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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolam FR 2829466 A1.
Re claim 1, TOULOUSE teach an aircraft cabin air conditioning system, comprising: a first motorized turbomachine (1), referred to as a water extraction turbomachine , comprising a compressor (11), a water extraction turbine (13) comprising an outlet (58) and an inlet (57), and a motor (12) driving the compressor and the water extraction turbine in rotation,
a second motorized turbomachine (2), referred to as a cooling turbomachine , comprising a compressor (21), a cooling turbine (23) comprising an inlet (66) and an outlet (71), and a motor (22) driving the compressor and the cooling turbine in rotation,
a water extraction loop (5) connected to the inlet of the water extraction turbine and comprising a condenser (6, 7) and a water separator (8),
and an outlet (78) from the air conditioning system, configured such that said outlet can be connected to the cabin (33, 30) of the aircraft,
wherein the compressor (11) of the water extraction turbomachine and the compressor (21) of the cooling turbomachine are configured to receive air outside the aircraft (15 via 80) and are mounted in parallel so as to be able to feed a common outlet (V9, 46, fig 3),
the water extraction turbine and the cooling turbine are mounted in series such that the outlet of the water extraction turbine is fluidly connected to the inlet of the cooling turbine (figs), and the outlet of the cooling turbine is connected to the outlet of the air conditioning system (figs),
and the system comprises a network of pipes and associated valves (14a, b, V2, V1, and interconnecting pipes between structure in figs), fluidly connected to the common outlet of the compressors and making it possible to supply, from the common outlet of the compressors:
the inlet of the water extraction turbine ,
the inlet of the cooling turbine, bypassing the water extraction turbine and the water extraction loop via a first bypass valve (V7),
and, directly, the outlet of the air conditioning system, bypassing the cooling turbine , via a second bypass valve (V9, noting V7 and V9 collectively and/or V9 independently capable of performing the limitations ), and the water extraction turbine and the water extraction loop via the first bypass valve(figs), the air conditioning system also comprising a control module configured to send control signals for opening or closing the bypass valves
the air conditioning system also comprising a control module configured to send control signals for opening or closing the bypass valves (page 12).
Re claim 4, TOULOUSE teach at least one exchanger (7) configured to be passed through by air leaving the outlet of the water extraction turbine.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOULOUSE.
Re claim 2, TOULOUSE teach the control module , configured to control the network of pipes and valves according to the altitude of the aircraft and the temperature of the air at the common outlet , to allow supply from the common outlet of the compressors: either to the inlet of the water extraction turbine (noting different modes of operation due to altitude, and the activation of and closes of valves to have different modes naturally teach a controller operation, and therefore the configuration is present in the prior art, and the following conditional phrases and intended use are capable of being performed out by the structure and controller configured for multiple operations, page 3, page 11, page 12 lines 470-480, therefore a control module to open and close valves by sending signal, etc. is naturally disclosed and the examiner notes is well known in the art in aircraft to achieve the modes disclosed in the prior art ) , when the aircraft is on the ground or at low altitude, or to the inlet of the cooling turbine directly, bypassing the water extraction turbine and the water extraction loop by opening a first valve , when the aircraft is at medium altitude and/or when the air temperature is greater than a predetermined threshold, or to the outlet of the air conditioning system directly, bypassing the cooling turbine , the water extraction turbine and the water extraction loop by opening the first valve and a second valve , when the aircraft is at high altitude and/or when the air temperature is below the predetermined threshold.
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase. Additionally noting for clarity, the recitation “…when the aircraft is on the ground or at low altitude, or to the inlet of the cooling turbine directly, bypassing the water extraction turbine and the water extraction loop by opening a first valve , when the aircraft is at medium altitude and/or when the air temperature is greater than a predetermined threshold, or to the outlet of the air conditioning system directly, bypassing the cooling turbine , the water extraction turbine and the water extraction loop by opening the first valve and a second valve , when the aircraft is at high altitude and/or when the air temperature is below the predetermined threshold …” 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOULOUSE in view of BAMMANN DE102015222193A1 (see US2017129614A1 for translation).
Re claim 3, TOULOUSE fail to explicitly teach cabin exhaust.
BAMMANN teach a pipe connecting the cabin to the inlet of the water extraction turbine and/or the inlet of the cooling turbine , so as to supply the turbine(s) with air, called stale air, expelled from said cabin (para 28) to expand cabin exhaust air flowing through the cabin exhaust air line for compressor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include cabin exhaust as taught by BAMMANN in the TOULOUSE invention in order to advantageously allow for the pressure of the exhaust air discharged from an aircraft cabin, which during flight operation of an aircraft equipped with the aircraft air conditioning system exceeds the ambient pressure outside the aircraft from a specific flight altitude, can be used for energy recovery.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TOULOUSE in view of LEE US2010014960A1, cited on the IDS.
Re claim 5, TOULOUSE fail to explicitly teach variable injection section.
LEE teach further comprising at least one fixed blading with variable injection section mounted on the water extraction turbine and/or on the air cooling turbine so as to be able to modify, on command, the air flow supplying an air inlet of the turbine(s) on which the blading is mounted (paras 1-13) to guide the air or the hot gas at a specified angle to the rotor blades in order to control the airflow supplied to the rotor blades .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include variable injection section as taught by LEE in the TOULOUSE invention in order to advantageously allow to produce an optimum angle of the airflow to the rotor blades of the compressor to suit the respective operating conditions, thereby improving the performance of the turbomachine and reducing fuel consumption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that although the structure is agreed to be taught by the prior art, V7 cannot perform” the function” of claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that for a the recitation that has been considered a functional limitation, 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 and 2173.05(g). 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “to connect fluidly the common outlet of the compressors to the inlet of the cooling turbine bypassing the water extraction turbine and the water extraction loop by using the valve” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is noted however by the actions of valve V7, the actions in the arguments (page 13 last para) and functional limitations are capable of being performed.
Claim 1 remains broad and requires “making it possible to supply”, and “ bypassing the cooling turbine, via a second bypass valve,”, and “and the water extraction turbine and the water extraction loop via the first bypass valve”. This remain broad because claim 1 does not explicitly state what specific fluid is bypassing what, but merely is acting a possibility of supply and a general “bypassing” and “via” certain “bypass valve”s. noting that according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the plain meaning of ‘via’ is by means of. Therefore, as applicant has stated, (page 15 last para arguments) certain actions occurs when a fluid travels through 52 to meet the claim limitations, which occur “via” (by means of) closing of a bypass valve.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “bypassing of the water extraction loop to connect fluidly the common outlet of the compressors to the inlet of the cooling turbine” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant then concludes that the prior art fail to teach the network of pipis etc. The examiner respectfully disagrees. All of the Structural requirements of claim 1 are taught by the prior art. All of the broad functional limitations are also capable of being performed generally by the structure of the prior art.
The applicant argues that although the structure is agreed to be taught by the prior art, V9 cannot perform” the function” of claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. V9 alone or in combination with all the valves and controls allows for the functional limitations (described in page 17 arguments last para) to occur, as an entire system, and thus the functional limitations are met. As in the previous arguments, it is noted that for a the recitation that has been considered a functional limitation, 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 and 2173.05(g). 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.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “allow circulation of air” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
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