DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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;
wherein the fluid loop is a closed loop (fig 2, col 8),
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),
wherein the fluid loop is a closed loop (fig 2, col 8),
; 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 the fluid loop is a closed loop (fig 2, col 8),
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;
wherein the fluid loop is a closed loop (fig 2, col 8),
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 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the cited structure of Morita fail to 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”. Any hole when opened is a structure capable of being permeable to water vapor from outside the loop since the water vapor is capable of travelling through the hole from the exterior to the interior of the loop. Therefore the structure meets the functional limitations which are also 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. In the instant combination, the permeable portion would be placed in 210 of thew primary reference since the modifying reference teach removable caps and thus would be removed by 205 of the primary reference. Therefore the water vapor from the humidified environment would also be present and adjacent to the permeable portion in the instant combination. 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 the prior art fail to teach the closed loop. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “closed loop” is broad, and the loop as taught by the primary reference is a closed loop (see newly provided citations above).
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 and 22 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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