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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacomini US 9,109,843 Bl in view of Sherwood US 6,148,634 further in view of Morita US 20050081716 A1 further in view of “Ethanol based Water Solutions”.
Re claim 1, Iacomini teach a space vehicle (110), comprising: a first component (210; col 5 lines 52-53, fig 2); a second component (120);
and a thermal control system (200) for transferring thermal energy between the first component and the second component,
the thermal control system comprising: a fluid loop (loop containing 270, fig 2, col 6 last two lines) in thermal communication with the first component and the second component;
a heat transfer fluid comprising a perfluoropolyether compound (col 7 line 1);
and a pump (230).
Iacomini fail to explicitly teach an anti-icing fluid.
Sherwood teach an anti-icing fluid, wherein the anti-icing fluid is immiscible with the heat transfer fluid and is miscible with water to form a mixture that remains liquid at temperatures under use conditions in space to alter the melting point of the heat transfer fluid (col 6).
When combined, the references teach and a pump for circulating the heat transfer fluid and the anti-icing fluid within the fluid loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an anti-icing fluid as taught by Sherwood in the Iacomini invention in order to advantageously allow for a reduced freezing point in heat transfer fluids.
Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach permeable.
Morita teach the fluid loop comprises a water-vapor-permeable portion (31 or 51 or 21/23) comprising one or more of a water vapor-permeable material or a water-vapor- permeable fitting to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop, an air escape vent, or refillable port for a reservoir.
When combined, Iacomini, as modified, teach and wherein the water-vapor-permeable portion is permeable to water-vapor from a humidified environment of the space vehicle (see Iacomini Col 8 lines 24-34 teach “Heat transfer loop 200 preferably circulates through human-life-supporting environment 210 (at least herein embodying wherein such at least one thermal loop traverses through at least one human-life-supporting enclosed environment”; one of ordinary skill in the art would place “the water-vapor-permeable portion” in the at least one human-life-supporting enclosed environment for repairability or access to the part in a space environment (see Morita fig 18a), it would have been obvious to try for the physical placement at this location, and additionally toing part placement or rearrangements of parts is not considered patentable since it has been held that a mere reversal or rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part C.; ; it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the instant combination of references is capable of performing see fig 18a Morita).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include permeable as taught by Morita in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering or other functional devices to refill a loop or allow air bubble egress.
Iacomini , as modified , fails to explicitly disclose that a mixture at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume. “Ethanol based Water Solutions”, does, however, disclose that the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at a ratio; the ratio constitute a defined percentage of the two fluid compositions. Therefore, the ratio of the anti-icing fluid-to-water is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a smaller percentage of the anti-icing fluid-to-water results in a higher melting point and “Ethanol based Water Solutions” teach specific freezing points depending on % by volume, and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a mixture at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume, were disclosed in the prior art by “Ethanol based Water Solutions”., it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at a ratio as taught by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” in the Iacomini , as modified , having at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume. MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “a mixture that remains liquid at -90 degrees Fahrenheit at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the anti-icing fluid is immiscible with the heat transfer fluid and is miscible with water to form a mixture that remains liquid at -90 degrees Fahrenheit at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 3, Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach a filter.
Morita teach wherein the fluid loop further comprises a filter (51) to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a filter as taught by Morita in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering.
Re claim 5, Iacomini, as modified, teach the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 6, Iacomini teach wherein the anti-icing fluid comprises an alcohol (fig 9).
Re claim 7, Iacomini , as modified , teach the anti-icing fluid comprises ethanol (see the rejection of claims 5 and 1).
Re claim 8, Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , fails to explicitly disclose that the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume. Since over Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , does, however, disclose that a concentration exists due to a mixture of two fluids for added properties by creating a mixture of two fluids; the concentration constitute a defined percentage of the two fluid compositions. Therefore, the concentration of the anti-icing fluid (-to-water) is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a smaller concentration of the anti-icing fluid results in a higher freezing point and “Ethanol based Water Solutions” teach specific freezing points depending on % by volume, which is directly related to concentration, and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume, were disclosed in the prior art by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” over Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , desiring anti-icing, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the anti-icing fluid at a concentration as taught by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” in the Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , having of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume. MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 21, Iacomini , as modified , teach wherein the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 1000 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 1000 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , and Morita and “Ethanol based Water Solutions”, further in view of CLAY US 20140124626 A1.
Re claim 2, Iacomini teach the humidified environment comprises a crew compartment (see the rejection of claim 1 and fig 2).
Iacomini, as modified, fail to teach a humidification system.
CLAY teach the humidified environment comprises a crew compartment and a humidification system (para 194) to condition passenger air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include humidification as taught by CLAY in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a life support system to make space conditions livable.
Re claim 4, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein the water-vapor- permeable portion of the fluid loop is exposed to the crew compartment of the space vehicle (see the rejection of claim 1).
Additionally, Clay teach wherein the water-vapor- permeable portion of the fluid loop is exposed to the crew compartment of the space vehicle (noting the system is inside the shell of the space ship in the instant combination since clay teach recirculation, Clay para 45) to condition passenger air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include humidification as taught by CLAY in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a life support system to make space conditions livable.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , and Morita and “Ethanol based Water Solutions”, further in view of Taylor US 20210361474 A1.
Additionally, Re claim 3,
Taylor teach wherein the fluid loop further comprises a filter (para 9) to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a filter as taught by Taylor in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , and Morita and “Ethanol based Water Solutions” further in view of Pollerberget al. Enhanced Coolant for Low Temperature.
Re claim 9, Iacomini , as modified, fails to explicitly disclose that the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 10 parts water per million parts total fluid volume. Since over Iacomini , as modified, does, however, disclose that a concentration exists due to a mixture of two fluids for added properties by creating a mixture of two fluids; the concentration constitute a defined percentage of the two fluid compositions. Therefore, the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a concentration of the perfluoropolyether in the water at a concentration add beneficial low temperature operating characteristics of the perfluoropolyether while keep good thermal transport capabilities of water (page 3 Pollerberg), which is directly related to concentration, and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 10 parts water per million parts total fluid volume, were disclosed in the prior art by Pollerberg over Iacomini , as modified, desiring anti-icing, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the perfluoropolyether as taught by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” in the Iacomini , as modified, having comprises water at a concentration of less than 10 parts water per million parts total fluid volume . MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 22-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacomini in view of CLAY and Levin et al. US8661785B2 and Morita.
Re claim 22, Iacomini teach a space vehicle (110) comprising: a humidified environment (Col 8 lines 24-34, 210, fig 2) comprising
a thermal control system (200) for transferring thermal energy, the thermal control system comprising: a fluid loop (loop containing 270, fig 2, col 6 last two lines),
; a heat transfer fluid comprising a perfluoropolyether compound (col 7 line 1); and a pump (230) for circulating the heat transfer fluid and the anti-icing fluid within the fluid loop (it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing).
Iacomini fail to teach humidification.
CLAY teach, comprising: a humidification system (para 194) to condition passenger air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include humidification as taught by CLAY in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a life support system to make space conditions livable.
Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach permeable.
Morita teach the fluid loop comprises a water-vapor-permeable portion (31 or 51 or 21/23) comprising one or more of a water vapor-permeable material or a water-vapor- permeable fitting to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop, an air escape vent, or refillable port for a reservoir.
When combined, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein, and wherein the water-vapor-permeable portion is permeable to water-vapor from the humidified environment of the space vehicle (see Iacomini Col 8 lines 24-34 teach “Heat transfer loop 200 preferably circulates through human-life-supporting environment 210 (at least herein embodying wherein such at least one thermal loop traverses through at least one human-life-supporting enclosed environment”; one of ordinary skill in the art would place “the water-vapor-permeable portion” in the at least one human-life-supporting enclosed environment for repairability or access to the part in a space environment (see Morita fig 18a), it would have been obvious to try for the physical placement at this location, and additionally toing part placement or rearrangements of parts is not considered patentable since it has been held that a mere reversal or rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part C.; ; also, see teach of clay (see rejection of claim 4) ; it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the instant combination of references is capable of performing see fig 18a Morita).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include permeable as taught by Morita in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering or other functional devices to refill a loop or allow air bubble egress.
Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach an anti-icing fluid.
Levin et al. teach an anti-icing fluid comprising ethanol to alter the melting point of the heat transfer fluid (col 6).
When combined, the references teach and a pump for circulating the heat transfer fluid and the anti-icing fluid within the fluid loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an anti-icing fluid as taught by Levin et al. in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a reduced freezing point in systems that require a functional fluid to be heated (col 1 last 6 lines, col 7 first para).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “a heat transfer fluid comprising a perfluoropolyether compound; an anti-icing fluid comprising ethanol; and a pump for circulating the heat transfer fluid and the anti-icing fluid within the fluid loop” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 23, Iacomini teach the humidified environment comprises a crew compartment (see the rejection of claim 1 and fig 2).
Additionally, CLAY teach the humidified environment comprises a crew compartment (figs, in the instant combination).
Re claim 24, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein the water-vapor- permeable portion of the fluid loop is exposed to the crew compartment of the space vehicle (see the rejection of claim 22).
Additionally, Clay teach wherein the water-vapor- permeable portion of the fluid loop is exposed to the crew compartment of the space vehicle (noting the system is inside the shell of the space ship in the instant combination since clay teach recirculation, Clay para 45) to condition passenger air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include humidification as taught by CLAY in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a life support system to make space conditions livable.
Re claim 25, Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach a filter.
Morita teach wherein the fluid loop further comprises a filter (51) to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a filter as taught by Morita in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering.
Re claim 26, Iacomini, as modified, teach the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 27, Iacomini, as modified, teach the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 28, Iacomini, as modified, teach the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 29, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 1000 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 1000 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 30, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 15 parts water per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 15 parts water per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 31, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 5 parts water per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 5 parts water per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 22-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacomini in view of CLAY and Sherwood and “Ethanol based Water Solutions” and Morita.
Re claim 22, Iacomini teach a space vehicle (110) a thermal control system (200) for transferring thermal energy, the thermal control system comprising: a fluid loop (loop containing 270, fig 2, col 6 last two lines),
wherein at least a portion of the fluid loop is permeable to water vapor; a heat transfer fluid comprising a perfluoropolyether compound (col 7 line 1); and a pump (230) for circulating the heat transfer fluid and the anti-icing fluid within the fluid loop (it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing).
Iacomini fail to teach humidification.
CLAY teach, comprising: a humidification system (para 194) to condition passenger air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include humidification as taught by CLAY in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a life support system to make space conditions livable.
Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach permeable.
Morita teach the fluid loop comprises a water-vapor-permeable portion (31 or 51 or 21/23) comprising one or more of a water vapor-permeable material or a water-vapor- permeable fitting to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop, an air escape vent, or refillable port for a reservoir.
When combined, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein, and wherein the water-vapor-permeable portion is permeable to water-vapor from the humidified environment of the space vehicle (see Iacomini Col 8 lines 24-34 teach “Heat transfer loop 200 preferably circulates through human-life-supporting environment 210 (at least herein embodying wherein such at least one thermal loop traverses through at least one human-life-supporting enclosed environment”; one of ordinary skill in the art would place “the water-vapor-permeable portion” in the at least one human-life-supporting enclosed environment for repairability or access to the part in a space environment (see Morita fig 18a), it would have been obvious to try for the physical placement at this location, and additionally toing part placement or rearrangements of parts is not considered patentable since it has been held that a mere reversal or rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part C.; ; also, see teach of clay (see rejection of claim 4) ; it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the instant combination of references is capable of performing see fig 18a Morita).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include permeable as taught by Morita in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering or other functional devices to refill a loop or allow air bubble egress.
Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach an anti-icing fluid.
Levin et al. teach an anti-icing fluid to alter the melting point of the heat transfer fluid (col 6).
When combined, the references teach and a pump for circulating the heat transfer fluid and the anti-icing fluid within the fluid loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an anti-icing fluid as taught by Levin et al. in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a reduced freezing point in systems that require a functional fluid to be heated (col 1 last 6 lines, col 7 first para).
Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach ethanol.
“Ethanol based Water Solutions” teach ethanol to alter the melting point of the heat transfer fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an anti-icing fluid as taught by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a reduced freezing point in systems that require a functional fluid to be heated.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “a heat transfer fluid comprising a perfluoropolyether compound; an anti-icing fluid comprising ethanol; and a pump for circulating the heat transfer fluid and the anti-icing fluid within the fluid loop” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 23, Iacomini teach the humidified environment comprises a crew compartment (see the rejection of claim 1 and fig 2).
Additionally, CLAY teach the humidified environment comprises a crew compartment (figs, in the instant combination).
Re claim 24, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein the water-vapor- permeable portion of the fluid loop is exposed to the crew compartment of the space vehicle (see the rejection of claim 22).
Additionally, Clay teach wherein the water-vapor- permeable portion of the fluid loop is exposed to the crew compartment of the space vehicle (noting the system is inside the shell of the space ship in the instant combination since clay teach recirculation, Clay para 45) to condition passenger air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include humidification as taught by CLAY in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a life support system to make space conditions livable.
Re claim 25, Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach a filter.
Morita teach wherein the fluid loop further comprises a filter (51) to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a filter as taught by Morita in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering.
Re claim 26, Iacomini , as modified , fails to explicitly disclose that the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at - 120 degrees Fahrenheit. “Ethanol based Water Solutions”, does, however, disclose that the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at a ratio; the ratio constitute a defined percentage of the two fluid compositions. Therefore, the ratio of the anti-icing fluid-to-water is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a smaller percentage of the anti-icing fluid-to-water results in a higher melting point and “Ethanol based Water Solutions” teach specific freezing points depending on % by volume, and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at - 120 degrees Fahrenheit, were disclosed in the prior art by “Ethanol based Water Solutions”., it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at a ratio as taught by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” in the Iacomini , as modified , having at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume. MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at - 120 degrees Fahrenheit” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the anti-icing fluid is immiscible with the heat transfer fluid and is miscible with water to form a mixture that remains liquid at -90 degrees Fahrenheit at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 27, Iacomini, as modified, teach the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 28, Iacomini, as modified, teach the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 29, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 1000 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 1000 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 30, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 15 parts water per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 15 parts water per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 31, Iacomini, as modified, teach wherein the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 5 parts water per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the perfluoropolyether comprises water at a concentration of less than 5 parts water per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacomini in view of CLAY and Levin et al. and Morita and “Ethanol based Water Solutions”.
Re claim 26, Iacomini , as modified , fails to explicitly disclose that the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at - 120 degrees Fahrenheit. “Ethanol based Water Solutions”, does, however, disclose that the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at a ratio; the ratio constitute a defined percentage of the two fluid compositions. Therefore, the ratio of the anti-icing fluid-to-water is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a smaller percentage of the anti-icing fluid-to-water results in a higher melting point and “Ethanol based Water Solutions” teach specific freezing points depending on % by volume, and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at - 120 degrees Fahrenheit, were disclosed in the prior art by “Ethanol based Water Solutions”., it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at a ratio as taught by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” in the Iacomini , as modified , having at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume. MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at - 120 degrees Fahrenheit” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the anti-icing fluid is immiscible with the heat transfer fluid and is miscible with water to form a mixture that remains liquid at -90 degrees Fahrenheit at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 27, Iacomini, as modified, teach the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacomini US 9,109,843 Bl in view of Levin et al. US8661785B2 further in view of Morita US 20050081716 A1 and “Ethanol based Water Solutions”.
Re claim 1, Iacomini teach a space vehicle (110), comprising: a first component (210; col 5 lines 52-53, fig 2); a second component (120);
and a thermal control system (200) for transferring thermal energy between the first component and the second component,
the thermal control system comprising: a fluid loop (loop containing 270, fig 2, col 6 last two lines) in thermal communication with the first component and the second component;
a heat transfer fluid comprising a perfluoropolyether compound (col 7 line 1);
and a pump (230).
Iacomini fail to explicitly teach an anti-icing fluid.
Levin teach an anti-icing fluid, wherein the anti-icing fluid is immiscible with the heat transfer fluid and is miscible with water to form a mixture that remains liquid at temperatures under use conditions in space to alter the melting point of the heat transfer fluid.
When combined, the references teach and a pump for circulating the heat transfer fluid and the anti-icing fluid within the fluid loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an anti-icing fluid as taught by Sherwood in the Iacomini invention in order to advantageously allow for a reduced freezing point in heat transfer fluids (col 1 last 6 lines, col 7 first para).
Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach permeable.
Morita teach the fluid loop comprises a water-vapor-permeable portion (31 or 51 or 21/23) comprising one or more of a water vapor-permeable material or a water-vapor- permeable fitting to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop, an air escape vent, or refillable port for a reservoir.
When combined, Iacomini, as modified, teach and wherein the water-vapor-permeable portion is permeable to water-vapor from a humidified environment of the space vehicle (see Iacomini Col 8 lines 24-34 teach “Heat transfer loop 200 preferably circulates through human-life-supporting environment 210 (at least herein embodying wherein such at least one thermal loop traverses through at least one human-life-supporting enclosed environment”; one of ordinary skill in the art would place “the water-vapor-permeable portion” in the at least one human-life-supporting enclosed environment for repairability or access to the part in a space environment (see Morita fig 18a), it would have been obvious to try for the physical placement at this location, and additionally toing part placement or rearrangements of parts is not considered patentable since it has been held that a mere reversal or rearrangement of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part C.; ; it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the instant combination of references is capable of performing see fig 18a Morita).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include permeable as taught by Morita in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering or other functional devices to refill a loop or allow air bubble egress.
Iacomini , as modified , fails to explicitly disclose that a mixture at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume. “Ethanol based Water Solutions”, does, however, disclose that the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at a ratio; the ratio constitute a defined percentage of the two fluid compositions. Therefore, the ratio of the anti-icing fluid-to-water is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a smaller percentage of the anti-icing fluid-to-water results in a higher melting point and “Ethanol based Water Solutions” teach specific freezing points depending on % by volume, and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a mixture at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume, were disclosed in the prior art by “Ethanol based Water Solutions”., it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the mixture of the anti-icing fluid and water at a ratio as taught by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” in the Iacomini , as modified , having at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume. MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “a mixture that remains liquid at -90 degrees Fahrenheit at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the anti-icing fluid is immiscible with the heat transfer fluid and is miscible with water to form a mixture that remains liquid at -90 degrees Fahrenheit at a ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 3, Iacomini, as modified, fail to explicitly teach a filter.
Morita teach wherein the fluid loop further comprises a filter (51) to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a filter as taught by Morita in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering.
Re claim 5, Iacomini, as modified, teach the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the mixture of the anti- icing fluid and water at the ratio of 85-to-15 (anti-icing fluid-to-water) by volume is liquid phase at -120 degrees Fahrenheit.” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 6, Iacomini teach wherein the anti-icing fluid comprises an alcohol (fig 9).
Re claim 7, Iacomini , as modified, teach the anti-icing fluid comprises ethanol (see the rejection of claims 5 and 1).
Re claim 8, Iacomini , as modified , fails to explicitly disclose that the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume. Since over Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , does, however, disclose that a concentration exists due to a mixture of two fluids for added properties by creating a mixture of two fluids; the concentration constitute a defined percentage of the two fluid compositions. Therefore, the concentration of the anti-icing fluid (-to-water) is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a smaller concentration of the anti-icing fluid results in a higher freezing point and “Ethanol based Water Solutions” teach specific freezing points depending on % by volume, which is directly related to concentration, and vice versa. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume, were disclosed in the prior art by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” over Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , desiring anti-icing, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the anti-icing fluid at a concentration as taught by “Ethanol based Water Solutions” in the Iacomini , as modified by Sherwood or Levin et al. , having of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume. MPEP 2144.05.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “of at least 800 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 21, Iacomini , as modified , teach wherein the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 1000 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the thermal control system comprises the anti-icing fluid at a concentration of at least 1000 parts anti-icing fluid per million parts total fluid volume” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the cited structure or Morita represent an absence of material and therefore cannot teach a “wherein the water-vapor-permeable portion is permeable to water-vapor from the humidified environment”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “water-vapor-permeable portion” broadly defines a portion of a material with the only further scope being “is permeable to water-vapor from the humidified environment”. A structure with a singular hole is a material which has a portion which is capable of “is permeable to water-vapor from the humidified environment”.
The applicant argues that Morita 51 and 31 and 21/23 is intended to be operated with a cap and thus are not “permeable to water-vapor from the humidified environment”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In one operation the Morita 51 and 31 and 21/23 is intended to be operated with a cap. However, in another operation the Morita 51 and 31 and 21/23 is intended to be operated with a cap (fig 4, fig 16a, 17a, 18a) caps are removable for extended amount of time to be able to access the interior of the reservoir. Therefore, the limitation “and wherein the water-vapor- permeable portion is permeable to water-vapor from the humidified environment of the space vehicle” is a functional limitation which the instant combination is capable of performing, since “water-vapor” permeating hole(s) is an intended use and going to occur during operation.
The applicant argues that Iacomini teach away from the instant combination. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant pointed out that Iacomini that teach against using toxic substances (without citation). Examiner notes that Iacomini teach “thermal fluids having low freezing temperatures comprise toxic and/or flammable substances which are dangerous to use in manned environments” (col 1) in the background and then goes on to outline in more detail that “thermal fluid 270 preferably fulfills safety standards for toxicity and preferably also for flammability for use in an enclosed environment for human habitation” (col 8). In the instant combination the modifying reference Sherwood teach many substances to be used in the instant combination which meet the criteria of “thermal fluid 270 preferably fulfills safety standards for toxicity and preferably also for flammability for use in an enclosed environment for human habitation” and allows for anti icing (see rejection of claim 1) in the instant combination.
It is further noted that that the structural limitations are met by the broad limitations (as discussed previously); however, this does not mean the intended use would be to operate the reservoir without a cap for extended periods of time other than short periods of maintenance and therefore ethanol for example would not be permeable to the environment for more than a brief refilling stage.
The applicant argues that Iacomini teach away from the instant combination by adding a toxic combination in the controlled environment. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant has only provided a statement of record, with no evidence, no citations, and no reference to any part of the prior art of record which explicitly teach adding a toxic combination in the controlled environment in the instant combination.
I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Morita teach wherein the fluid loop further comprises a filter (51) to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a filter as taught by Morita in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering. Taylor teach wherein the fluid loop further comprises a filter (para 9) to provide a filter in a pump heat exchange loop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a filter as taught by Taylor in the Iacomini, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heat transfer fluid particle removal and filtering. Sherwood teach an anti-icing fluid, wherein the anti-icing fluid is immiscible with the heat transfer fluid and is miscible with water to form a mixture that remains liquid at temperatures under use conditions in space to alter the melting point of the heat transfer fluid (col 6). When combined, the references teach and a pump for circulating the heat transfer fluid and the anti-icing fluid within the fluid loop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an anti-icing fluid as taught by Sherwood in the Iacomini invention in order to advantageously allow for a reduced freezing point in heat transfer fluids.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights