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 Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “insert gas” should read “inert gas”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster (11446530) in view of Grabow (6601653) and Cramer (US-Pub 2003/0051887).
Regarding claim 1, Foster discloses a system for extinguishing and suppressing a fire in an aircraft (100a, fig 1), the system comprising: a precooler (120, fig 1) configured to receive a bleed air (101, fig 1) from an engine (201, fig 1) of the aircraft; and an accumulator (155, fig 1) fluidly coupled with the gas separator (125, fig 1), wherein the accumulator is configured to receive and store the fire suppressing agent.
Foster does not disclose a heat exchanger fluidly coupled with the precooler; a condenser configured to receive a cabin exhaust air from a passenger cabin of the aircraft; a gas separator fluidly coupled with the condenser and fluidly coupled with the heat exchanger, wherein the gas separator is configured to generate a fire suppressing agent from the bleed air and the cabin exhaust air.
Grabow teaches an inert gas generation system which receives both cabin exhaust air from a passenger cabin of the aircraft (9d, fig 1) and bleed air from the engine (9e, fig 1), and a gas separator (10, fig 1) fluidly coupled with both lines, wherein the gas separator is configured to generate a fire suppressing agent (9a, fig 1) from the bleed air and the cabin exhaust air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas inerting system disclosed by Foster by using a duplicate line leading from the aircraft cabin to the gas separator based on the teachings of Grabow. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the air used for the conditioning system would already be lower oxygen and thus would require less from the stripper to function than ambient air.
When combined with Foster, the second line leading from the conditioning system would have a condenser (120, fig 1) and valve (135, fig 1) structure which combines before being led to the inert gas storage (155, fig 1).
Cramer teaches an inert gas generating system wherein a bleed air (20, fig 1) offtake leads to both a precooler (22, fig 1) and a heat exchanger (26, fig 1), while a second inert gas line (55, fig 1) is led to a condenser (51, fig 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 modified the gas inerting system disclosed by Foster by both a precooler and a heat exchanger for the bleed line and just a condenser for the conditioned airline based on the teachings of Cramer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using multiple heat exchangers increases system efficiency by reducing strain on each individual heat exchanger and by allowing the hotter air to be cooled multiple times while the cooler air only needs a single cooling pass.
Regarding claim 2, Foster as modified by Grabow and Cramer discloses a first valve (33, fig 1, Cramer) positioned in a first fluid flow path between the precooler and the heat exchanger; a second valve (duplicated line 135, fig 1, Foster) positioned in a second fluid flow path between the condenser and the gas separator; and a third valve (160a, fig 1, Foster) positioned in a third fluid flow path extending from the accumulator.
Regarding claim 3, Foster discloses wherein in a charging mode, the first valve and the second valve are open, and the third valve is closed (this represents intended use of the system; thus it needs to be capable of performing the claimed function, which it is).
Regarding claim 4, Foster discloses wherein in an open suppression mode, the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve are open (this represents intended use of the system; thus it needs to be capable of performing the claimed function, which it is).
Regarding claim 5, Foster discloses wherein in a closed suppression mode, the first valve and the second valve are closed, and the third valve is open (this represents intended use of the system; thus it needs to be capable of performing the claimed function, which it is).
Regarding claim 6, Foster discloses wherein in an idle mode, the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve are closed (this represents intended use of the system; thus it needs to be capable of performing the claimed function, which it is).
Regarding claim 7, Foster discloses a controller (199, fig 1) electrically coupled to the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve, wherein the controller is configured to open and close the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve.
Regarding claim 8, Foster discloses a check valve (fig 1, Z shape along line 104 between 150 and 155 is a symbol for a check valve) positioned in a fourth fluid flow path between the gas separator and the accumulator, wherein the check valve is configured to allow fluids to flow from the gas separator to the accumulator.
