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 .
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.
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 “second heat exchanger and the humidifier are positioned between the second compressor and the hydrogen consuming power generation source” 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 23 and 32 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.
Examiner has consulted the Applicant’s Specification and find no disclosure therein that evinces possession of “second heat exchanger and the humidifier are positioned between the second compressor and the hydrogen consuming power generation source.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 25-27, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delfino (US 20080160387) in view of Ribarov et al (US 20160369700; hereinafter Ribarov).
As regarding claim 1, Delfino discloses the claimed invention for a system (fig. 2) comprising: a first onboard system of an aircraft, the first onboard system including: a first compressor (122) configured to produce a pressurized air stream from a source of air; an air separation module (130, [0038]) configured to receive the pressurized air stream from the first compressor and produce therefrom a nitrogen-enriched air stream and an oxygen-enriched air stream; a second compressor (140) configured to produce a pressurized oxygen-enriched air stream from the oxygen-enriched air stream; a hydrogen consuming power generation source (110, 114) configured to receive the pressurized oxygen-enriched air stream from the second compressor; and a turbine (150) configured to receive the nitrogen-enriched air stream from the air separation module and rotate in response to receiving the nitrogen-enriched air stream, wherein the turbine is coupled to the first compressor and rotation of the turbine causes rotation of the first compressor ([0040]); a second onboard system of the aircraft, the second onboard system including a fuel tank inerting system, an energy supply device (ESD) bay inerting system, a fuel cell purging system, a fire suppression system, a water system, or a hydraulic reservoir pressurization system, wherein the first onboard system is configured to direct an exhaust stream exiting the turbine thereof to the second onboard system ([0024] and [0052]).
Delfino does not disclose a third onboard system of the aircraft, the third onboard system including a heating system or a wing anti-icing system of the aircraft, wherein the first onboard system is configured to direct the nitrogen-enriched air stream from the air separation module thereof to the third onboard system. Ribarov teaches a third onboard system of the aircraft, the third onboard system including a heating system or a wing anti-icing system of the aircraft, wherein the first onboard system is configured to direct the nitrogen-enriched air stream from the air separation module thereof to the third onboard system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a third onboard system of the aircraft, the third onboard system including a heating system or a wing anti-icing system of the aircraft, wherein the first onboard system is configured to direct the nitrogen-enriched air stream from the air separation module thereof to the third onboard system as taught by Ribarov in order to enhance system performance and efficiency.
As regarding claim 2, Delfino discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Delfino discloses the claimed invention for wherein the hydrogen consuming power generation source (110 of fig. 2) includes hydrogen burning turbomachinery or a fuel cell (title, abstract and [0038]).
As regarding claim 25, Delfino as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Delfino as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the nitrogen-enriched air stream comprises greater than 87 percent nitrogen and less than 12 percent oxygen, wherein the oxygen-enriched air stream comprises greater than 30 percent oxygen. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the nitrogen-enriched air stream comprises greater than 87 percent nitrogen and less than 12 percent oxygen, wherein the oxygen-enriched air stream comprises greater than 30 percent oxygen in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 26-27 and 33-34 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delfino (US 20080160387) in view of Ribarov et al (US 20160369700; hereinafter Ribarov), as applied supra, and further in view of Hoffjann et al (US 20150017557; Hoffjann).
As regarding claim 9, Delfino discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Delfino discloses the claimed invention except for a water separation module configured to receive an exhaust stream exiting the hydrogen consuming power generation source, and extract water from the exhaust stream. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a water separation module configured to receive an exhaust stream exiting the hydrogen consuming power generation source, and extract water from the exhaust stream in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Hoffjann (36 of fig. 1).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delfino (US 20080160387) in view of Ribarov et al (US 20160369700; hereinafter Ribarov), as applied supra, and further in view of Jones (US 20070023577).
As regarding claim 22, Delfino discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Delfino discloses the claimed invention except for a first heat exchanger configured to lower a temperature of the pressurized air stream to an operating temperature of the air separation module prior to the pressurized air stream being received by the air separation module. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a first heat exchanger configured to lower a temperature of the pressurized air stream to an operating temperature of the air separation module prior to the pressurized air stream being received by the air separation module in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Jones (14 of fig. 1).
Claim(s) 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delfino (US 20080160387) in view of Ribarov et al (US 20160369700; hereinafter Ribarov) and Jones (US 20070023577), as applied supra, and further in view of Shimanuki et al (US 6471195; hereinafter Shimanuki).
As regarding claim 23, Delfino as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Delfino as modified discloses the claimed invention for a second heat exchanger (Jones - 14a of fig. 5) configured to lower a temperature of the oxygen-enriched air stream (Jones - OEA) to an operating temperature of the hydrogen consuming power generation source.
Delfino as modified does not disclose a humidifier configured to increase a relative humidity of the oxygen-enriched air stream to an operating relative humidity of the hydrogen consuming power generation source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a humidifier configured to increase a relative humidity of the oxygen-enriched air stream to an operating relative humidity of the hydrogen consuming power generation source in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Shimanuki (abstract and figs. 3A and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the second heat exchanger and the humidifier are positioned between the second compressor and the hydrogen consuming power generation source in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 32 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claims 22-23 above.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delfino (US 20080160387) in view of Ribarov et al (US 20160369700; hereinafter Ribarov), as applied supra, and further in view of Rheaume et al (US 11628393; hereinafter Rheaume).
As regarding claim 24, Delfino as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Delfino as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a pressure regulator configured to adjust a pressure of the pressurized air stream to an operating pressure of the air separation module prior to the pressurized air stream being received by the air separation module. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a pressure regulator configured to adjust a pressure of the pressurized air stream to an operating pressure of the air separation module prior to the pressurized air stream being received by the air separation module in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Shimanuki (abstract and figs. 3A and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the pressurized air stream exiting the first compressor has a pressure between about 100 to 800 kPa in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 19, 21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delfino (US 20080160387) in view of Ribarov et al (US 20160369700; hereinafter Ribarov), as applied supra, and further in view of Giroud et al (US 20200171429; Giroud) and Jones (US 2007002357).
Claim 19 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claim 1 above.
However, Delfino as modified does not teach the air separation module using semi-permeable hollow membrane. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the air separation module using semi-permeable hollow membrane in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Jones ([0009] – hollow fibre membrane) and Giroud ([0004] – different permeabilities of membrane; semi-permeable).
Claim 21 and 30 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claim 19 and 24 above.
Claim(s) 29-30, and 32-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delfino (US 20080160387) in view of Ribarov et al (US 20160369700; hereinafter Ribarov) and Rifkin (US 5088276).
Claim 29 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claim 1 above.
Delfino as modified does not disclose wherein the turbine is coupled to the second compressor and rotation of the turbine causes rotation of the second compressor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the turbine is coupled to the second compressor and rotation of the turbine causes rotation of the second compressor in order to allow the external spool to operate at its optimal rotational speed, improving engine efficiency, pressure ratio, stability, and overall performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Rifkin (abstract).
Claim 30, 32-34 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claims 1, 19, 22-23, and 26 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 8 contain allowable subject matter because prior art does not teach fairly suggested an ejector-type mixer configured to receive an exhaust stream exiting the hydrogen consuming power generation source, receive the pressurized air stream from the first compressor, and mix the pressurized air stream with the exhaust stream prior to the pressurized air stream being received by the air separation module.
Claims 20 and 31 also allow with similar reasons as set forth in claim 8 above.
Claim 28 depend on claim 8; and hence is also allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 20-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773