additionally cooling in the closed loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner.
Re claim 13, GALZIN teach the vapor-cycle system includes a precooling system (31) that is to reduce a temperature of the fan air upstream from the supply air compressor inlet (in the instant combination see the rejections of claims 1 and 8) to provide additionally cooling in the closed loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “to reduce a temperature of the fan air upstream from the supply air compressor inlet” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 18, GALZIN teach the vapor-cycle system is a closed loop system (fig 1, see the rejection of claim 8).
Re claim 21, GALZIN teach wherein the closed loop, vapor- cycle system employs a refrigerant as a working fluid (paras 90-91).
Re claim 22, GALZIN teach fan air cools the refrigerant of the closed loop, vapor-cycle system (paras 90-91, fig 1, see 39).
Re claim 26, GALZIN, as domified, teach an environmental control system, the environmental control system having an inlet to receive supply air from an outlet of the supply air system (see the rejection of claim 8, where “an environmental control system” is already taught by the instant combination and will naturally have inlets from conduits/ nozzles/openings introducing air into the cabin) .
Claims 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al further in view of Foutch et al. ‘158 US 9,810,158 B2.
Additionally, Re claim 3, Foutch et al. ‘158 teach a first driveshaft (266) coupled to the vapor-cycle compressor, the first driveshaft to be driven by a primary driveshaft (218, col 9 lines 55-67) driven by the turbine engine to provide power to a compressor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the compressor drive as taught by Foutch et al. ‘158 in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased efficiency when cooling bleed air (col 1).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to try to provide a first driveshaft (266) coupled to the vapor-cycle compressor, the first driveshaft to be driven by a primary driveshaft (218, col 9 lines 55-67) driven by the turbine engine to provide power to a compressor with the engine as taught by Foutch et al. ‘158 in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased efficiency when cooling bleed air (col 1).
Re claim 4, Foutch et al. ‘158 teach the vapor-cycle system includes a clutch (278) to operatively couple and decouple the vapor-cycle compressor and the first driveshaft to provide power to a compressor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the compressor drive as taught by Foutch et al. ‘158 in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased efficiency when cooling bleed air (col 1).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to try to provide the vapor-cycle system includes a clutch (278) to operatively couple and decouple the vapor-cycle compressor and the first driveshaft as taught by Foutch et al. ‘158 in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased efficiency when cooling bleed air (col 1).
Re claim 5, Foutch et al. ‘158 teach the vapor-cycle compressor is driven by the turbine engine via the primary driveshaft when the clutch is engaged with the vapor-cycle compressor, and the vapor-cycle compressor is not driven when the clutch is disengaged with the vapor-cycle compressor (col 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the compressor drive as taught by Foutch et al. ‘158 in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased efficiency when cooling bleed air (col 1).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to try to provide the vapor-cycle compressor is driven by the turbine engine via the primary driveshaft when the clutch is engaged with the vapor-cycle compressor, and the vapor-cycle compressor is not driven when the clutch is disengaged with the vapor-cycle compressor (col 10) as taught by Foutch et al. ‘158 in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased efficiency when cooling bleed air (col 1).
Noting the structure is capable of performing the limitations of the claim, and the conditional phrase “when” makes it unclear if the limitations following the conditional statement are required by the claim, and thus are not considered to be required by the claim. Also noting the clutch can be disengaged while the entire system is off which meets the claim limitations in another interpretation to provide power to a compressor.
Claims 10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al, HEIRONIMUS US 2021/0061477 and Moulebhar US 20060260323 A1.
Re claim 10, Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach compressor details.
Moulebhar teach vapor-cycle system includes a vapor-cycle compressor, the supply air compressor and the vapor-cycle compressor to be driven by an engine of the aircraft (paras 8-9) to hookup multiple compressors to the main drive shaft .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include compressor details as taught by Moulebhar in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for multiple modes to drive multiple compressors.
Re claim 24, Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach compressor details.
Moulebhar teach wherein the air compressor and the vapor-cycle compressor are to be driven by a primary driveshaft of the turbine engine (paras 8-9) to hookup multiple compressors to the main drive shaft .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include compressor details as taught by Moulebhar in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for multiple modes to drive multiple compressors.
Claims 19, 25, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al, HEIRONIMUS US 2021/0061477 and Moulebhar US 20060260323 A1
Re claim 19, Foutch et al. teach a system for an aircraft, the system comprising: a supply air system including a supply air compressor (266) configured to receive and compress fan air and generate a supply air (via 504) for a cabin of the aircraft (via compressor outlet, col 1, col 6), the supply air compressor to be driven by a primary driveshaft of an aircraft engine (col 8 lines 35-45).
Foutch et al. fail to explicitly teach details of the loop.
GALZIN teach a primary cooling system (see “a vapor-cycle system “ annotated fig in the rejection of claim 1) to cool the supply air prior to the supply air flowing to the cabin during operation of an engine, the primary cooling system includes a first vapor-cycle system to adjust a temperature of the supply air (see the rejections of claims 1 and 8) to provide additionally cooling in the closed loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner.
Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach an auxiliary system.
HEIRONIMUS teach and an auxiliary cooling system to recirculate and cool the air in the cabin of the aircraft when the engine is not operating, the auxiliary cooling system includes a second, vapor-cycle system that is independent from the first, vapor- cycle system (noting in one interpretation an additional system is added using battery energy for air-conditioning para 36, and in another interpretation a secondary HVAC system is added, para 53, 250) to use air condition from a battery and or have secondary systems not linked to the main system for when the primary system cannot be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an auxiliary system as taught by HEIRONIMUS in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved fuel and operation efficiency when heating and cooling interior cabins.
Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach compressor details.
Moulebhar teach the first vapor-cycle system including a vapor-cycle compressor to be driven by the primary driveshaft of the aircraft engine (paras 8-9) to hookup multiple compressors to the main drive shaft .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include compressor details as taught by Moulebhar in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for multiple modes to drive multiple compressors.
Re claim 20, Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach details of the auxiliary system.
HEIRONIMUS teach the auxiliary cooling system is positioned in a pack bay area of a fuselage of the aircraft (fig 2, para 26, noting packs are not positively recites and the fuselage is capable of having pack placement and thus is considered a pack bay area) to use air condition from a battery and or have secondary systems not linked to the main system for when the primary system cannot be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the auxiliary system in the fuselage as taught by HEIRONIMUS in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improved fuel and operation efficiency when heating and cooling interior cabins.
Re claim 25, Foutch et al., as modified, the first vapor-cycle system is upstream from an environmental control system, the environmental control system to pressurize the supply air to a cabin pressure and adjust a temperature of the supply air to a cabin temperature (see the rejection of claims 1 and 8).
Re claim 27, Foutch et al., as modified in the instant combination teach an anti-icing system to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the anti-icing system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system (col 5 last para, see the reject ion of claim 19, and noting the primary cooling system of Galzin interacts with outside air see para 89-90, and therefore in the instant combination the anti icing system is downstream because it uses air from the outside that has entered the air supply system of Foutch et al., and since this outside air interacts with portions of the primary cooling system on the exterior, the anti icing system is downstream).
GALZIN teach an environmental control system (the vapor cycle system can cool air from system 19 traveling to cabin 13 via 64 , paras 89 and 98; the vapor cycle system is upstream of what is considered to be the ECS, since the outlet of the supply air into the cabin “inlet of the first cabin” (para 98), “inlet of the second cabin” (para 102), “inlet of the third cabin” (para 104), is considered to be the ECS, and temperature sensors 70, 71, 78, 93, 94, noting coupling where conduits directly connect to and introduce air into the cabin are considered parts of the ECS in addition to the conduits themselves, including the air inlets into the cabin, and the walls/housing of the cabin which create and area for passengers to occupy which has some separation from the fuselage , some major aircraft systems etc as is known in the art, paras 1-2; and additionally noting the combination of the fuselage and walls create a volume which is pressurized in flight) to receive the cooled supply air from the primary cooling system during operation of the engine, the environmental control system being downstream and separate from the primary cooling system (see the rejections of 1 and 8) to condition air from a compressed source being supplied into an aircraft cabin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner.
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al and Moulebhar US 20060260323 A1 further in view of YESILCIMEN US 20210317800 A1.
Re claim 11, Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach a VT.
YESILCIMEN teach a variable speed transmission (para 18) coupled to the supply air compressor and a clutch operatively coupled to the vapor- cycle compressor, the clutch to engage the vapor-cycle compressor to operatively couple the vapor-cycle compressor with the engine and disengage the vapor-cycle compressor to operatively decouple the vapor-cycle compressor with the engine to provide selective coupling of a gearbox to drive the compressor (para 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a VT as taught by YESILCIMEN in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to transmit a fixed or variable proportion of the power of the turbine to the compressor.
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al further in view of DeFrancesco US 20090260387 A1.
Additionally, Re claim 13, DeFrancesco teach the vapor-cycle system includes a precooling (annotated fig) system that is to reduce a temperature of the fan air upstream from the supply air compressor inlet to associate another heat exchanger with the condenser.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a precooling system as taught by DeFrancesco in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased temperature controls in the heat exchange loop without requiring additional fans.
PNG
media_image2.png
467
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 14, DeFrancesco teach the precooling system employs a precooling evaporator (48) that is to receive the working fluid from the vapor-cycle system to associate another heat exchanger with the condenser.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a precooling system as taught by DeFrancesco in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased temperature controls in the heat exchange loop without requiring additional fans.
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al and Kupiszewski US 20180050806 A1 and Epp et al. US 20190202567 A1.
Re claim 15, Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach the vapor-cycle compressor and the condenser are positioned in an upper bifurcation of an engine of the aircraft.
Kupiszewski teach the vapor-cycle compressor and the condenser are positioned in an upper bifurcation of an engine of the aircraft (para 59, figs) to place an AC pack in an aircraft..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the vapor-cycle compressor and the condenser are positioned in an upper bifurcation of an engine of the aircraft as taught by Kupiszewski in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a gas turbine engine having an embedded electric machine, and to a propulsion system for an aeronautical device.
Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach and the evaporator is positioned in at least one of a pylon or a wing of the aircraft.
Epp et al. teach and the evaporator is positioned in at least one of a pylon or a wing of the aircraft to provide the heat exchanger in a position to receive airflow and be structurally supported (paras 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and the evaporator is positioned in at least one of a pylon or a wing of the aircraft as taught by Epp et al. in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for provide air conditioning systems with sufficient cooling capacity.
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al and Kupiszewski US 20180050806 A1 and Geliot US 20190226400 A1.
Re claim 15, Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach the vapor-cycle compressor and the condenser are positioned in an upper bifurcation of an engine of the aircraft.
Kupiszewski teach the vapor-cycle compressor and the condenser are positioned in an upper bifurcation of an engine of the aircraft (para 59, figs) to place an AC pack in an aircraft..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the vapor-cycle compressor and the condenser are positioned in an upper bifurcation of an engine of the aircraft as taught by Kupiszewski in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a gas turbine engine having an embedded electric machine, and to a propulsion system for an aeronautical device.
Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach and the evaporator is positioned in at least one of a pylon or a wing of the aircraft.
Geliot teach and the evaporator (28) is positioned in at least one of a pylon or a wing of the aircraft to provide the heat exchanger in a position to receive airflow and be structurally supported (figs ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and the evaporator is positioned in at least one of a pylon or a wing of the aircraft as taught by Geliot in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to convey the flow of cooled hot air towards at least one item of aircraft equipment.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al and PACHIDIS US 20190359340 A1.
Re claim 16, Foutch et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach the working fluid including carbon dioxide.
PACHIDIS teach the working fluid including carbon dioxide (para 15) for a high density near the critical point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the working fluid including carbon dioxide as taught by PACHIDIS in the Foutch et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for reducing the worked required by the waste heat recovery compressor to increase its pressure, consequently, increased efficiency results (para 15).
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foutch et al. US 10,054,051 B2 in view of GALZIN US 2018/0305030 Al and Cheung US 11105340 B2.
Re claim 23, Foutch et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach closed loop details.
Cheung teach the closed loop, vapor- cycle system is to be positioned in a nacelle of the turbine engine to use the nacelle to cool a fluid in a loop (col 9 1-20, noting the heat exchanger cooling the fluid in the primary reference is placed is integrated into the nacelle, and the instant combination teach a portion of the loop being inside a nacelle and thus the limitations are met).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include closed loop details as taught by Cheung in the Foutch et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for deicing and /or electric motor applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Galzin fail to teach a vapor cycle system downstream and independent from an ECS since in Galzin all the heat exchangers are downstream from the mixing chamber 12 and air supply devices 19, 20. The examiner respectfully disagrees. These arguments are not considered responsive to the rejection of record, where Galzin is relied to teach that the heat exchangers are upstream from what is the considered the ECS of Galzin (see detailed rejection above) since the mixing chamber 12 and air supply devices 19, 20 are not relied upon to teach the ECS of Galzin.
The applicant argues that Galzin teach a vapor cycle system embedded within an ECS. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The vapor cycle of Galzin is a stand alone system that interacts with another system via heat exchange through conduits with an entirely different system (see detailed rejections above).
The applicant argues that Galzin fail to teach “independent”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Galzin clearly teach the newly amended “independent” scope (see detailed rejections above).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Galzin modified Foutch to condition air from a compressed source being supplied into an aircraft cabin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include details of the loop as taught by GALZIN in the Foutch et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for a cabin to be thermally controlled under conditions of improved energy efficiency and in a simple, reliable and inexpensive manner. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try additional methods to cool cabin air noting the requirement to have cabin air cooled, Galzin already teaching multiple sources for the ECS (232 and 230), and Foutch expounds upon the need for additional ways to condition air supplied to an ECS (paras 1-8).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, it is unclear what is considered the precooler of Foutch in the arguments, as nothing is the specification defines a “precooler”.
The applicant argues that Moulebhar fail to teach “independent”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Moulebhar teach more than one compressor connected to an engine (para 20), and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would use the teachings of Moulebhar to attach more than one compressor to the engine, and therefore in the instant combination the limitations of claim 19 are taught in the instant combination of references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763