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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first and second fuel tank" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this the second fuel tank in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second fuel tank" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 2015/0344143, hereafter “Epstein”) in view of Morrison (US 2020/0398992).
Regarding claim 1, Epstein discloses a hydrogen fuel system (Figs. 1-3) for an aircraft, the hydrogen fuel system comprising: a fuel tank (22) configured to store hydrogen in a liquid state; a boost pump arrangement (comprising 31 and the fluid line(s) connected to the outlet of 31) disposed within the fuel tank; an engine feeder sub-system (50) including a feed line (54) connecting the boost pump arrangement to a high pressure pump (58) disposed at an engine of the aircraft, the high pressure pump directing fuel from the feed line to a first heat exchanger (70; para. [0040]) and then to a fuel injector (80), the first heat exchanger being configured to heat the hydrogen to a supercritical liquid state (para. [0043]; the system of Epstein is at least capable of performing this function); and a fuel cell sub-system (400) including a fuel cell arrangement (182) and a second heat exchanger (60), the second heat exchanger being coupled to the feed line of the engine feeder sub-system, the second heat exchanger being configured to heat the hydrogen to a gaseous state (Fig. 2), but fails to disclose the second heat exchanger (60) upstream of the fuel cell arrangement.
Morrison teaches a fuel-cell sub-system (100) including a fuel cell arrangement (18), and a heat exchanger (57) upstream of the fuel cell arrangement. (Fig. 19; para. [0125])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Epstein to include a heat exchanger positioned upstream of the fuel cell arrangement in order to provide a means to increase the temperature of the fluid when desired by the user. (para. [0125])
Regarding claim 2, Epstein in view of Morrison further disclose the hydrogen fuel system of claim 1, but fails to disclose the boost pump arrangement includes three boost pumps.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the boost pump arrangement of Epstein to include three boost pumps since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide additional pumps in case one of the pumps malfunctions or breaks.
Regarding claim 3, Epstein in view of Morrison further disclose the hydrogen fuel system of claim 1, wherein a flow meter unit (65) is disposed between the high pressure pump and the first heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 4, Epstein in view of Morrison further disclose the hydrogen fuel system of claim 1, further comprising an accumulator (22) disposed in parallel with the feed line via input and output lines, the accumulator being configured to store pressurized fuel. (Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 6, Epstein in view of Morrison further disclose the hydrogen fuel system of any of claims 1-5, wherein the fuel tank is a first fuel tank, the boost pump arrangement is a first boost pump arrangement, the feed line is a first feed line, the high pressure pump is a first high pressure pump, and the engine is a first engine, but fails to disclose wherein the hydrogen fuel system further comprises a second fuel tank, a second boost pump arrangement at the second fuel tank, and a second feed line extending from the second boost pump arrangement to a second high pressure tank at a second engine of the aircraft.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the hydrogen fuel system of Epstein to include provide a duplicate tank/pumps/feed line/engine system since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an additional means to provide fuel to the engine in the event that one of the systems malfunction.
Regarding claim 7, Epstein in view of Morrison further disclose the hydrogen fuel system of claim 6, wherein the first engine is disposed at a first wing of the aircraft and the second engine is disposed at a second wing of the aircraft. (as shown in Fig. 1; see how the plane has one engine on each wing such that this limitation may be met using simple design standards for the duplicate system above)
Regarding claim 8, Epstein in view of Morrison further disclose the hydrogen fuel system of claim 6, wherein the first and second fuel tanks are disposed at opposite sides of the fuel cell sub-system. (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 12, Epstein in view of Morrison further disclose the hydrogen fuel system of claim 1, further comprising a ventilation sub-system (40) including a ventilation line (41) extending between a pressure regulator (39) at the fuel tank and a port to atmosphere (the outlet port of 40).
Regarding claim 14, Epstein in view of Morrison further disclose the hydrogen fuel system of claim 1, further comprising a tank pressurization line (the line branching off between 58 and 60 leading into 400 as shown in Fig. 2) extending between the fuel tank and a fuel line of the fuel cell sub-system separate from the feed line, the tank pressurization line being in communication with hydrogen vapor within the fuel tank, the fuel line being disposed downstream of the second heat exchanger and upstream of the fuel cell arrangement. (Fig. 2)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753