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 Status
Claims 1-18 and 20-21. Claims have been 1-6, 9, 14-15, 18, and 20-21 amended. Claim 19 is canceled. By virtue of dependency, all the dependent claims are also amended in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 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 1-14 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 recites the limitation "the refrigerant in the cooling heat exchanger" in line 11. The claim only recites "a cooling heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between a refrigerant and the cooling air…” The claim does not recite that the refrigerant is necessarily in the cooling heat exchanger which is previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as a whole in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fuel cell power train in the aircraft" in line 12. The claim does not recite a fuel cell power train in the apparatus or a fuel cell power train in the apparatus. The claim recited a “fuel cell power train” but not necessarily for “fuel cell power train in the aircraft.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as a whole in the claim.
By virtue of dependency claims 2-14 are also rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (5,813,630) in view of Tanaka (US 2005/0019633 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Williams teaches an apparatus (Column 1, lines 60-65) comprising: a shaft (20) installed in an aircraft (see Figure 4), the shaft being rotatable by having a motor (Column 3, lines 12-14) coupled thereto; a compressor (25), rotatable by being connected to the shaft (20), configured to form a flow of heated compressed air by compressing a first portion of external air introduced into the aircraft (from line of ram air see Figure 4); a heat exchanger (104) configured to heat-exchange the heated compressed air (via line 38) with a second portion of external air (from 102) introduced into the aircraft (see Figure 4); a turbine (36), rotatable by being connected to the shaft (20), configured to form a flow of cooling air by expanding the heat-exchanged compressed air (from 114); and a cooling heat exchanger (94) configured to exchange heat between a refrigerant (from 132) and the cooling air (from line 38), wherein the cooling air cools the refrigerant in the cooling heat exchanger (intended use, wherein clause, thus an optional limitation, see MPEP 2111.04), and the refrigerant circulates through a fuel cell power train (intended use, wherein clause, thus an optional limitation, see MPEP 2111.04) to cool the fuel cell power train in the aircraft (intended use, 132 holds fuel, wherein clause, thus an optional limitation, see MPEP 2111.04).
Williams does not explicitly teach the optional limitation of wherein the cooling air cools the refrigerant in the cooling heat exchanger, and the refrigerant circulates through a fuel cell power train to cool the fuel cell power train in the aircraft.
Tanaka teaches a cooling air cools refrigerant in a cooling heat exchanger (37), and the refrigerant (via 18, see Figure 3) circulates through a fuel cell power train (3) to cool the fuel cell power train (3).
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 cooling air cools the refrigerant in the cooling heat exchanger, and the refrigerant circulates through a fuel cell power train to cool the fuel cell power train in the aircraft to the structure of Williams as taught by Tanaka in order to advantageously provide cooling to the electricity generating components of the fuel cell (see Tanaka, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 5: Williams teaches further comprising: a bootstrap line (38, 92) configured to communicate an outlet of the compressor (25) with an inlet of the turbine (via 92 to 114), and having the heat exchanger (94) disposed in the bootstrap line (92 from 38, see Figure 4); and a heating line (88) branched from the bootstrap line (38) and configured to supply heated compressed air flowing from the outlet (40) of the compressor (25) to an air circulation line for circulating air in an interior of the aircraft (88 feeds to ice protection).
Regarding Claim 10: Williams teaches further comprising: a cooling line (92) connected to an outlet (126 via 122, 124 ) of the turbine (36), through which cooling air flowing from the outlet (126) of the turbine (36) flows, wherein the cooling heat exchanger (94) is disposed between the cooling line (92) and a refrigerant circulation line for circulating the refrigerant (see Figure 4), and a heated refrigerant flowing through the refrigerant circulation line (from 138) is selectively cooled by the cooling air in the cooling heat exchanger (see Figure 4).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenstein et al. (FR 2829466 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Hartenstein,” in view of Renninger et al. (5,056,335), hereafter referred to as “Renninger,” and Tanaka (US 2005/0019633 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Hartenstein teaches an apparatus (title) comprising: a shaft (see connection that connected 11 to 13 via 12 and 21 to 23 via 22) installed in an aircraft (title, see Figure 1), the shaft being rotatable by having a motor (12 or 22) coupled thereto (see Figure 1); a compressor (11, 21), rotatable by being connected to the shaft (see Figure 1), configured to form a flow of heated compressed air by compressing a first portion of external air (via 80) introduced into the aircraft (via 15); a heat exchanger (3) configured to heat-exchange the heated compressed air (from line 46) with a second portion of the external air (via 85) introduced into the aircraft (43 feeds into 11 and then 46); a turbine (13, 23), rotatable by being connected to the shaft, configured to form a flow of cooling air by expanding the heat-exchanged compressed air (via line 56 air feeds into 13 then 23).
Hartenstein does not explicitly teach the optional limitation (see MPEP 2111.04) of a cooling heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between a refrigerant and the cooling air, wherein the cooling air cools the refrigerant in the cooling heat exchanger, and the refrigerant circulates through a fuel cell power train to cool the fuel cell power train in the aircraft.
Renninger teaches a cooling heat exchanger (60) configured to exchange heat between a refrigerant (via 60A) and the cooling air (from 58), wherein the refrigerant is configured to cool a fuel cell power train in the aircraft (intended use).
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 cooling heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between a refrigerant and the cooling air, wherein the refrigerant is configured to cool a fuel cell power train in the aircraft to the structure of Hartenstein as taught by Renninger in order to advantageously provide heat exchange for aircraft fuel needs (see Renninger, Column 5, lines 29-41).
Tanaka teaches a cooling air cools refrigerant in a cooling heat exchanger (37), and the refrigerant (via 18, see Figure 3) circulates through a fuel cell power train (3) to cool the fuel cell power train (3).
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 cooling air cools the refrigerant in the cooling heat exchanger, and the refrigerant circulates through a fuel cell power train to cool the fuel cell power train in the aircraft to the structure of Hartenstein modified supra as taught by Tanaka in order to advantageously provide cooling to the electricity generating components of the fuel cell (see Tanaka, paragraph [0014]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartenstein et al. (FR 2829466 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Hartenstein,” in view of Renninger et al. (5,056,335), hereafter referred to as “Renninger, ”and Tanaka (US 2005/0019633 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pal (US 2016/0208819 A1).
Regarding Claim 2: Hartenstein further teaches wherein: the aircraft (title) comprises a first air scoop (14 is a scoop see Figure 1, paragraph [0055]) through which external air (paragraph [0055]) is introduced and the apparatus (title) further comprises an external air line (line from 14) configured to form a flow path for the first portion of external air (see Figure 1) from the first air scoop (14) to the compressor (22).
Hartenstein modified supra fails to teach a second air scoop through which external air is introduced and the external air of the second air scoop is ram air.
Pal teaches a second air scoop (paragraph [0018]) through which external air is introduced and the external air of the second air scoop is ram air (paragraph [0018]).
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 air scoop through which the external air is introduced and the external air of the second air scoop is ram air to the structure of Hartenstein modified supra as taught by Pal in order to advantageously enhance airflow into the system (see Pal, paragraph [0018]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-9, and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if all pending objections and indefiniteness rejections have been overcome.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The closest prior art of record is Hartenstein et al. (FR 2829466 A1, machine translation), Williams (5,899,085), Renninger et al. (5,056,335), and Williams (5,813,630).
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claim 15. The aforementioned reference teaches a shaft, a compressor, a heat exchanger, a turbine, a heating line, an air circulation, and refrigerant-air heat exchanger.
However, the references relied upon fail to specifically teach the limitations of:
In Claim 15: the references fail to teach or make obvious the specific limitations regarding the configuration of “…and a cooling line connected to an outlet of the turbine, through which cooling air flowing from the outlet of the turbine flows, wherein a cooling heat exchanger is disposed between the cooling line and the refrigerant circulation line, and a heated refrigerant flowing through the refrigerant circulation line is selectively cooled by the cooling air in the cooling heat exchanger.”
Claims 15-18 and 20-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Munoz et al. (US 6,796,527 B1).
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 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
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights