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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on *** was filed after the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 5-6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaffer (US 2004/0118389).
Regarding claim 1, Shaffer discloses an air cycle machine comprising:
an outer housing (refer to the broken line as in fig. 1);
a first housing (portion within section 46) arranged within the outer housing;
a first rotatable component (14) rotatably mounted within the first housing;
a second housing (portion within section 44) arranged within the outer housing;
a second rotatable component (16) rotatably mounted within the second housing, the first rotatable component (14) being operably coupled to the second rotatable component (16) by a shaft (18), wherein at least a portion of a fluid flow path (26) extending between an outlet (24) of the first rotatable component (14) and an inlet (28) of the second rotatable component (16) is arranged within a clearance formed between an exterior surface of the first housing and the outer housing (refer to fig. 1 below, wherein portion 26 of the fluid path is arranged within the clearance), wherein an outlet of the first housing (in the instant case, outlet 24) is fluidly connected to an inlet of the second housing (in the instant case, inlet 28) such that no intentional change in pressurization of a medium occurs between the clearance and the inlet of the second housing (refer to fig. 1 below); and
at least one heat exchanger (10) arranged along the fluid flow path (26), the at least one heat exchanger (10) being positioned between the second rotatable component (16) and the second housing (from at least a portion of the second housing since the heat exchanger is positioned within as can be seen from fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
340
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses wherein an entirety of the fluid flow path (26) extending between the outlet (24) of the first rotatable component (14) and the inlet (28) of the second rotatable component (16) is arranged within the outer housing.
Regarding claim 5, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses wherein the outer housing further comprises at least one wall extending inwardly (refer to fig. 1 below), the at least one wall cooperating with at least one of the first housing and the second housing to define the portion of the fluid flow path (26) extending between the outlet of the first rotatable component and the inlet of the second rotatable component.
PNG
media_image2.png
289
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses at least one heat exchanger (in the instant case, same heat exchanger 10 providing said structure) arranged along the at least the portion of the fluid flow path (26) extending between the outlet of the first rotatable component and the inlet of the second rotatable component.
Regarding claim 8, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses wherein the at least one heat exchanger (10) is mounted downstream from the first rotatable component relative to a flow through the first housing or the second housing (refer to fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 6. Further, Shaffer discloses wherein the at least one heat exchanger (10) is an air-liquid heat exchanger (including fins 57).
Regarding claim 10, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses wherein the outer housing and at least a portion of the first housing and the second housing are integrally formed (refer to fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses a third housing (within portion 40) arranged within the outer housing and a third rotatable component (20) arranged within the third housing, the third rotatable component being operably coupled to the first rotatable component and the second rotatable component (refer to fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US 2004/0118389) in view of Forster (US 4,180,973).
Regarding claim 3, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses wherein the first housing and the first rotatable component in combination form a compressor, and further including a turbine (20), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second housing and the second rotatable component in combination form a turbine.
However, Forster teaches an air cycle machine, wherein a first housing and a first rotatable component in combination form a compressor (refer to compressor 3) and a second housing and a second rotatable component in combination form a turbine (gas turbine 4). Further, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of a device (in the instant case, the first combination forming a compressor and the second combination forming a turbine) are significant, then to change the configuration of the device would be a matter of choice of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant simply states in the disclosure (refer to paras. 6 and 7) that “In addition to one or more of the features described above, or as an alternative, in further embodiments the first section is a compressor section and the second section is a turbine section; In addition to one or more of the features described above, or as an alternative, in further embodiments the first section is a first turbine section and the
second section is a second turbine section”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Shaffer such that the second housing and the second rotatable component in combination form a turbine in view of the teachings of Forster where the known technique could have been combined by known methods with no change in its respective function, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. increase the efficiency of the air cycle machine.
Regarding claim 12, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses wherein the housing and the first rotatable component in combination form a compressor (compressor 14) and the third housing and the third rotatable component in combination form a second turbine (turbine 20), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second housing and the second rotatable component in combination form a first turbine.
However, Forster teaches an air cycle machine, wherein a first housing and a first rotatable component in combination form a compressor (refer to compressor 3), a second housing and a second rotatable component in combination form a first turbine (4), and a third housing and a third rotatable component in combination form a second turbine (4, refer to fig. 1). Further, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of a device (in the instant case, the second combination forming a first turbine) are significant, then to change the configuration of the device would be a matter of choice of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant simply states in the disclosure (refer to paras. 6 and 7) that “In addition to one or more of the features described above, or as an alternative, in further embodiments the first section is a compressor section and the second section is a turbine section; In addition to one or more of the features described above, or as an alternative, in further embodiments the first section is a first turbine section and the second section is a second turbine section”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Shaffer such that the second housing and the second rotatable component in combination form a first turbine in view of the teachings of Forster where the known technique could have been combined by known methods with no change in its respective function, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. increase the efficiency of the air cycle machine.
Regarding claim 13, Shaffer as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 12. Further, Shaffer as modified discloses wherein the compressor, the first turbine, and the second turbine are arranged in series along an axis of the shaft (refer to fig. 1 as taught by Forster).
Regarding claim 14, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses the outer housing, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the outer housing is uniform over a length of the air cycle machine.
However, Forster teaches an air cycle machine (refer to fig. 1), wherein a diameter of an outer housing is uniform over a length of the air cycle machine (refer to fig. 1). It has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of a device (in the instant case, a diameter being uniform over a length of the air cycle machine) are significant, then to change the shape of the device would be a matter of choice of a person having ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, Applicant simply states in the disclosure (refer to par. 47) that “…The outer housing 130 may have a substantially uniform diameter extending over the axial length of the air cycle machine 50. Further, the diameter of the outer housing 130 is greater than the diameter of each of the compressor housing 58, the first turbine housing 80, and the second turbine housing 108 such that a clearance is defined between the outer housing 130 and each internal section housing, respectively…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the air cycle machine of Shaffer to have a diameter of the outer housing being uniform over a length of the air cycle machine in view of the teachings of Forster since it would be a matter of choice of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US 2004/0118389).
Regarding claim 4, Shaffer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Shaffer discloses a third housing including a turbine (20), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first housing and the first rotatable component in combination form a first turbine and the second housing and the second rotatable component in combination form a second turbine.
However, it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of a device (in the instant case, the first combination forming a first turbine and the second combination forming a second turbine) are significant, then to change the configuration of the device would be a matter of choice of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant simply states in the disclosure (refer to paras. 6 and 7) that “In addition to one or more of the features described above, or as an alternative, in further embodiments the first section is a compressor section and the second section is a turbine section; In addition to one or more of the features described above, or as an
alternative, in further embodiments the first section is a first turbine section and the
second section is a second turbine section”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shaffer such that the first housing and the first rotatable component in combination form a first turbine and the second housing and the second rotatable component in combination form a second turbine because this feature appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Shaffer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.5-8, filed on 06/03/2025, with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-14 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly amended claims.
Conclusion
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 ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights