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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 6 in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/19/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the inlet manifold of claim 3 and flow diverter element arranged at a core of the heat exchanger of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Loomis (US 60,760).
Regarding claim 1, Loomis discloses an environmental control system (see Loomis figure 1) comprising a component (Loomis B) having a component inlet (see annotated figure) and a component outlet (see annotated figure); a flow path fluidly connected to the component inlet and component outlet (Flow path through pipe G through the drum-heater B, and out pipe H), the flow path including a turn upstream from the component inlet (see annotated figure); and at least one flow diverter element (Loomis d) arranged within the flow path between the turn and the component outlet (see annotated figure), the at least one flow diverter element being positioned to uniformly distribute a flow across the component inlet.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Loomis figure 1 (annotated)
Regarding claim 2, Loomis further discloses the turn is a 90-degree turn (see Loomis figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Loomis further teaches the component is a heat exchanger (Loomis B) and the at least one flow diverter element (Loomis d) is arranged within an inlet manifold (Examiner notes that applicant’s specification has not defined an inlet manifold and therefore in applying art it is being interpreted as the upstream portion of the heat exchanger and Loomis’s flow diverter elements d extend from the inlet to the outlet and are therefore being interpreted as being located at the inlet manifold) of the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 4, Loomis further teaches the component is a heat exchanger (Loomis B) and the at least one flow diverter element (Loomis d) is arranged at a core of the heat exchanger (Loomis’s flow diverter element forms the core of the heat exchanger).
Regarding claim 6, Loomis further discloses the at least one flow diverter element is a plurality of flues (Loomis d) that receive heated gas from a stove (Loomis A) and are therefore heated.
Regarding claim 7, Loomis as applied to claim 6 further discloses the flow diverter elements (Loomis d) are hollow (see Loomis figure 2) and are coupled to a hot fluid source (Loomis stove A).
Regarding claim 8, Loomis as applied to claim 1 discloses the at least one flow diverter element (Loomis d) is a plurality of elements that extend over the entire width of the flow path (see Loomis figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Loomis as applied to claim 1 discloses the at least one flow diverter element is a plurality of flow diverter elements (Loomis d), the plurality of flow diverter elements being uniform (see Loomis figures 1 and 2).
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, 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBride et al. (US 2005/0230095 A1) in view of Army et al. (US 2022/0349660 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McBride teaches an environmental control system (McBride 10) comprising a component (McBride 42) having a component inlet (McBride 52) and a component outlet (McBride 78); a fluid flowpath (McBride 44) connected to the component inlet and the component outlet (see McBride figure 2); and at least one flow diverter (McBride 54) arranged within the flowpath upstream of the component inlet (see McBride figure 2), the at least one flow diverter being positioned to uniformly distribute flow across the component inlet (McBride [0034]).
McBride is silent regarding a turn upstream from the component inlet.
However, Army teaches a heat exchanger (Army 50) for use in an aircraft (Army [0014]) comprising an upstream header (Army 10) with a turn (Army [0016]) that redirects the airflow from an inlet (Army 12A) to a plenum (Army 38) that ensures a consistent amount of air enters each layer of the heat exchanger core (Army [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McBride’s environmental control system to incorporate Army’s teachings of a turn and a plenum into McBride’s expansion chamber to produce a predictable result of maintaining consistent airflow into the heat exchanger while allowing an upstream turn to allow the environmental control system to be installed in positions where a straight flowpath from the turbine into the heat exchanger is not possible.
Regarding claim 2, McBride and Army as applied to claim 1 teach the turn is a 90 degree turn (see Army figure 5A).
Regarding claim 3, McBride and Army as applied to claim 1 teach the component is a heat exchanger (McBride 29) and the at least one flow diverter element (McBride 54) is located within an inlet manifold (McBride 48) of the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 4, , McBride and Army as applied to claim 1 teach the component is a heat exchanger (McBride 29) and the at least one flow diverter element (McBride 54) is arranged at a core (McBride 48) of the heat exchanger (McBride 42). Examiner notes that applicant’s figures and specification have not identified the core of the heat exchanger and therefore McBride’s expansion chamber 48 is being interpreted as part of the core of the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 5, McBride and Army as applied to claim 1 further teaches a duct (McBride 48) arranged between the turn (taught by Army, see rejection of claim 1) and the component inlet (McBride 52) along the flow path(McBride 44), the at least one flow diverter (McBride 54) located within the duct (see McBride figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, McBride and Army as applied to claim 1 teach the at least one flow diverter element (McBride 54) is heated (McBride [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, McBride and Army as applied to claim 6 further teaches the at least one flow diverter element (McBride 54) has a hollow interior (McBride 62) fluidly coupled to a hot fluid source (McBride [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, McBride and Army as applied to claim 1 teach the at least one flow diverter element (McBride 54) extends across the entire width of the flowpath (see McBride figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, McBride and Army as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the exact portion of the component inlet face area covered by the at least one flow diverter element.
However, McBride teaches the at least one flow diverter element is heated to prevent ice entering the heat exchanger (McBride [0026]) and therefore increasing the component inlet face area covered by the at least one flow diverter element will increase the surface area of the at least one flow diverter element for providing heat and improve the ice prevention capabilities of the at least one flow diverter element.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the component inlet face area covered by the at least one flow diverter element is a results effective variable that will increase the heat delivery to the airflow as the surface area is increased thereby improving the system’s ability to handle cold airflow’s with ice. A court has held that routine experimentation within the prior art conditions cannot sustain a patent. See MPEP § 2144.05 II A
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the component inlet face area covered by the at least one flow diverter element that is heated is a results effective variable that will increase the heat delivery to the airflow as the surface area is increased and that the covered face area can be optimized by selecting an area coverage of at least 10% to prevent ice formation on the heat exchanger inlet.
Regarding claim 12, McBride and Army as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the exact portion of the component inlet face area covered by the at least one flow diverter element.
However, McBride teaches the at least one flow diverter element is heated to prevent ice entering the heat exchanger (McBride [0026]) and therefore increasing the component inlet face area covered by the at least one flow diverter element will increase the surface area of the at least one flow diverter element for providing heat and improve the ice prevention capabilities of the at least one flow diverter element.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the component inlet face area covered by the at least one flow diverter element is a results effective variable that will increase the heat delivery to the airflow as the surface area is increased thereby improving the system’s ability to handle cold airflow’s with ice. A court has held that routine experimentation within the prior art conditions cannot sustain a patent. See MPEP § 2144.05 II A
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the component inlet face area covered by the at least one flow diverter element that is heated is a results effective variable that will increase the heat delivery to the airflow as the surface area is increased and that the covered face area can be optimized by selecting an area coverage of at least 20% to prevent ice formation on the heat exchanger inlet.
Regarding claim 13, McBride and Army as applied to claim 1 teach the at least one flow diverter element (McBride 54) is a plurality of flow diverter elements (see McBride figure 2), the plurality of flow diverter elements are uniform (see McBride figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, McBride and Army as applied to claim 1teach the at least one flow diverter element (McBride 54) is a plurality of flow diverter elements (see McBride figure 2) and a configuration of the flow diverter elements varies (see McBride figure 2 where the flow diverter elements are configured to angle outwards).
Regarding claim 15, McBride discloses a method of operation an environmental control system (McBride 10) of a vehicle , the method comprising: redirecting the medium (McBride [0034]) via contact with at least one flow diverter element (McBride 54).
McBride is silent regarding providing a conduit with a turn formed therein, the turn being adjacent to an outlet of the conduit.
However, Army teaches a heat exchanger (Army 50) for use in an aircraft (Army [0014]) comprising an upstream conduit (Army 10) where a medium is provided to the conduit via an inlet (Army 12A), the conduit having a turn formed therein (see Army figure 5A), the turn being arranged adjacent an outlet (Army 14). The conduit is configured to provide a uniform flow at the outlet (Army [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McBride’s method to incorporate Army’s teachings of an upstream conduit with a turn into McBride’s method to produce a predictable result of maintaining consistent airflow into the heat exchanger while allowing an upstream turn to allow the environmental control system to be installed in positions where a straight flowpath from the turbine into the heat exchanger is not possible.
Regarding claim 16, McBride and Army as applied to claim 15 teach, when redirecting the medium from the outlet of the conduit uniformly distributes the medium (McBride [0034]). across an inlet of a downstream component
Regarding claim 17, McBride and Army as applied to claim 15 teach that when redirecting the medium from the outlet of the conduit at least a portion of the medium will flow between adjacent flow diverter elements (see McBride figure 2) and will therefore be directed away from a back end of the conduit.
Regarding claim 18, McBride and army as applied to claim 15 further teach heating the at least one flow diverter element (McBride [0031]).
Regarding claim 19, McBride and Army as applied to claim 15 further teaches heating the at least one flow diverter element (McBride 54) further comprises providing a hot fluid to the interior of the at least one flow diverter element (McBride [0037]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guillaume et al. (US 2011/0297352 A1 teaches a preheating device for a heat exchanger of an aircraft comprising flow diverter elements in the form of pipes that carry hot oil to preheat the fuel to prevent ice blocking the heat exchanger.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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 at (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 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights