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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 16-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication number 2014/0026597 Epstein in view of US 2014/0352801 McAlister.
Regarding claim 1, Epstein discloses an assembly for an aircraft (see abstract, cryogenic fuel storage for an aircraft) comprising a containment vessel (figure 3) comprising a containment vessel wall (501); a storage vessel including a storage vessel wall and a storage cavity (503), the storage vessel disposed within the containment vessel, and a containment plenum (502) disposed between the storage vessel wall and the containment vessel wall; a supply channel fluidly coupled with the storage cavity (512/513/514/515); a cavity purge channel (506/521) fluidly coupled with the storage cavity; and a plenum purge channel fluidly coupled with the containment plenum (511/515). Epstein does not explicitly disclose that the fuel is hydrogen providing for “cryogenic fuels” including LNG. The examiner has previously gone on official notice that Hydrogen is a well-known fuel for aircraft and can be stored in identically similar arrangements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize the system of Epstein to store hydrogen fuel as a simple substitution of one well known fuel for another (hydrogen for LNG). Further see paragraph 50 with regard to the fuel tank system for any other gaseous/cryogenic fuels (such as hydrogen). Epstein discloses further comprising: a cavity purge circuit configured to selectively fluidly couple the storage cavity to an external environment; the cavity purge circuit comprising the cavity purge channel (see vent line 521, paragraph 55) and further discloses that purges can be sent to external environment (see figure 3, 521 goes outside which is external to the tanks, and see paragraph 56 mentioning venting to ambient). Epstein discloses wherein the cavity purge circuit further comprises a cavity purge valve fluidly coupled to the storage cavity by the cavity purge channel (valve 506). Epstein further discloses a controller configured to open/close the cavity purge valve (see 514, paragraph 56, “use to control the flow rate of the venting”. The examiner further goes on official notice that it is well known to provide valve controls to control flow rate of streams such as purges and vents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to provide a controller for automatically moving a valve open and closed to be more responsive and efficient rather then relying on a manual user to open and close said valves midflight. Epstein does not disclose a sensor configured to measure a fluid flow out of the containment plenum, the controller based on said measured fluid flow. Epstein does mention controlled fluid flow (see paragraph 56, clearly a flow rate can be determined and set in paragraph 56 Epstein). McAlister discloses the utilizing of a flow rate sensor in a containment plenum (see paragraphs 243-245: Leak flow sensor 1226 to detect and monitor leakage). It would have been obvious to utilize a flow rate sensor to measure fluid flow from a containment plenum as disclosed by McAlister (1226 sensor on plenum evacuation 1224; figure 12) with the controlled plenum evacuation of Epstein in order to gather additional data on flow rates being allowed to flow through the controlled valve and to determine if leaks are present by the amount of gas flowing out of the plenum.
Regarding claim 3, Epstein discloses wherein the hydrogen supply channel projects through the containment vessel wall (see 513 projecting through 515).
Regarding claim 4, Epstein discloses wherein the cavity purge channel projects through the containment vessel wall (see 521 from cavity 505 purging hydrogen boil off out 521 through walls of 501).
Regarding claim 7, Epstein discloses a plenum purge circuit configured to selectively fluidly couple the containment plenum to an external environment; the plenum purge circuit comprising the plenum purge channel (see 511 and 515).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the plenum purge circuit further comprises a plenum purge valve fluidly coupled to the containment plenum by the plenum purge channel (511 and 514/515)
Regarding claim 9, further comprising: a plenum purge circuit configured to purge leaked hydrogen fuel from the containment plenum, the plenum purge circuit comprising the plenum purge channel (leaked H2 in plenum space 502 released through 511/514/515; see paragraphs 53-57); and a cavity purge circuit configured to purge stored hydrogen fuel from the storage cavity when a parameter of the leaked hydrogen fuel is greater than a threshold, the cavity purge circuit comprising the cavity purge channel (paragraph 56, vent inner volume 502 to avoid collection of gas if a leak occurs…leak detection sensors have to have some threshold to detect a leak…see further paragraph 56, natural air purge system can be accomplished, see also purge system in paragraphs 53-55). Further, see additional safety monitoring features and purging with nitrogen as a result in paragraphs 61-64. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize the purge system in response to leaking in order to avoid build up of hydrogen and avoid possibility of explosions.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10 above (see paragraphs 53-57).
Regarding claim 17, further comprising: a cavity purge circuit fluidly coupled with the storage cavity; the cavity purge circuit configured to selectively purge the hydrogen fuel out of the hydrogen storage vessel (see rejection of claim 1 and 5 above; vent line 521).
Regarding claim 21, McAlister discloses wherein the sensor comprises a flow sensor configured to measure flow out of the containment plenum (see rejection and motivation to combine of claim 1 above, sensor 1226 in figure 12).