Regarding claim 9, Foster as modified by Grabow and Cramer discloses wherein: the gas separator is configured to receive the bleed air and the cabin exhaust air; and the gas separator is configured to extract the fire suppressing agent from the bleed air and the cabin exhaust air.
Regarding claim 13, Foster discloses a system for extinguishing and suppressing a fire in an aircraft (100a, fig 1), the system comprising: a first fluid flow path (101, fig 1) configured to receive a bleed air from the aircraft, wherein the first fluid flow path extends through a precooler (120, fig 1) and ends at a first valve (135, fig 1); a third fluid flow path extending from the first valve into an accumulator (155, fig 1), and ends at a third valve (160A, fig 1); a fourth fluid flow path extending from the third valve (107, fig 1).
Foster does not disclose a second fluid flow path configured to receive a cabin exhaust air from a passenger cabin of the aircraft, wherein the second fluid flow path extends through a condenser and ends at a second valve; a third fluid flow path having a first branch extending from the first valve and through the heat exchanger, and having a second branch extending from the second valve, wherein the third fluid flow path further extends through a gas separator into an accumulator, and ends at a third valve; a fourth fluid flow path extending from the third valve.
Grabow teaches an inert gas generation system which receives both cabin exhaust air from a passenger cabin of the aircraft (9d, fig 1) and bleed air from the engine (9e, fig 1), and a gas separator (10, fig 1) fluidly coupled with both lines, wherein the gas separator is configured to generate a fire suppressing agent (9a, fig 1) from the bleed air and the cabin exhaust air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas inerting system disclosed by Foster by using a duplicate line leading from the aircraft cabin to the gas separator based on the teachings of Grabow. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the air used for the conditioning system would already be lower oxygen and thus would require less from the stripper to function than ambient air.
When combined with Foster, the second line leading from the conditioning system would have a condenser (120, fig 1) and valve (135, fig 1) structure which leads to a third flow path which combines with the high temperature line after the valves before being led to the inert gas storage (155, fig 1).
Cramer teaches an inert gas generating system wherein a bleed air (20, fig 1) offtake leads to both a precooler (22, fig 1) and a heat exchanger (26, fig 1), while a second inert gas line (55, fig 1) is led to a condenser (51, fig 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 modified the gas inerting system disclosed by Foster by both a precooler and a heat exchanger for the bleed line and just a condenser for the conditioned airline based on the teachings of Cramer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using multiple heat exchangers increases system efficiency by reducing strain on each individual heat exchanger and by allowing the hotter air to be cooled multiple times while the cooler air only needs a single cooling pass.
Regarding claim 14, Foster discloses wherein in an open suppression mode, the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve are open, and wherein the bleed air is configured to flow along the first fluid flow path and the third fluid flow path, the cabin exhaust air is configured to flow along the second fluid flow path and the third fluid flow path, and a gas suppressing agent is configured to flow along the third fluid flow path and the fourth fluid flow path (this represents intended use of the system, thus it needs to be capable of performing the claimed function, which it is).
Regarding claim 15, Foster discloses wherein in a closed suppression fluid mode, the first valve and the second valve are closed and the third valve is open, and wherein a gas suppressing agent is configured to flow through the fourth fluid flow path (this represents intended use of the system; thus it needs to be capable of performing the claimed function, which it is).
Regarding claim 16, Foster discloses wherein in a charging fluid mode, the first valve and the second valve are open and the third valve is closed, and wherein the bleed air is configured to flow along the first fluid flow path and the third fluid flow path and the cabin exhaust air is configured to flow along the second fluid flow path and the third fluid flow path (this represents intended use of the system; thus it needs to be capable of performing the claimed function, which it is).
Regarding claim 17, Foster discloses wherein in an idle mode, the first valve, the second valve, and the third valve are closed (this represents intended use of the system; thus it needs to be capable of performing the claimed function, which it is).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papas (US-Pub 2021/0244978) in view of Grabow and Foster.
Regarding claim 18, Papas discloses A method for extinguishing and suppressing a fire in an aircraft, the method comprising: receiving a bleed air (518, fig 6) from the aircraft; cooling the bleed air with a precooler (516, fig 6); flowing the air into a gas separator (528, fig 6); separating an inert gas and a water mist (Humid N2 enriched inert gas, fig 6) from the bleed air and the cabin exhaust air using the gas separator.
Papas does not disclose receiving a cabin exhaust air from a passenger cabin of the aircraft; condensing the cabin exhaust air with a condenser; and flowing the inert gas and the water mist into an accumulator.
Grabow teaches an inert gas generation system which receives both cabin exhaust air from a passenger cabin of the aircraft (9d, fig 1) and bleed air from the engine (9e, fig 1), and a gas separator (10, fig 1) fluidly coupled with both lines, wherein the gas separator is configured to generate a fire suppressing agent (9a, fig 1) from the bleed air and the cabin exhaust air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas inerting system disclosed by Papas by using a duplicate line leading from the aircraft cabin to the gas separator based on the teachings of Grabow. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the air used for the conditioning system would already be lower oxygen and thus would require less from the stripper to function than ambient air.
When combined with Papas, the second line leading from the conditioning system would have a condenser (516, fig 6) to cool the air to a low enough temperature.
Foster teaches an inert gas system with an accumulator (155, fig 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 modified the gas inerting system disclosed by Papas by having an accumulator to store inert gas based on the teachings of Foster. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the stored inert gas would allow for an immediate flow rate of inert gas in the case of a fire to quickly get the fire under control.
Regarding claim 19, Papas as modified by Grabow and Foster discloses cooling the bleed air with a heat exchanger (524, fig 6, Papas); and scrubbing combustion particulates (125, fig 1, Foster).
Papas as modified by Grabow and Foster discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the heat exchanger scrubs combustion particulates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the heat exchanger and scrubber be a single structure, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Furthermore, applicants’ own specification states that using the heat exchanger as a scrubber vs using a standalone scrubber are alternate embodiments of each other (par. 0028).
Regarding claim 20, Papas as modified by Grabow and Foster discloses storing the insert gas and the water mist in the accumulator; and releasing the inert gas and the water mist from the accumulator into a cargo bay (512, fig 6) of the aircraft when a fire is detected (par. 0003) in the cargo bay.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster as modified by Grabow and Cramer as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Papas.
Regarding claim 10, Foster discloses wherein the fire suppressing agent includes an inert gas (col 3, lines 34-53).
Foster as modified by Grabow and Cramer does not disclose using an inert gas and a water mist.
Papas teaches a fire suppression system for an aircraft using an inert gas and water mist (humid n2 enriched inert gas, fig 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inert gas disclosed by Foster as modified by Grabow and Cramer by using an inert gas and water mist based on the teachings of Papas. The water mist provides an extremely high amount of heat absorption which can limit damaged caused in case of a fire.
Regarding claim 11, Foster discloses wherein the inert gas is carbon dioxide (col 3, lines 34-53).
Regarding claim 12, Foster as modified by Grabow and Cramer discloses wherein the gas separator is further configured to use membrane gas separation technology (col 2, lines 51-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Grabow does not disclose wherein the condenser is configured to receive a cabin exhaust air from a passenger cabin of the aircraft, as the air comes from the air conditioning system from ordinary environmental air. Applicants arguments are not persuasive, as due to the language configured to: the condenser must merely be capable of performing the claimed function, which it is, as receiving air from the air conditioning system would mean that it could receive exhaust air from the air conditioning system. Secondly, Col 5, lines 20-25 state that air can be recirculated from the nitrogen filter through the air conditioning system, meaning that recirculated air can form a component of the air conditioning system, as it is well known in the art that air from the air conditioning system is recycled, meaning at least some of the air from the AC system is exhausted cabin air.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the 112b rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of claim 13 has been withdrawn.
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 SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741