DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is in response to claims filed on 01/04/2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cabin airflow delivery system” and “cabin exhaust delivery system” in claim 2 and claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Paragraph 0042 recites “the cabin airflow delivery system 108 includes a mixer 136”. Paragraph 0047 recites "the air delivery system includes the cabin exhaust delivery system 110, which in turn includes a fuel cell inlet line 158 and a fuel cell outlet line 160". Therefore, the Examiner interprets "cabin airflow delivery system" to include a mixer, and "the cabin exhaust delivery system" to include a fuel cell inlet line and a fuel cell outlet line.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 19 recites “maintaining the excess airflow between 1.2 and 2.05” in line 2. This yields the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
It is unclear how to interpret “between 1.2 and 2.05”. 1.02 and 2.05 a percentage? A ratio? A pressure?
This yields the claim indefinite.
For purposes of interpretation, the Examiner interprets this limitation similar to Claim 5. Accordingly, “maintaining the excess airflow between 1.2 and 2.05” should recite “maintaining the excess air ratio between 1.2 and 2.05”. It is noted amending “excess airflow” to recite “excess air ratio” also applies to Claim 18, from which Claim 19 depends.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tichborne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,086,222).
Regarding Claim 1, Tichborne shows (Figure 1):
A system (system illustrated in Figure 1) for an aircraft (10) comprising:
a fuel tank (60) defining an interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1); and
a fuel cell assembly (30, 40, 50, and associated components) comprising a fuel cell (30, 32) defining an air outlet (outlet of 32 attached to 14, as illustrated in Figure 1), wherein the outlet (outlet of 32 attached to 14, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel cell (30, 32) is in airflow communication with (via 14, as illustrated in Figure 1) the interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel tank (60) for providing an inerting airflow (ODA) from the fuel cell (30, 32) to the interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel tank (60) to reduce an oxygen content (“the cool, dry ODAA is used to inert the fuel in the aircraft fuel tank 60”, Col. 5, lines 17-18) of the interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel tank (60).
Regarding Claim 3, Tichborne shows (Figure 1):
The fuel cell assembly (30, 40, 50, and associated components) is configured to be positioned in (“at the junction between the tail cone 16 and fuselage 12 is a primary heat exchanger 40. A dryer 50 is located in the fuselage”, Col. 4, lines 9-12) a fuselage (12) of the aircraft (10).
Regarding Claim 10, Tichborne shows (Figure 1):
An aircraft (10) comprising:
a fuel tank (60) defining an interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1); and
a fuel cell assembly (30, 40, 50, and associated components) comprising a fuel cell (30, 32) defining an air outlet (outlet of 32 attached to 14, as illustrated in Figure 1), wherein the outlet (outlet of 32 attached to 14, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel cell (30, 32) is in airflow communication with (via 14, as illustrated in Figure 1) the interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel tank (60) for providing an inerting airflow (ODA) from the fuel cell (30, 32) to the interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel tank (60) to reduce an oxygen content (“the cool, dry ODAA is used to inert the fuel in the aircraft fuel tank 60”, Col. 5, lines 17-18) of the interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel tank (60).
Regarding Claim 12, Tichborne shows (Figure 1):
The aircraft (10) comprises a fuselage (12), and wherein
the fuel cell assembly (30, 40, 50, and associated components) is incorporated into (“at the junction between the tail cone 16 and fuselage 12 is a primary heat exchanger 40. A dryer 50 is located in the fuselage”, Col. 4, lines 9-12) the fuselage (12) of the aircraft (10).
Regarding Claim 15, Tichborne shows (Figure 1):
A method (“method of conditioning oxygen depleted air exhausted from a fuel cell”, Abstract) of operating a system (system illustrated in Figure 1) for an aircraft (10) comprising:
providing (via 14) an inerting airflow (ODA) from an air outlet (outlet of 32 attached to 14, as illustrated in Figure 1) of a fuel cell (30, 32) of a fuel cell assembly (30, 40, 50, and associated components) to an interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1) of a fuel tank (60) to reduce an oxygen content (“the cool, dry ODAA is used to inert the fuel in the aircraft fuel tank 60”, Col. 5, lines 17-18) of the interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel tank (60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tichborne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,086,222), as recited in Claims 1 and 10 above, in view of Klewer (U.S. Patent No. 8,468,847) and Shea et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0177141).
Regarding Claim 2, Tichborne shows (Figure 1):
A cabin exhaust delivery system (54) configured to be in airflow communication (54 supplies heated cabin air from the cabin, Col. 4, lines 39-40) with a cabin (the cabin of 10) of the aircraft (10) for receiving a cabin exhaust airflow (heated cabin air, Col. 4, lines 39-40) and providing (via 54) the cabin exhaust airflow (heated cabin air, Col. 4, lines 39-40) to the fuel cell assembly (30, 40, 50, and associated components).
However, Tichborne lacks showing an environmental control system, and a cabin airflow delivery system in airflow communication with the environmental control system for receiving a cabin inlet airflow from the environmental control system.
In the same field of endeavor of aircrafts, Klewer teaches (Figure 1):
An environmental control system assembly (assembly illustrated in Figure 1) for an aircraft (aircraft, title), the assembly comprising:
an environmental control system (10);
a cabin airflow delivery system (35 and 54) in airflow communication with (as illustrated by air flow arrows in Figure 1) the environmental control system (10) for receiving a cabin inlet airflow (“air fed to aircraft cabin 36”, Col. 6, lines 9-10) from the environmental control system (10);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the aircraft shown by Tichborne to include an environmental control system assembly including an environmental control system and a cabin airflow delivery system, as taught by Klewer, to condition the cabin of the aircraft to increase passenger comfort.
However, the combination of Tichborne and Klewer lacks showing the cabin airflow delivery system comprises a mixer (as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above).
In the same field of endeavor of aircraft environmental control system assemblies, Shea teaches (Figure 1):
It is known for a cabin airflow delivery system (103, 115, 120, 121) to include a mixer (120) for receiving (via 103 and 115) a cabin inlet airflow (airflow supplied to 102 via 121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cabin airflow delivery system taught by the combination of Tichborne and Klewer to include a mixer, as taught by Shea, to increase passenger comfort by ensuring complete mixing of the conditioned air in the air feed line 35 and the water-containing waste air from the waste gas line 54 used to moisturize the air fed to the aircraft cabin before entering the aircraft cabin.
Regarding Claim 4, Tichborne teaches the claimed invention except Tichborne does not explicitly state the fuel cell assembly is a PEM fuel cell assembly.
In the same field of endeavor of aircrafts, Klewer teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the aircraft (aircraft, title) art for a fuel cell assembly (24) to be a polymer exchange membrane (“PEM fuel cell”, Col. 3, lines 22-23) fuel cell assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the PEM fuel cell taught by Klewer for the fuel cell of the fuel cell assembly shown by Tichborne because it does no more than yield predictable results of generating electricity on the aircraft, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Tichborne shows (Figure 1):
A cabin (the cabin of 10); and
a cabin exhaust delivery system (54) configured to be in airflow communication (54 supplies heated cabin air from the cabin, Col. 4, lines 39-40) with a cabin (the cabin of 10) of the aircraft (10) for receiving a cabin exhaust airflow (heated cabin air, Col. 4, lines 39-40) and providing (via 54) the cabin exhaust airflow (heated cabin air, Col. 4, lines 39-40) to the fuel cell assembly (30, 40, 50, and associated components).
However, Tichborne lacks showing an environmental control system, and a cabin airflow delivery system in airflow communication with the environmental control system for receiving a cabin inlet airflow from the environmental control system.
In the same field of endeavor of aircrafts, Klewer teaches (Figure 1):
An environmental control system assembly (assembly illustrated in Figure 1) for an aircraft (aircraft, title), the assembly comprising:
an environmental control system (10);
a cabin airflow delivery system (35 and 54) in airflow communication with (as illustrated by air flow arrows in Figure 1) the environmental control system (10) for receiving a cabin inlet airflow (“air fed to aircraft cabin 36”, Col. 6, lines 9-10) from the environmental control system (10);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the aircraft shown by Tichborne to include an environmental control system assembly including an environmental control system and a cabin airflow delivery system, as taught by Klewer, to condition the cabin of the aircraft to increase passenger comfort.
However, the combination of Tichborne and Klewer lacks showing the cabin airflow delivery system comprises a mixer (as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above).
In the same field of endeavor of aircraft environmental control system assemblies, Shea teaches (Figure 1):
It is known for a cabin airflow delivery system (103, 115, 120, 121) to include a mixer (120) for receiving (via 103 and 115) a cabin inlet airflow (airflow supplied to 102 via 121).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cabin airflow delivery system taught by the combination of Tichborne and Klewer to include a mixer, as taught by Shea, to increase passenger comfort by ensuring complete mixing of the conditioned air in the air feed line 35 and the water-containing waste air from the waste gas line 54 used to moisturize the air fed to the aircraft cabin before entering the aircraft cabin.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tichborne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,086,222), as recited in Claim 1 above, in view of Ancimer et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416278).
Regarding Claim 5, Tichborne shows the claimed invention except a controller operably coupled to the fuel cell assembly for controlling an excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly, wherein the controller is operable to maintain the excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly between 1.2 and 2.05 during operation of the system.
In the same field of endeavor of aircrafts, Ancimer teaches (Figure 3):
It is known in the aircraft (aircraft, Paragraph 0039) art for a controller (252) to be operably coupled to (as illustrated in Figure 3) a fuel cell assembly (10) for controlling an excess air ratio (“excess air ratio”, Paragraph 0060) of the fuel cell assembly (10), wherein the controller (252) is operable to maintain the excess air ratio “excess air ratio”, Paragraph 0060) of the fuel cell assembly (10) between 1.2 and 2.05 during operation (“excess air ratio may be in the range of about 1.8-1.9 under pressurized operation”, Paragraph 0060).
Further, this “keeps volumetric flow rate high enough to prevent flooding in the fuel cell 20”, Paragraph 0060.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fuel cell assembly shown by Tichborne to include a controller operably coupled to the fuel cell assembly for controlling an excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly, wherein the controller is operable to maintain the excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly between 1.2 and 2.05 during operation of the system, as taught by Ancimer, to increase controllability of the system and keep the volumetric flow rate high enough to prevent flooding in the fuel cell.
Claims 6, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tichborne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,086,222), as recited in Claims 1 and 15 above, in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0141419).
Regarding Claim 6, Tichborne shows the claimed invention except a controller operably coupled to the fuel cell assembly for controlling an excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly, wherein the controller is operable to control the excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly to limit an oxygen content of the inerting airflow to less than or equal to 12%.
In the same field of endeavor of aircrafts, Wu teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the aircraft (aircraft, Paragraph 0043) art for a controller (14) to be operably coupled to (as illustrated in Figure 1) a fuel cell assembly (10) for controlling an excess air ratio (ratio of oxygen depleted air, Paragraph 0051) of the fuel cell assembly (10), wherein the controller (14) is operable to control the excess air ratio (ratio of oxygen depleted air, Paragraph 0051) of the fuel cell assembly (10) to limit an oxygen content (oxygen content of ODA, Paragraph 0051) of the inerting airflow (oxygen depleted air, Paragraph 0051) to less than or equal to 12% (11% oxygen, Paragraph 0107).
Further, “this oxygen depleted air is sufficiently low to produce fire suppressant quality air”, Paragraph 0107.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fuel cell assembly shown by Tichborne to include a controller operably coupled to the fuel cell assembly for controlling an excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly, wherein the controller is operable to control the excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly to limit an oxygen content of the inerting airflow to less than or equal to 12%, as taught by Wu, to produce fire suppressant quality air.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, Tichborne shows (Figure 1):
Providing (via 14) the inerting airflow (ODA) from the air outlet (outlet of 32 attached to 14, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel cell (30, 32) of the fuel cell assembly (30, 40, 50, and associated components) to the interior (the interior of 60, in which 62 is located, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the fuel tank (60).
However, Tichborne lacks showing maintaining an oxygen content of the inerting airflow below a threshold percentage, wherein the threshold percentage is 12%.
In the same field of endeavor of aircrafts, Wu teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the aircraft (aircraft, Paragraph 0043) art for a controller (14) maintain an oxygen content (oxygen content of ODA, Paragraph 0051) of the inerting airflow (oxygen depleted air, Paragraph 0051) below a threshold percentage of 12% (11% oxygen, Paragraph 0107).
Further, “this oxygen depleted air is sufficiently low to produce fire suppressant quality air”, Paragraph 0107.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fuel cell assembly shown by Tichborne to include a controller that maintains the oxygen content of the inerting airflow to less than or equal to 12%, as taught by Wu, to produce fire suppressant quality air.
Regarding Claim 20, Wu teaches (Figures 1 and 9):
Receiving data (see Step 62) indicative of an operating condition (output current) of the fuel cell assembly (10), wherein
maintaining the oxygen content (oxygen content of ODA, Paragraph 0051) of the inerting airflow (oxygen depleted air, Paragraph 0051) below the threshold percentage of 12% (11% oxygen, Paragraph 0107) comprises controlling (see Step 66) the fuel cell assembly (10) in response to the received data (as illustrated in Figure 9).