Claims 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein and McAlister as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent number 5,657,631 Androsov.
Regarding claim 2, Epstein discloses providing the fuel from the storage tank through the supply channel (see paragraph 577, fuel line 513) but does not explicitly disclose an aircraft engine comprising a fuel injector; the fuel injector fluidly coupled with the storage cavity through the hydrogen supply channel. Androsov discloses supplying hydrogen from a storage tank to a fuel injector of an airplane engine (see column 4, lines 32-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize the hydrogen fuel tank of Epstein with a aircraft turbine engine and fuel injector. This is combining prior art elements according to know methods to yield predictable results (combination of hydrogen fuel storage with hydrogen fuel turbine engine) and it is clearly welly known to utilize fuel injection engines on aircraft as disclosed by Androsov and would have been advantageous to apply said engine to Epstein. This is also a simple substitution of one type of engine from Androsov for the propulsion means of Epstein’s aircraft which also uses hydrogen fuel.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejections of claims 1-2 and 9 above.
Claims 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein and McAlister as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. patent number 5,085,576 Bonne et al. (hereinafter Bonne).
Regarding claim 10, Epstein discloses a flushing circuit fluidly coupled with the containment plenum; the flushing circuit configured to direct a purge gas the containment plenum to flush out leaked hydrogen fuel through the plenum purge channel (see rejection of claim 1 above, figure 3, 510/511/515). Epstein utilizes mainly nitrogen and does not mention utilizing air. This is disclosed by Bonne who provides that utilizing air as a purge gas is well known in the field (see column 9, lines 40-61). The examiner further goes on official notice that air is a well-known inert gas commonly utilized as a purge gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize air as the purge gas for the containment plenum as disclosed by Bonne and well known in the art as the purge flushing gas in Epstein as a simple substitution of one known element (Air) for another (nitrogen) to obtain predictable results (both gases are non-combustible and can provide for the safe purging of LNG or hydrogen). Further it would have been obvious to do so in order to save on cost as air is more easily obtained than pure nitrogen and cheaper.
Regarding claim 11, Bonne further discloses wherein the flushing circuit comprises an air pump (see purge blower 45 or fan 38). See motivation in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, Epstein discloses wherein the flushing circuit comprises a valve (see valves 511 and 514).
Regarding claims 13-14, Bonne further comprising an air source selectively fluidly coupled to the containment plenum through the flushing circuit wherein the air source comprises an external environment (air is bleed air from outside the chamber 35, see column 9, lines 40-61). See motivation to combine in the rejection of claim 10 above. Further it is pointed out that Epstein already utilizes a purge gas from external environment entering the containment plenum from an external environment however does not specify it is air (see rejection of claim 1 and 10 above).
Claims 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein, McAlister, and Androsov as applied to claims 18 above, and further in view of U.S. patent number 5,085,576 Bonne et al. (hereinafter Bonne).
Regarding claim 15, Epstein discloses further comprising: an aircraft engine comprising a a flowpath; fluidly coupled with the storage cavity through the hydrogen supply channel (see rejection of claim 1 above, (propulsion system, paragraph 19, see fuel supply flow path through 512/513 in figure 3). Epstein does not disclose fuel injection coupled with the storage cavity through the supply channel (this is disclosed by Androsov – see the rejection and motivation of claim 18 above). Epstein and Androsov do not disclose utilizing an air purge gas the air source comprising a bleed from the flowpath (This is disclosed by Bonne, see rejections of claims 10-14 above, see column 9, lines 40-56, bleed air is utilized as a purge gas). See motivation to utilize air in the rejection of claim 10 above, again it would be more economically to utilize air already output by other processes or by ambient to be utilized to help purge instead of costly pure N2 that would also need a storage mechanism and space on the plane.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Epstein and Bonne further disclose directing air into the containment plenum to flush the leaked hydrogen fuel out of the containment plenum (Epstein discloses utilizing a purge gas to flush leaked hydrogen out of the plenum (see rejection of claims 1 and 8-9 above while Bonne discloses the utilization of air as a purge gas, see rejection of claim 10 above and motivations to combine with respect to claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 20, Bonne further discloses wherein the air blower directing the purge gas is a fan (see fan 38). See motivation in rejection of claim 10 above. Bonne does not explicitly disclose the fan is electric however the examiner goes on official notice that electric air fans are well known in the art to transport and push air through channels and ducts. It would have been obvious to utilize an electric fan to avoid the need for some sort of other fuel being on board the plane and in order to provide greater speed and control to the fan and connect it to a control unit. It is also a simple substitution of one well known type of air fan for another (if the fan 38 of bonne isn’t electric already).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 16, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly added limitations of a plenum flow sensor is taught by McAlister.
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 Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798