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 .
Response to Arguments
The claim objections and 112 rejections have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the 112 issues below. Applicant has added limitations which are not drawn to the elected embodiments, further discussed below. Further, there it is unclear how the limitations regarding the first and second fluid are to be interpreted, as further discussed below. Applicant argues that the prior art does not discloses two working fluids. In light of the issues above, it is interpreted in this case that different portions of a fluid flow may be interpreted as a first working fluid and a second working fluid. Therefore, the prior art discloses the new limitations, as best understood by the examiner.
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, 3, 6-7, 9-11, and 21 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. Claim 1 recites “a first working fluid” and “a second working fluid”. Applicant cites support for this in Para 0038: “a second coolant supply (e.g., a second working fluid) that is configured to provide a protective barrier between a first coolant supply (e.g., a first working fluid) and an outer wall”. However, this is only described with reference to Fig. 14 in paragraphs 00102-00107. Applicant’s election on 11/10/23 is only drawn to Figs 3, 4, 7 and 9. Therefore, there is not support for the elected embodiments to have the new limitations of both a first and second working fluid as claimed.
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 1, 3, 6-7, 9-11, and 21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states a first working fluid and a second working fluid that seemingly are contained in the same space, as there is no structure for separating them. It is unclear how they are to be distinguished from one another as they flow together. Are they distinct compositions of fluid? If so, would they not mix and become one?
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-7, 9-11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stalmach (US 3785591 A) in view of Pinney et al (US 9475593 B2), further in view of Jouffreau (US 4804571 A).
For claim 1, Stalmach discloses a leading edge assembly Fig. 7 for a hypersonic vehicle Col 1, lines 13-18: “aerodynamic heating during hypervelocity flight”… “velocities above Mach 4 or 5”, the leading edge assembly having a forward end and an aft end and comprising:
an outer wall 12 and 33 that tapers to a leading edge left side in Fig. 7, the outer wall comprising a porous region at the leading edge porous body 15B, the outer wall defining a cavity chamber coolant chamber 13B/34 therein, wherein the cavity chamber is charged with a first working fluid in light of the 112 above, this is interpreted as the first and second fluid being different portions of a fluid flow; in this case the first fluid may be the fluid toward the front of the chamber and the second fluid may be the portion toward the rear of the chamber.
Stalmach fails to disclose an insulation layer that is fluidly isolated from the flow of coolant.
However, Pinney teaches a wall of a hypersonic vehicle background; Fig. 4 including an inner wall 250 and an insulating layer 220/230/240 which is surrounded by an outer wall 210. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Stalmach by replacing the existing outer wall with the form of an inner wall, an insulation layer, and an outer wall as disclosed by Pinney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to slow the heating of the heat-expandable material and the coolant and therefore delay the release of the coolant, which is a limited resource onboard the aircraft.
As modified, Stalmach discloses
a coolant supply assembly coolant flowing from chamber 13B through 14B and conduit 32 in fluid communication with the porous region at left of conduit 32 for selectively providing a second working fluid fluid flowing through chamber and conduit through the cavity chamber and to the porous region of the outer wall shown by arrows at porous region, the coolant supply assembly including a first wall inner wall 250 as taught by Pinney, of the top wall 12 of Fig. 7 of Stalmach and a second wall inner wall 250 as taught by Pinney, of the bottom wall 12 of Fig. 7 of Stalmach that surround the second working fluid the walls surround the coolant as it flows and define a passage for the flow of coolant as they define the chamber that fluid flows through;
wherein the cavity chamber defined by the outer wall 210 of the insulated wall of Pinney includes an insulation layer Pinney, insulation layer 220 disposed between a portion of the coolant supply assembly Pinney, inner wall 250 and the outer wall Pinney, 210, wherein the insulation layer is configured to reduce heat transfer between the second working fluid and the outer wall as modified, wherein the second working fluid is fluidly isolated from the insulation layer via the first wall and the second wall of the coolant supply assembly as modified by Pinney.
If applicant disagrees that Stalmach, as modified by Pinney, reads on having a first wall in Fig. 7 as being the top side of wall 12, a second wall as the bottom side of wall 12, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the wall be constructed in two pieces in order to be able to access the components inside the wall and for ease of assembly and maintenance, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Stalmach as modified fails to disclose that the insulation layer has a variable thickness from the aft end to the forward end.
However, Jouffreau teaches an aircraft with an insulation layer that has a variable thickness from the aft end to the forward end Fig. 5: insulation layer 34 tapers in thickness; Col 6: lines 2-5.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Stalmach by varying thickness of the insulation layer as disclosed by Jouffreau. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to vary the thickness of layer 34 as a function of the temperature reached in the different areas of the craft which it covers” (Jouffreau, Col 6, lines 3-5).
For claim 3, Stalmach discloses the leading edge assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer wall comprises a first outer wall Fig. 7: outer wall at top side and a second outer wall Fig. 7: outer wall at bottom side opposite the first outer wall, wherein the first outer wall is located at a windward side, and wherein the second outer wall is located at a leeward side intended use – during flight, the top may be considered windward and the bottom leeward, wherein the insulation layer tapers from the aft end to the forward end and wherein the first outer wall and the second outer wall taper from the aft end to the forward end the insulation layer and walls all taper inward to a point as they approach the leading edge.
For claim 6, Stalmach discloses the leading edge assembly of claim 1, wherein the insulation layer comprises a solid insulating material between the coolant supply assembly and the outer wall Pinney, Col 4, line 46: “The phase change material 242 may be in a solid phase”.
For claim 7, Stalmach discloses the leading edge assembly of claim 6, wherein the solid insulating material is formed of a phase change material 240 defining a phase change point between 100 degrees C and 1500 degrees C Col 4, lines 46-55: “may be from about 100° C. to about 300° C., about 300° C. to about 700° C., or about 700° C. to about 1400° C”.
For claim 9, Stalmach discloses the leading edge assembly of claim 1, wherein the insulation layer comprises a gas or a vacuum Pinney: Col 5, line 16: “The phase change material 242 may vaporize”.
For claim 10, Stalmach discloses the leading edge assembly of claim 1, wherein the insulation layer comprises a porous lattice structure Pinney, Col 6, lines 1-3: “the structural system 260 may include flutes, baffles, honeycombs, a combination thereof, or the like for structural support” between the coolant supply assembly and the outer wall Pinney, 212.
For claim 11, Stalmach discloses the leading edge assembly of claim 10, wherein the leading edge assembly includes a hermetic seal Pinney, seal provided by facesheet layer 250 that is located between the coolant supply assembly and the porous lattice structure as modified by Pinney.
For claim 21, Stalmach as modified discloses the leading edge assembly of claim 3, wherein the first wall includes a first flange portion Pinney, Fig. 4: truss pins 260 that connects the first wall 250 to the first outer wall 210, and wherein the second wall includes a second flange portion 260 that connects the second wall 250 to the second outer wall 210.
These pins are not explicitly stated as being adjacent the forward end. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include truss pins adjacent the forward end in order to provide structural support across the whole wall, from front to back, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached on (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642