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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21 are pending. Claims 6 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1, 13, and 21 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 7-12, 18, 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.
Per MPEP 2173.05(p)II “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite.” In the instant application, Claims 1-5, 7-12 are apparatus claims. Claim 1 recites method steps (i.e., in lines 3-4 “through which a cooling medium circulates” and lines 9-10 recite “the second medium is exhausted”).
Claim 21 is an apparatus claim that recites method steps (i.e., in lines 4-5 “through which a cooling medium circulates”).
If applicant wishes to claim specific processes, applicant needs to amend the claims directed to a method or claims specific structure that is fully supported in the originally filed disclose that is configured to perform specific intended use functional limitations or programmed to perform such method steps. As written the claims are “hybrid” method steps in apparatus claims.
By virtue of dependency, the dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 18 is rejected to because of the following: claim 18 requires that the conditioned second medium be return to the second subsystem, however, claim 13 requires the second medium to be exhausted overboard. It is not possible to have the second medium both exhausted and returned to the second subsystem as what would be required for claim 18 as it depends from claim 13.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ando et al. (JP 2001010595 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Ando.”
Regarding Claim 21: Ando teaches a vehicle system (aircraft system, abstract, see Figure 2) comprising: a first medium (loop A attached at 5) provided from a first subsystem (see loop A, Figure 2, page 3 of the machine translation); a vapor cooling system (see loop B, Figure 2) having a closed loop vapor compression cycle (loop with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) including a compressor (6), condenser (5), expansion valve (8), and evaporator (9) through which a cooling medium circulates (refrigerant, page 3 of the machine translation), the first subsystem (loop A) being fluidly coupled to the vapor cooling system (see loop B, Figure 2) at the condenser (5); and a second medium (coolant in loop C) provided from a second subsystem (loop C, last paragraph page 3 of the machine translation), wherein the second subsystem (loop C) is an electronics cooling subsystem (13 is electronics in loop C) and is fluidly coupled to the vapor cooling system (loop B) at the evaporator (9).
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 13-14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas (2,932,176) over in view of Muehthaler et al. (US 2012/0175080 A1), hereafter referred to as “Muehthaler,” and Fiterman et al. (US 9,669,936 B1), hereafter referred to as “Fiterman.”
Regarding Claim 1: Farkas teaches a vehicle system (system is for cabin temperature control, see title, Column 2, lines 9-12) comprising: a first medium (air from cabin 10 feed into duct 12, Column 2, lines 9-16) provided from a first subsystem (recycled air from 10 passing through 14); a vapor cooling system (refrigerant loop with 18, 24, 14, see Figure 1) having a closed loop vapor compression cycle (refrigerant loop with 18, 24, 14, see Figure 1) through which a cooling medium circulates (refrigerant, Column 2, lines 18-30), the first subsystem (recycled air from 10) being fluidly coupled to the vapor cooling system (refrigerant loop with 18, 24, 14, see Figure 1); a second subsystem (at 24, in ram duct for air cooling to the condenser, Column 2, lines 24-27) and wherein the first medium (air from cabin 10 feed into duct 12, Column 2, lines 9-16) is output from a cabin (air from cabin 10 feed into duct 12, Column 2, lines 9-16) of the vehicle (aircraft, Column 2, lines 9-12) upstream from the vapor compression cycle (refrigerant loop with 18, 24, 14, see Figure 1).
Farkas fails to teach a second medium provided from the second subsystem, the second subsystem being fluidly coupled to the vapor cooling system; the second medium is output from a cabin of the vehicle upstream from the vapor compression cycle and the second medium is exhausted overboard from the vehicle downstream from the vapor compression cycle.
Muehthaler teaches a second medium (paragraph [0042]) provided from a second subsystem (paragraph [0042]), the second subsystem (paragraph [0042]) being fluidly coupled to a vapor cooling system (52); the second medium is output from a cabin of a vehicle (aircraft) upstream from the vapor compression cycle (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a second medium provided from the second subsystem, the second subsystem being fluidly coupled to the vapor cooling system; the second medium is output from a cabin of the vehicle upstream from the vapor compression cycle to the structure of Farkas as taught by Muehthaler in order to advantageously use preconditioned cabin air as an alternative to ram air for cooling, see Muehthaler, paragraph [0042]).
Fiterman teaches a second medium (48) is exhausted overboard (line 80) from a vehicle downstream from a vapor compression cycle (76/76b, see Figure 10B, Column 11, lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second medium is exhausted overboard from the vehicle downstream from the vapor compression cycle to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Fiterman in order to advantageously use cabin cooled air to cool the condenser before exhausting (see Fiterman, Column 10, lines 22-53).
Regarding Claim 2: Farkas teaches wherein the first subsystem (air from cabin 10 feed into duct 12, Column 2, lines 9-16) is a cabin discharge air system (air from cabin 10 feed into duct 12, Column 2, lines 9-16).
Regarding Claim 3: Farkas teaches wherein the first medium is cabin recirculation air (air from cabin 10 feed into duct 12, Column 2, lines 9-16).
Regarding Claim 4: Farkas modified supra further teaches wherein the second subsystem (24 of Farkas cooled by cabin air as taught by paragraph [0042] of Muehthaler) is a cabin discharge air system (24 of Farkas cooled by cabin air as taught by paragraph [0042] of Muehthaler).
Regarding Claim 5: Farkas modified supra further teaches wherein the second medium (24 of Farkas cooled by cabin air as taught by paragraph [0042] of Muehthaler) is cabin discharge air (24 of Farkas cooled by cabin air as taught by paragraph [0042] of Muehthaler).
Regarding Claim 8: Farkas modified supra teaches wherein the vapor cooling system (refrigerant loop with 18, 24, 14, see Figure 1 of Farkas) further comprises a first heat exchanger (14 of Farkas) and a second heat exchanger (24 of Farkas), the first subsystem (air from 10 into duct 12 of Farkas) being fluidly coupled to the first heat exchanger (14 of Farkas, see Figure 1) and the second subsystem (24 of Farkas) being fluidly coupled to the second heat exchanger (24 of Farkas cooled by cabin air as taught by paragraph [0042] of Muehthaler).
Regarding Claim 9: Farkas teaches wherein an outlet of the first heat exchanger (14) is fluidly coupled to a cabin (10) of the vehicle (aircraft) such that a conditioned first medium output from the first heat exchanger (14) is provided to the cabin (10 via cabin supply 16).
Regarding Claim 13: Farkas teaches a method (system is for cabin temperature control, see title, Column 2, lines 9-12) comprising: conditioning a first medium (air from cabin 10 feed into duct 12, Column 2, lines 9-16) provided from a first subsystem (at 14) of a vehicle (system is for cabin temperature control, see title, Column 2, lines 9-12) at a vapor cooling system (refrigerant loop with 18, 24, 14, see Figure 1) to form a conditioned first medium (Column 2, lines 18-30), the vapor cooling system including a closed-loop vapor compression cycle (refrigerant loop with 18, 24, 14, see Figure 1); and a second subsystem (at 24, in ram duct for air cooling to the condenser, Column 2, lines 24-27) of the vehicle (system is for cabin temperature control, see title, Column 2, lines 9-12) at the vapor cooling system (refrigerant loop with 18, 24, 14, see Figure 1), wherein the recovered energy is used to condition the first medium (Column 2, lines 9-30).
Farkas fails to teach recovering energy from a second medium provided from the second subsystem of the vehicle at the vapor cooling system; wherein the second medium provided to the vapor cooling system is output from a cabin of the vehicle and the second medium is exhausted overboard from the vehicle downstream from the vapor compression cycle.
Muehthaler teaches recovering energy from a second medium (paragraph [0042]) provided from a second subsystem (paragraph [0042]) of a vehicle (aircraft) at a vapor cooling system (52); wherein the second medium (paragraph [0042]) provided to the vapor cooling system is output from a cabin of the vehicle (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided recovering energy from a second medium provided from the second subsystem of the vehicle at the vapor cooling system; wherein the second medium provided to the vapor cooling system is output from a cabin of the vehicle to the structure of Farkas as taught by Muehthaler in order to advantageously use preconditioned cabin air as an alternative to ram air for cooling, see Muehthaler, paragraph [0042]).
Fiterman teaches a second medium (48) is exhausted overboard (line 80) from a vehicle downstream from the vapor compression cycle (76/76b, see Figure 10B, Column 11, lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the second medium is exhausted overboard from the vehicle downstream from the vapor compression cycle to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Fiterman in order to advantageously use cabin cooled air to cool the condenser before exhausting (see Fiterman, Column 10, lines 22-53).
Regarding Claim 14: Farkas teaches wherein the vapor cooling system (refrigerant loop with 18, 24, 14, see Figure 1 of Farkas) includes a first heat exchanger (14 of Farkas) and a second heat exchanger (24 of Farkas) and conditioning the first medium (air from cabin 10 into 12 in 14 of Farkas) occurs at the first heat exchanger (14 of Farkas) using a cooling medium (refrigerant in loop of 18, 24, 14 of Farkas) and conditioning the second medium (24 of Farkas cooled by cabin air as taught by paragraph [0042] of Muehthaler) occurs at the second heat exchanger (24 of Farkas cooled by cabin air as taught by paragraph [0042] of Muehthaler) using the cooling medium (24 of Farkas cooled by cabin air as taught by paragraph [0042] of Muehthaler).
Regarding Claim 16: Farkas modified supra fails to teach further comprising exhausting at least one of the first medium and the second medium overboard from the vapor cooling system.
Fiterman teaches exhausting at least one of a medium overboard (via 80) from a vapor cooling system (76, Column 9, lines 10-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have exhausting at least one of the first medium and the second medium overboard from the vapor cooling system to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Fiterman in order to advantageously provide improved cooling heat loads aboard aircraft utilizing conditioned cabin air as a heat sink (see Fiterman, Column 7, lines 60-67).
Regarding Claim 19: Farkas modified supra teaches wherein at least one the first subsystem (air from cabin 10 feed into duct 12, Column 2, lines 9-16 of Farkas) and the second subsystem is a cabin discharge system (air from cabin 10 feed into duct 12, Column 2, lines 9-16 of Farkas).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas (2,932,176) over in view of Muehthaler et al. (US 2012/0175080 A1), hereafter referred to as “Muehthaler,” and Fiterman et al. (US 9,669,936 B1), hereafter referred to as “Fiterman,” as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Lynn et al. (US 2021/0053689 A1), hereafter referred to as “Lynn.”
Regarding Claim 7: Farkas modified supra fails to teach wherein the vapor cooling system is a heat pump.
Lynn teaches a vapor cooling system is a heat pump (paragraphs [0097] and [0146]-[0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the vapor cooling system is a heat pump to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Lynn in order to advantageously provide conditioning in various operating modes (see Lynn, paragraphs [0097] and [0099]).
Regarding Claim 15: Farkas modified supra fails to further comprising reversing a direction of flow of the cooling medium based on a temperature of the first medium output from the first subsystem.
Lynn teaches reversing a direction of flow of a cooling medium based on a temperature of a first medium output from a first subsystem (operate a reversible heat pump based on the parameters, paragraph [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided reversing a direction of flow of the cooling medium based on a temperature of the first medium output from the first subsystem to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Lynn in order to advantageously provide conditioning in various operating modes (see Lynn, paragraphs [0097] and [0099]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas (2,932,176) over in view of Muehthaler et al. (US 2012/0175080 A1), hereafter referred to as “Muehthaler,” and Fiterman et al. (US 9,669,936 B1), hereafter referred to as “Fiterman,” and applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Pujar et al. (US 2021/0346841 A1), hereafter referred to as “Pujar,” and Mevenkamp et al. (US 2013/0111938 A1), hereafter referred to as “Mevenkamp.”
Regarding Claim 10: Farkas modified supra fails to teach wherein an outlet of the first heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to an air mixing unit of the vehicle such that a conditioned first medium output from the first heat exchanger is provided to the air mixing unit.
Pujar teaches an air mixing unit (20) of a vehicle (11) such that a conditioned first medium output (streams 26 or 28) from a first air conditioning unit (14) is provided to the air mixing unit (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an air mixing unit of a vehicle such that a conditioned first medium output from a first air conditioning unit is provided to the air mixing unit to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Pujar in order to advantageously provide mixed conditioned air to achieve desire parameters (see Pujar, paragraph [0042]).
Mevenkamp teaches wherein an outlet (see Figure 1) of a first heat exchanger (26) is fluidly coupled to an air mixing unit (32) of a vehicle (aircraft) such that a conditioned first medium output (from 26 in 24) from the first heat exchanger (26) is provided to the air mixing unit (32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein an outlet of the first heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to an air mixing unit of the vehicle such that a conditioned first medium output from the first heat exchanger is provided to the air mixing unit to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Mevenkamp in order to advantageously provide improved cooling utilizing recirculated conditioned cabin air and bleed air (see Mevenkamp, paragraph [0038]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas (2,932,176) over in view of Muehthaler et al. (US 2012/0175080 A1), hereafter referred to as “Muehthaler,” and Fiterman et al. (US 9,669,936 B1), hereafter referred to as “Fiterman,” and applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mevenkamp et al. (US 2013/0111938 A1), hereafter referred to as “Mevenkamp.”
Regarding Claim 11: Farkas modified supra fails to teach wherein an outlet of the first heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to an environmental control system of the vehicle such that a conditioned first medium output from the first heat exchanger is provided to the environmental control system.
Mevenkamp teaches wherein an outlet of a first heat exchanger (26) is fluidly coupled to an environmental control system (24) of a vehicle (aircraft) such that a conditioned first medium output (see Figure 1) from the first heat exchanger (26) is provided to the environmental control system (24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein an outlet of the first heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to an environmental control system of the vehicle such that a conditioned first medium output from the first heat exchanger is provided to the environmental control system to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Mevenkamp in order to advantageously provide improved cooling utilizing conditioned bleed air (see Mevenkamp, paragraph [0038]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farkas (2,932,176) over in view of Muehthaler et al. (US 2012/0175080 A1), hereafter referred to as “Muehthaler,” and Fiterman et al. (US 9,669,936 B1), hereafter referred to as “Fiterman,” as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Schiff (US 7,305,842 B1).
Regarding Claim 12: Farkas modified supra fails to teach wherein an outlet of the first heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to an atmosphere external to the vehicle.
Schiff teaches an outlet (31) of a first heat exchanger (34) is fluidly coupled to an atmosphere external to a vehicle (12, see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein an outlet of the first heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to an atmosphere external to the vehicle to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Schiff in order to advantageously provide conditioned air to the cabin depending on the demand in an efficient manner (see Schiff, Column 3, lines 9-20).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Farkas (2,932,176) over in view of Muehthaler et al. (US 2012/0175080 A1), hereafter referred to as “Muehthaler,” and Fiterman et al. (US 9,669,936 B1), hereafter referred to as “Fiterman,” as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Pujar et al. (US 2021/0346841 A1), hereafter referred to as “Pujar.”
Regarding Claim 17: Farkas modified supra fails to teach further comprising returning the conditioned first medium to a subsystem separate from the first subsystem.
Pujar teaches further comprising returning a conditioned first medium (cabin air first duct 24 of 16) to a subsystem (second 32 into second duct 24 of 16) separate from a first subsystem (first duct 24 of 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided returning the conditioned first medium to a subsystem separate from the first subsystem to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Pujar in order to advantageously provide mixed conditioned air to achieve desire parameters (see Pujar, paragraph [0042]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Farkas (2,932,176) over in view of Muehthaler et al. (US 2012/0175080 A1), hereafter referred to as “Muehthaler,” and Fiterman et al. (US 9,669,936 B1), hereafter referred to as “Fiterman,” over in view of Jung (US 2013/0255289 A1).
Regarding Claim 18: Farkas modified supra fails to teach further comprising returning the conditioned second medium to the second subsystem.
Jung teaches returning a conditioned second medium (48) to a second subsystem (50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided returning the conditioned second medium to the second subsystem to the structure of Farkas modified supra as taught by Jung in order to advantageously recirculate the coolant in the subsystem loop (see Jung, paragraph [0021]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Linert et al. (US 2017/0349290 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763