Claims 7, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tichborne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,086,222), as recited in Claims 1 and 10 above, in view of Palmer et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0391467).
Regarding Claims 7 and 13, Tichborne shows (Figure 1):
The fuel cell assembly (30, 40, 50, and associated components) is configured to be incorporated into (via 15, as illustrated in Figure 1) an engine (70) of the aircraft (10).
However, Tichborne lacks showing the engine is a gas turbine engine.
In the same field of endeavor of aircrafts, Palmer teaches (Figure 3):
It is known in the aircraft (aircraft, title) art for the aircraft to comprise a fuel cell (302) and a gas turbine engine (301), wherein the fuel cell assembly (302) is configured to be incorporated into (via 316, 320, and 321, in which bleed/inlet airflow from 301 is supplied to 302) the gas turbine engine (301).
Further, “a gas turbine engine is capable of operating more efficiently when used for generating propulsive power… a fuel cell may therefore be able to generate at least some of the electrical supply that the engine would otherwise need to provide, resulting in an overall gain in thermal efficiency”, Paragraph 0006.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the engine and the fuel cell assembly shown by Tichborne such that the engine is a gas turbine engine that supplies bleed airflow into the fuel cell assembly, as taught by Palmer, to provide an overall gain in thermal efficiency, since a gas turbine engine is capable of operating more efficiently when used for generating propulsive power and a fuel cell may therefore be able to generate at least some of the electrical supply that the engine would otherwise need to provide.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Tichborne (Figure 1) and Palmer (Figure 3) teaches:
The fuel cell assembly (Tichborne: 30, 40, 50, and associated components) is configured to receive (Palmer: via 316, 320, and 321, in which bleed/inlet airflow from 301 is supplied to 302) an inlet airflow (Palmer: bleed airflow) from the gas turbine engine (Tichborne: 70, modified in view of Palmer above to be a gas turbine engine).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Tichborne (Figure 1) and Palmer (Figure 3) teaches:
The gas turbine engine (Tichborne: 70, modified in view of Palmer above to be a gas turbine engine) defines a working gas flowpath (Palmer: 316, 320, and 321, in which bleed/inlet airflow from 301 is supplied to 302), wherein the fuel cell assembly (Tichborne: 30, 40, 50, and associated components) is configured to receive (Palmer: via 316, 320, and 321, in which bleed/inlet airflow from 301 is supplied to 302) an inlet airflow (Palmer: bleed airflow) from the working gas flowpath (Palmer: 316, 320, and 321, in which bleed/inlet airflow from 301 is supplied to 302) of the gas turbine engine (Tichborne: 70, modified in view of Palmer above to be a gas turbine engine).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tichborne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,086,222), as recited in Claim 1 above, in view of Joos et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0118679).
Regarding Claim 9, Tichborne teaches the claimed invention except Tichborne does not explicitly state the fuel cell assembly is a SOFC fuel cell assembly.
In the same field of endeavor of aircrafts, Joos teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the aircraft art for a fuel cell assembly to be a SOFC fuel cell assembly (“a solid-oxide fuel cell can also be operated in aircraft”, Paragraph 0013).
Further, “a SOFC can be configured to run on jet fuel directly”, Paragraph 0013.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fuel cell assembly shown by Tichborne to be a SOFC fuel cell assembly, as taught by Joos, so that the fuel cell can be configured to run on jet fuel directly.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tichborne and Wu et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0141419), as recited in Claim 16 above, further in view of Ancimer et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416278).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, the combination of Tichborne and Wu teaches the claimed invention except controlling an excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly between 1.2 and 2.05.
In the same field of endeavor of aircrafts, Ancimer teaches (Figure 3):
It is known in the aircraft (aircraft, Paragraph 0039) art for a controller (252) to be operably coupled to (as illustrated in Figure 3) a fuel cell assembly (10) for maintaining an excess air ratio (“excess air ratio”, Paragraph 0060) of the fuel cell assembly (10) between 1.2 and 2.05 during operation (“excess air ratio may be in the range of about 1.8-1.9 under pressurized operation”, Paragraph 0060).
Further, this “keeps volumetric flow rate high enough to prevent flooding in the fuel cell 20”, Paragraph 0060.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the fuel cell assembly and controller taught by the combination of Tichborne and Wu to include controlling an excess air ratio of the fuel cell assembly between 1.2 and 2.05, as taught by Ancimer, to increase controllability of the system and keep the volumetric flow rate high enough to prevent flooding in the fuel cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, Helena Kosanovic, can be reached on 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA K TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights