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 . Claims 52, 54-62, and 65-69 of the claim set received 9/3/2025 are pending. Claims 1-51, 53, and 63-64 have been canceled. Claims 54, 61-62, and 65 have been withdrawn.
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 first and second valves and control unit in claim 52 must be shown in the figures of the elected species 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 52, 55-60, and 66-69 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 52 there is no explicit, implicit, or inherent support for the “control unit configured to control the first valve and the second valve to selectively supply the cryogenic substance to generate propulsive force for an aircraft by each of
controlling the first valve and second valve at a first time to supply the cryogenic substance to the combustion prime mover for combustion-based propulsion without supplying the cryogenic substance to the second prime mover,
controlling the first valve and second valve at a second time to supply the cryogenic substance to the second prime mover for propulsion from electrical energy generation without supply the cryogenic substance to the combustion prime mover, and
controlling the first valve and second valve at a third time to supply the cryogenic substance to a combination of the combustion prime mover for the combustion-based propulsion and the second prime mover for the propulsion from electrical energy generation simultaneously.”
The Applicant is essentially claiming a controller programmed to provide the three different operational states while the operational states themselves are not described in the application as filed nor described as carried out by a control unit controlling a first and a second valve at different times. While one could argue that the valves themselves are inherently provided on fuel/cryogenic substance supply lines, the claimed control unit configured to control the valves and two of the three claimed states of the valves are not inherent, described, or shown in the figures.
Supply of the cryogen to the combustion prime mover without supplying the cryogen to the second prime mover is not supported, i.e. the first claimed operational state, “controlling the first valve and second valve at a first time to supply the cryogenic substance to the combustion prime mover for combustion-based propulsion without supplying the cryogenic substance to the second prime mover.” The closest thing to support is found in page. 18, ll. 21-22 of the specification which provides that should the power unit (corresponding to the second prime mover) fail the gas turbine (combustion prime mover) may still generate power. The citation does not provide any clarification on whether the fuel fed to the gas turbine is the cryogen or another fuel when the propulsion arrangement is in this emergency/failure state. Additionally, it is unclear if the citation is directed to the elected species.
Similarly, there is no written or other support for the third operational state of supply of the cryogenic substance to a combination of the combustion prime mover for the combustion-based propulsion and the second prime mover for the propulsion from electrical energy generation simultaneously. Nothing is found in the application as filed showing support generally for a simultaneous feeding of cryogen to the first prime mover for combustion-based propulsion and to the second prime mover for electrical-based propulsion as claimed, let alone for the elected species. Applicant may be relying on the p. 3, ll. 5-8 specification recitation of “the cryogenic source may be selectively and independently operated to generate propulsive force for an aircraft by combustion and/or to generate propulsive force for an aircraft by electrical energy generation.” However, this recitation merely provides that the propulsion arrangement may generate propulsive force by combustion of cryogen and may generate propulsive force by electrical energy generation with cryogen, not the claimed operation of simultaneous propulsive force by combustion and electrical energy generation. The specification page 4, ll. 30-34 recites, “Viewed from yet another aspect there is provided an aircraft prime mover system comprising: at least one combustion prime mover; at least one cryogenic prime mover; and a cryogenic system comprising a cryogen container arranged in use to contain a cryogen; wherein one of the at least one combustion prime mover and one of the at least one cryogenic prime mover operate simultaneously.” While this citation supports simultaneous operation of the combustion prime mover and the cryogenic prime mover, it does not support simultaneous operation on the same cryogenic substance as claimed because there are other fuels which the disclosed combustion prime mover operates on, fossil fuels as found throughout the specification. It is noted that it is also unclear if the two preceding citations discussed above are descriptive of the same embodiment let alone the elected species.
In conclusion, the claimed control unit configured as claimed lacks support and represents new matter.
Claims 55-60 and 66-69 are rejected as dependent on claim 52 for the reasons discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 52, 55-60, and 66-69 would be allowable if support in the original disclosure can be shown for the claimed control unit of claim 52 can be proven in order to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose or form a reasonable combination teaching the following in combination with the other independent claim limitations -
Regarding Claim 52, “a control unit configured to control the first valve and the second valve to selectively supply the cryogenic substance to generate propulsive force for an aircraft by each of controlling the first valve and second valve at a first time to supply the cryogenic substance to the combustion prime mover for combustion-based propulsion without supplying the cryogenic substance to the second prime mover, controlling the first valve and second valve at a second time to supply the cryogenic substance to the second prime mover for propulsion from electrical energy generation without supplying the cryogenic substance to the combustion prime mover, and controlling the first valve and second valve at a third time to supply the cryogenic substance to a combination of the combustion prime mover for the combustion-based propulsion and the second prime mover for the propulsion from electrical energy generation simultaneously.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant requests the drawing objection be withdrawn because the missing elements including the control unit and first and second valves of claim 52 have been added in amended Fig. 5. This does not resolve the drawing objection because the Applicant has elected the embodiment of Figs. 2, 8, and 9. The amendment of Fig. 5 is an amendment of an alternative and unelected species. If the claim elements are attributed to the species of Fig. 5 then all claims should be withdrawn as directed toward a non-elected species.
The Applicant argues at page 9 that the §112(a) written description rejection of claim 52 regarding the first and second valves is not valid because it is explicitly taught in the original specification recitation of “The cryogenic source 300 may have a valve or series of valves to enable controllable release of the gaseous source 310 and the liquid source 320. In this way, transport of the gaseous source 310 and the liquid source 320 to other elements in the aircraft may be controlled.” It is noted that the cryogenic source 300 specified in the above citation is not found in the elected species of Figs. 2, 8, and 9. If claim 52 is directed toward another species then claim 52 and all dependent claims should be withdrawn from consideration. In any case, these valves are not described as selectively controlling individual flows to the combustion prime mover and the second prime mover as the first and second valves are essentially claimed.
The Applicant then argues at page 10 that there is clear disclosure of the control unit controlling the valves also because of the recitation of “The cryogenic source 300 may have a valve or series of valves to enable controllable release of the gaseous source 310 and the liquid source 320. In this way, transport of the gaseous source 310 and the liquid source 320 to other elements in the aircraft may be controlled.” As noted above, the cryogenic source 300 specified in the citation is not found in the elected species of Figs. 2, 8, and 9. If claim 52 is directed toward another species then claim 52 and all dependent claims should be withdrawn from consideration. Additionally, this recitation does not address controlled release to specific prime movers as claimed. Applicant then points to original but preliminarily canceled claim 1 and 49 containing the recitations that an “engine control arrangement operable to provide propulsion for an aircraft as described in any of the above claims” and “An aircraft propulsion arrangement comprising a cryogenic source, wherein the cryogenic source may be selectively and independently operated to generate propulsive force for an aircraft by combustion and/or to generate propulsive force for an aircraft by electrical energy generation” as providing clear support for the claimed control unit. It is noted that the limitation attributed to claim 49 is that of original claim 50. Within the art of gas turbine engines, a control unit has a customary and ordinary meaning of a programmed computer controller. These recitations do not provide support for the control unit because an engine control arrangement could correspond to a button or lever a pilot or operator could use and which is electronically or otherwise directly connected to valves controlling the cryogenic substance flow to specific prime movers.
The Applicant further appears to argue at page 10 that the three claimed controlling functions provided by the control unit are supported by the “selectively and independently” and “and/or” language in original claim 1 with the control unit of claim 50. There is no control unit recited in original claim 50. What is claimed is a control arrangement which could correspond to something other than a control unit, the control unit being a programmed computer controller. There is no control unit recited. With respect to the claim 52 controlling functions being supported the “selectively and independently” and “and/or” language in original claim 1 providing support for the controlling functions amended into claim 52, the complete recitation is “An aircraft propulsion arrangement comprising a cryogenic source, wherein the cryogenic source may be selectively and independently operated to generate propulsive force for an aircraft by combustion and/or to generate propulsive force for an aircraft by electrical energy generation,” which only shows that the claimed apparatus is capable or providing the claimed functions rather than that the claimed apparatus has a control unit programmed to carry out the claimed controlling functions. Just because the apparatus as originally claimed is capable of providing the functions does not mean there is a controller programmed to do so.
Applicant then appears to suggest at page 11 that the control unit controlling functions of claim 52 are the inherent in the selectively and independently language of the original claim. Again, just because the because the invention is described in the original claims to the extent that apparatus is capable of providing the functions does not mean that the functions or processes are positively performed or that there is a controller programmed to provide said functions.
Applicant argues at the last paragraph of page 11 that the originally filed Fig. 5 captures this concept, the concept being the three claimed controlling functions. It is noted that Fig. 5 corresponds to a non-elected species. Originally filed Fig. 5 does not capture any of the claimed valve states. Applicant adds that “The cryogenic source 140 is said to "suppl[y] a liquid cryogen to the fuel cell 142 for generation of electrical power" as well as "suppl[y] a gaseous source, which may have formed from boil off from the liquid cryogen, to the combustion engine 144". This is framed within the disclosure as an example of selective and independent control, where one or both of the two options for propulsion can be provided.” This language is found in paras. 0076 and 0077 and attributed to the non-elected species of Fig. 5. If claim 52 is directed toward the species of Fig. 5, claim 52 and all dependent claims should be withdrawn from consideration. The paragraphs do not describe the states of (1) supply of cryogenic substance to the combustion prime mover/combustion engine the without supply to the fuel cell/second prime mover at a first time, (2) supply of cryogenic substance to the fuel cell/second prime mover without supply to the combustion prime mover/combustion engine at a second time, or (3) simultaneous supply of both the prime movers at a third time as claimed.
Applicant states at page 12 that a more specific example is provided in conjunction with Fig. 7 and the disclosure of page 21, citing the language of “In an example of optimisation of the generation of thrust during flight stages, thrust for taxiing and take off stages A and B may be exclusively produced from the cryogenic source 300 which may be provided by either or both of the liquid source 320 or the gaseous source 310. Thrust for the climbing stage C may be generated also using the cryogenic source 300. Once the aircraft is airborne, passes through the Environmental Boundary and is in cruise stage D, the operation may switch to combustion via fossil fuels. Descent stage E and landing stage F may also operate exclusively using the cryogenic source 300. Thrust for the taxiing stage G may be supplied exclusively by the cryogenic source 300,” and further stating, “We therefore have disclosure of a liquid and gaseous cryogenic source which are used together or separately for different phases of flight. As such, even in a truly granular level, there is a disclosure of different flight conditions where the cryogenic source is used to provide cryogenic (liquid) or combustion (gaseous) propulsion or both.” It is noted that the cryogenic source 300 specified in the above citation is not found in the elected species of Figs. 2, 8, and 9. If claim 52 is directed toward another species then claim 52 and all dependent claims should be withdrawn from consideration. Additionally, the citation does not disclose to which prime mover or movers the cryogenic source is delivered and therefore does not show clear support for the claimed controlling functions.
From MPEP 2163 I., “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention,” and, “An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.” One of reasonable skill in the art would not look at the above evidence and reasonably conclude that the inventor has described the claimed invention including the unmentioned and drawing-omitted control unit configured to (within the art a controller programmed to) control unmentioned and drawing-omitted first and second valves to generate propulsive force by each of three unmentioned and drawing-omitted valve states. While there is support for an apparatus that is capable of providing the functions, there is no support for a control unit configured to/controller programmed to provide them. As an example, even if an apparatus is capable of providing cryogenic substance to the combustion prime mover without supplying the cryogenic substance to the second prime mover, there could be a controller programmed to always supply at least a portion of the cryogenic source to the second prime mover. As a second example, although an apparatus is capable of providing cryogenic substance to the combustion prime mover without supplying the cryogenic substance to the second prime mover, this could be enabled by levers or buttons pressed by an operator which open or close valves controlling the flow of cryogenic substance to the prime movers as opposed to a control unit configured to open or close the valves amounting to a computer controller programmed to open or close the valves.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741