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 .
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.
Examiner’s Comments
1. For applicant’s information, Applicant’s argument as submitted in the response of 09/30/2025 was reviewed and considered persuasive; therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altay (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2012/0000220 A1), hereinafter referred to as Altay ‘220.
Regarding claim 1, Altay ‘220 discloses an aircraft comprising: an electrical system including at least one cooled electrical component, wherein the at least one cooled electrical component is a low grade heat source {see ¶ [0031]}; a cooling system (1) including a coolant loop (9) passing through the at least one cooled electrical component and through a first adsorption cooler (2), wherein the first adsorption cooler is configured to cool coolant in the cooling loop using an adsorption process (52) {see Figs. 1-4: ¶¶ [0010], [0026], [0034-0035]}; and wherein the adsorption cooler is connected to a waste heat rejection system (50), and wherein the waste heat rejection system is configured to reject heat to at least one of vent air, ram air, and aircraft fuel {see Figs. 1-4: ¶¶ [0030-0032], [0042-0043], [0047], [0050-0051]};
Regarding claim 3, Altay ‘220 discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the at least one cooled electrical component includes at least one of an environmental control component, an electrical component and a hydraulic component {see ¶¶ [0027] and [0048]}.
Regarding claim 5, Altay ‘220 discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the coolant in the cooling loop is one of water and a water-based solution {see ¶¶ [0003-0004] and [0026]}.
Regarding claim 6, Altay ‘220 discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the cooling system includes at least a second adsorption cooler (4), parallel to the first adsorption cooler {as shown in Figs. 1-4: ¶ [0026]}.
Regarding claim 7, Altay ‘220 discloses the aircraft of claim 6, wherein an operational phase of the first adsorption cooler, and an operational phase of the second adsorption cooler are controlled via a controller, and wherein the controller is configured such that at least one adsorption cooler is in an adsorption phase at all times during operation of the aircraft {see ¶¶ [0048-0049] and [0055]}.
Regarding claim 9, Altay ‘220 discloses the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising a coolant pump (54, 56) connected to the coolant loop and configured to drive coolant through the coolant loop {as shown in Figs. 1-4: ¶¶ [0030], [0032] and [0035]}.
Regarding claim 12, Altay ‘220 discloses a method of cooling an electrical component in an aircraft comprising: generating a low grade heat source via the electrical component {see ¶¶ [0015] and [0031]}; passing a coolant through the electrical component using a coolant loop (9), thereby transferring heat from the electrical component to the coolant loop {see ¶¶ [0026] and [0031]}; providing the coolant to an adsorption cooler (2) {see Figs. 1-4: ¶¶ [0010], [0026], [0034-0035]}; and moving the heat from the coolant loop to a waste heat system (50) using an adsorption process (52), the waste heat system being configured to reject heat to at least one of vent air, ram air, and aircraft fuel {see Figs. 1-4: ¶¶ [0030-0032], [0042-0043], [0047], [0050-0051]}.
Regarding claim 13, Altay ‘220 discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the adsorption process is a four-phase process including a pre-heating phase, a desorption phase, a pre-cooling phase and an adsorption phase {see ¶ [0015]}.
Regarding claim 14, Altay ‘220 discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the moving the heat from the coolant loop to the waste heat system using the adsorption process comprises using at least two adsorption coolers (2, 4) {see ¶¶ [0026-0030]}.
Regarding claim 15, Altay ‘220 discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising controlling the at least two adsorption coolers such that at least one of the at least two adsorption coolers in the adsorption phase throughout the operation of the method {see ¶¶ [0026-0030] and [0032-0034]}.
Regarding claim 16, Altay ‘220 discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the waste heat system is at least one of a vent air system, a ram air system, and a fuel system {see ¶ [0031]}.
Regarding claim 17, Altay ‘220 discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the coolant is one of water and a water- based solution {see ¶¶ [0003-0004] and [0026]}.
Regarding claim 18, Altay ‘220 discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the coolant is driven via a coolant pump {as shown in Figs. 1-4: ¶¶ [0030], [0032] and [0035]}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
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 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altay ‘220, in view of Dunn (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2003/0075643 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dunn ‘643.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Altay ‘220 discloses the aircraft and method of claims 1 and 12, EXCEPT for the limitation wherein the coolant is gravity fed.
Dunn ‘643 teaches: the concept of the coolant being gravity fed {as shown in Fig. 1: no mechanical means utilized}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Altay ‘220 in view of Dunn ‘643 to include the coolant being gravity fed, in order eliminate extra unit weight and cost of operating the unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Altay ‘220 in view of Dunn ‘643 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10 and 19.
Claims 2, 4, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altay ‘220, in view of XUE et al (English Translated Chinese Patent Pub No.: 103618422 A), hereinafter referred to as XUE et al ‘422.
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 11, Altay ‘220 discloses the aircraft of claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations of wherein the at least one cooled electrical component includes a fuel cell stack; and wherein the aircraft is an all-electric aircraft and a more electric aircraft.
XUE et al ‘422 teach: the concept of the at least one cooled electrical component includes a fuel cell stack; and wherein the aircraft is an all-electric aircraft {see ¶¶ [0002] and [0019]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Altay ‘220 in view of XUE et al ‘422 include utilization of multiple fuel cell stack in aircraft power production, in order to mitigate some of the traditional environmental pollution concerns of smoke, noise, oil and water of internal combustion engine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Altay ‘220 in view of XUE et al ‘422 to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2, 4 and 11.
Regarding claim 20, Altay ‘220 discloses the method of claim 12, EXCEPT for the limitation of wherein the aircraft is an all-electric aircraft.
XUE et al ‘422 teach: the concept of the aircraft is an all-electric aircraft {see ¶¶ [0002] and [0019]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Altay ‘220 in view of XUE et al ‘422 include the method wherein the aircraft is an all-electric aircraft, in order to mitigate some of the traditional environmental pollution concerns of smoke, noise, oil and water of internal combustion engine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Altay ‘220 in view of XUE et al ‘422 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altay ‘220, in view of Zysman et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2008/0016845 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zysman et al ‘845.
Regarding claim 21, Altay ‘220 discloses the aircraft of claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations of wherein the waste heat rejection system is configured to reject heat to aircraft fuel.
Zysman et al ‘845 teach: the concept of the waste heat rejection system is configured to reject heat to aircraft fuel {see ¶ [0004]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Altay ‘220 in view of Zysman et al ‘845 to include the waste heat rejection system configured to reject heat to aircraft fuel, in order to help recover some of the energy lost {Zysman et al ‘845 - ¶ [0004]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Altay ‘220 in view of Zysman et al ‘845 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altay ‘220, in view of Zywiak et al (U.S. PG Pub No.: 2005/0061012 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zywiak et al ‘012.
Regarding claim 21, Altay ‘220 discloses the aircraft of claim 1, EXCEPT for the limitations of wherein the waste heat rejection system is configured to reject heat to at least one of vent air.
Zywiak et al ‘012 teach: the concept of the waste heat rejection system being configured to reject heat to at least one of vent air {see ¶ [0030]}.
Since all claimed elements were known in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Altay ‘220 in view of Zywiak et al ‘012 to include the waste heat rejection system being configured to reject heat to at least one of vent air, in order to vacate unwanted heat from the aircraft to environment {Zywiak et al ‘012 ¶ [0030]}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Altay ‘220 in view of Zywiak et al ‘012 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 09/30/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as detailed above.
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. 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.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
11/21/2025
Prosecution Insights