DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing dated 1/31/2024. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 1/31/2024 and 8/5/2024 are acknowledged and have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/31/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation “one or more PRSOV open configurations” in line 5. Claim 1 further recites “including a PRSOV fully open configuration and one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” in lines 5-6. It is unclear as to how the PRSOV is controllable to be disposed in “one PRSOV open configuration” of the “one or more PRSOV open configurations” when the “PRSOV open configurations” include “a PRSOV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRSOV partially open configuration”. Should the recitation of “one or more PRSOV open configurations” be “two or more PRSOV open configurations”?
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more PRV open configurations” in line 12. Claim 1 further recites “including a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRSOV partially open configurations” in lines 12-13. It is unclear as to how the PRV is controllable to be disposed in “one PRV open configuration” of the “one or more PRV open configurations” when the “PRV open configurations” include “a PRV fully open configuration” and “one or more PRV partially open configuration”. Should the recitation of “one or more PRV open configurations” be “two or more PRV open configurations”?
Clarification and appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dasilva et al. (US 20100001138).
Regarding claim 8, the Dasilva et al. reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of de-icing an aircraft nacelle inlet (44), comprising:
producing bleed air from a bleed air source (bleed port 36) associated with a gas turbine engine;
using a pressure regulating and shut off valve (PRSOV) (V1, fig. 1) to control a bleed air pressure within an anti-icing system (20) within a predetermined operating range of said bleed air pressures (see at least figures 4, 5, 6), the predetermined operating range of said bleed air pressures including a maximum said bleed air pressure (see +XX PSIG on figures 4, 5, 6); and
using a pressure relief valve (PRV) (V2, fig. 1) disposed downstream of the PRSOV (see figure 1) to maintain the bleed air within the anti-icing system below the maximum said bleed air pressure.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andelson et al. (US 11448126) in view of Hyde et al. (WO 2015/109098 A1).
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 1, the Andelson et al. reference discloses an anti-icing system (26; see figure 2A) for an aircraft nacelle structure (see col., 4, lines 20-23) utilizing bleed air from a gas turbine engine bleed air source (bleed 236), the system comprising:
a controllable pressure regulating and shut off valve (PRSOV; 244) in fluid communication with the bleed air source (see figure 2A), the PRSOV controllable to be disposed in a PRSOV closed configuration or in one or more PRSOV open configurations, including a PRSOV fully open configuration and one or more PRSOV partially open configurations (see at least col. 5, line 56 to col. 3, line 11);
a circumferentially extending duct disposed at an inlet of the nacelle (116; see figure 1B);
a bleed air duct segment (258) in fluid communication with the PRSOV and the circumferentially extending duct; and
at least one controllable pressure relief valve (PRV; 246; see at least col. 6, lines 20-23) in fluid communication with the bleed air duct segment, the PRV controllable to be disposed in a PRV closed configuration or in one or more PRV open configurations, including a PRV fully open configuration and one or more PRV partially open configurations (see at least col. 6, lines 15-23), wherein the at least one controllable PRV includes an exhaust disposed to permit bleed air to exit the anti-icing system (the PRV 246 is connected to the atmosphere to dump the excessive fluid pressure, see col. 8, lines 20-25);
a controller (270; see at least col. 7, lines 4-58 for the operation of the controller) in communication with the PRSOV, the PRV, and a non-transitory memory storing instructions (see at least col. 7, lines 51-58), which instructions when executed cause the system controller to:
control the PRSOV to maintain bleed air within the anti-icing system within a predetermined range of operating pressures by selectively controlling the PRSOV into at least one of the one or more PRV open configurations, the predetermined range of operating pressures including a maximum pressure (See at least col. 7, lines 4-58); and
control the PRV to one or more of the PRV open configurations to maintain the bleed air within the anti-icing system below the maximum pressure (see at least col. 8, lines 13-25).
The Andelson et al. reference does not disclose wherein the pressure relief valve (PRV) is disposed downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve (PRSOV).
However, the Hyde et al. reference teaches a pressure regulating and distributing de-icing valve assembly for an aircraft having a pressure regulating and shut off valve (it is considered that the housing 120 contains a solenoid valve 190 and a pressure regulating structure 200) and a pressure relief valve (330) disposed downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve in order to dump air to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism (see paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a pressure relief valve downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve of the Andelson et al. reference as taught by the Hyde et al. reference in order to dump air within the bleed air duct segment downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism.
Further, the Andelson et al. reference discloses that the use of pressure relief valves are “configured to ensure the pressure of the compressed air in the bleed air system 200 or at the various pneumatic systems to which the compressed air is being delivered does not exceed a maximum design pressure” (Andelson et al.: col. 6, lines 15-20).
Therefore, it is considered that the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde reference provides for the use of the pressure relief valve to bleed the bleed air duct segment to control the pressure of the bleed air duct segment to maintain the pressure within the bleed air duct segment to be below a maximum design pressure and wherein the controller actively controls the pressure relief valve (Andelson et al.: col. 6, lines 20-23).
In regards to claim 6, the Hyde et al. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference discloses wherein the at least one PRV (Hyde et al.: 330) is in communication with a single port (Hyde et al.: see figure 6) extending off the bleed air duct (Hyde et al.: 140).
In regards to claim 7, the Hyde et al. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference discloses wherein the at least one PRV (Hyde et al.: 330) is in communication with a plurality of ports (Hyde et al.: see plurality of ports in the annotated figure 6 below) and extending off the bleed air duct (Hyde et al.: 140).
PNG
media_image1.png
894
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andelson et al. (US 11448126) in view of Hyde et al. (WO 2015/109098 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosenthal Herman A. (US 4688745).
Claim(s) 2-5 will be treated as best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference discloses the anti-icing system (Andelson et al.: 26; see figure 2A) for an aircraft nacelle structure (Andelson et al.: see col., 4, lines 20-23).
The combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde reference does not expressly disclose where the circumferentially extending duct disposed at an inlet of the nacelle is a D-duct.
However, the Rosenthal Herman A. reference teaches an anti-ice system having a bleed air duct segment (22) that diverts air from a gas turbine engine (10) to a circumferentially extending duct (the end of the bleed air duct segment 22 defines a nozzle within the circumferentially extending duct; see figures 3-7) of a nacelle structure (20) wherein the circumferentially extending duct defines a D-duct (18; see figure 2 and figure 3).
Therefore, it is considered that it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the circumferentially extending duct of the nacelle of the Andelson et al. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference as having the shape of a D-duct as taught by the Rosenthal Herman A. reference in order to support the nacelle with a bulkhead (Rosenthal Herman A.: 28) to provide additional support for the nacelle.
In regards to claim 3, the Rosenthal Herman A. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference, the Hyde et al. reference and the Rosenthal Herman A. reference discloses a bleed air distribution system disposed within the D-duct (Rosenthal Herman A.: it is considered that the nozzles at the end of the bleed air duct segment 22 define various bleed air distribution systems as depicted in figures 3-7).
In regards to claim 4, the Rosenthal Herman A. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference, the Hyde et al. reference and the Rosenthal Herman A. reference discloses wherein the bleed air distribution system includes a Piccolo tube (Rosenthal Herman A.: 62; see figure 7).
In regards to claim 5, the Rosenthal Herman A. reference of the combination of the Andelson et al. reference, the Hyde et al. reference and the Rosenthal Herman A. reference discloses wherein the bleed air distribution system includes one or more nozzles (Rosenthal Herman A.: see figures 3-7) disposed within the D-duct configured to direct bleed air in a circumferential direction within the D-duct.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasilva et al. (US 20100001138) in view of Rosenthal Herman A. (US 4688745).
In regards to claim 9, the Dasilva et al. reference discloses wherein the PRV is in fluid communication with a bleed air duct segment (52) that is in fluid communication with the PRSOV (V1).
The Dasilva et al. reference does not disclose wherein the anti-icing system includes a circumferentially extending duct disposed at the nacelle inlet; and
wherein the bleed air duct segment is in fluid communication with the circumferentially extending duct disposed at the nacelle inlet.
However, the Rosenthal Herman A. reference teaches an anti-ice system having a bleed air duct segment (22) that diverts air from a gas turbine engine (10) to a circumferentially extending duct (the end of the bleed air duct segment 22 defines a nozzle within the circumferentially extending duct; see figures 3-7) of a nacelle structure (20).
Therefore, it is considered that it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design anti-icing system of the Dasilva et al. reference with a circumferentially extending duct of the nacelle as taught by the Rosenthal Herman A. reference in order to support the nacelle with a bulkhead (Rosenthal Herman A.: 28) that receives the bleed air to the interior of the circumferentially extending duct in order to provide a desired cavity to receive the bleed air for de-icing the inlet of the nacelle
Claim(s) 10-13, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasilva et al. (US 2010000138) in view of Hyde et al. (WO 2015/109098 A1).
In regards to claim 10, the Dasilva et al. reference does not disclose wherein the step of using the PRV to maintain the bleed air within the anti-icing system below the maximum said bleed air pressure includes controlling the PRV to change from a PRV closed configuration to a PRV open configuration, and in the PRV open configuration bleed air passes through the PRV and exits the anti-icing system.
However, the Hyde et al. reference teaches a pressure regulating and distributing de-icing valve assembly for an aircraft having a pressure regulating and shut off valve (it is considered that the housing 120 contains a solenoid valve 190 and a pressure regulating structure 200) and a pressure relief valve (330) disposed downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve in order to dump air to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism (see paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pressure relief valve of the Dasilva et al. reference as taught by the Hyde et al. reference in order to dump air within the bleed air duct segment downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism.
In regards to claim 11, the Dasilva et al. reference does not disclose wherein the step of using the PRV to maintain the bleed air within the anti-icing system below the maximum said bleed air pressure includes controlling the PRV to change from a first PRV open configuration to a second PRV open configuration, and in the first PRV open configuration and in the second PRV open configuration bleed air passes through the PRV and exits the anti-icing system.
However, the Hyde et al. reference teaches a pressure regulating and distributing de-icing valve assembly for an aircraft having a pressure regulating and shut off valve (it is considered that the housing 120 contains a solenoid valve 190 and a pressure regulating structure 200) and a pressure relief valve (330) disposed downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve in order to dump air to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism (see paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pressure relief valve of the Dasilva et al. reference as taught by the Hyde et al. reference in order to dump air within the bleed air duct segment downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism.
In regards to claim 12, the Dasilva et al. reference does not disclose wherein the step of using the PRV to maintain the bleed air within the anti-icing system below the maximum said bleed air pressure includes controlling the PRV to change from a first PRV configuration to a second PRV configuration to adjust an amount of bleed air exiting the anti-icing system.
However, the Hyde et al. reference teaches a pressure regulating and distributing de-icing valve assembly for an aircraft having a pressure regulating and shut off valve (it is considered that the housing 120 contains a solenoid valve 190 and a pressure regulating structure 200) and a pressure relief valve (330) disposed downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve in order to dump air to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism (see paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pressure relief valve of the Dasilva et al. reference as taught by the Hyde et al. reference in order to dump air within the bleed air duct segment downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism.
In regards to claim 13, the Dasilva et al. reference does not disclose wherein the step of using the PRV to maintain the bleed air within the anti-icing system below the maximum said bleed air pressure includes controlling the PRV to cause said bleed air pressure within the anti-icing system to be within the predetermined operating range of said bleed air pressures.
However, the Hyde et al. reference teaches a pressure regulating and distributing de-icing valve assembly for an aircraft having a pressure regulating and shut off valve (it is considered that the housing 120 contains a solenoid valve 190 and a pressure regulating structure 200) and a pressure relief valve (330) disposed downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve in order to dump air to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism (see paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the pressure relief valve of the Dasilva et al. reference as taught by the Hyde et al. reference in order to dump air within the bleed air duct segment downstream of the pressure regulating and shut off valve to the atmosphere upon exceeding a set pressure as a safety mechanism.
In regards to claim 17, the Dasilva et al. reference discloses a bleed air duct (52).
The Dasilva et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one PRV is in communication with a single port extending off a bleed air duct in fluid communication with the PRSOV.
However, the Hyde et al. reference teaches wherein the at least one PRV (Hyde et al.: 330) is in communication with a single port (Hyde et al.: see figure 6) extending off the bleed air duct (Hyde et al.: 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the connection between the bleed air duct and the PRV of the Dasilva et al. reference as a single port as taught by the Hyde et al. reference in order to provide a desired connection to bleed air from the bleed air duct to maintain the pressure under a maximum pressure.
In regards to claim 18, the Dasilva et al. reference discloses a bleed air duct (52).
The Dasilva et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one PRV is in communication with a plurality of ports extending off a bleed air duct in fluid communication with the PRSOV.
However, the Hyde et al. reference teaches wherein the at least one PRV (Hyde et al.: 330) is in communication with a plurality of ports (Hyde et al.: see the plurality of ports in the annotated figure 6 below) extending off the bleed air duct (Hyde et al.: 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design the connection between the bleed air duct and the PRV of the Dasilva et al. reference as a plurality of ports as taught by the Hyde et al. reference in order to provide a desired connection to bleed air from the bleed air duct to maintain the pressure under a maximum pressure.
PNG
media_image1.png
894
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasilva et al. (US 20100001138) in view of Hyde et al. (WO 2015/109098 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Greenberg et al. (US 20160167792).
In regards to claim 14, the Dasilva et al. reference of the combination of the Dasilva et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference does not disclose wherein the anti-icing system includes a circumferentially extending duct disposed at an inlet of the nacelle, the circumferentially extending duct includes an interior cavity, and the anti-icing system is configured to provide said bleed air to the interior cavity.
However, the Greenberg et al. reference teaches an anti-icing system having a bleed air duct segment (68) that diverts air from a gas turbine engine (20) to a circumferentially extending duct (64) of a nacelle structure (66) with the circumferentially extending duct includes an interior cavity, and the anti-icing system is configured to provide the bleed air to the interior cavity (see at least figure 2).
Therefore, it is considered that it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design anti-icing system of the Dasilva et al. reference of the combination of the Dasilva et al. reference and the Hyde et al. reference with a circumferentially extending duct of the nacelle as taught by the Greenberg et al. reference that receives the bleed air to the interior of the circumferentially extending duct in order to provide a desired cavity to receive the bleed air for de-icing the inlet of the nacelle.
In regards to claim 15, the Dasilva et al. reference of the combination of the Dasilva et al. reference, the Hyde et al. reference and the Greenberg et al. reference discloses wherein the anti-icing system includes a sensor (Dasilva et al.: P1, P2; Greenberg et al.: 78, 86, 94) configured to produce signals representative of the bleed air pressure within the anti-icing system, and the PRV is controlled to cause the bleed air pressure within the anti-icing system to be within the predetermined range of operating pressures.
In regards to claim 16, the Greenberg et al. reference of the combination of the Dasilva et al. reference, the Hyde et al. reference and the Greenberg et al. reference discloses wherein the sensor is configured to sense the bleed air pressure within the interior cavity of the circumferentially extending duct disposed at an inlet of the nacelle (Greenberg et al.: sensor 86 senses the pressure in the interior cavity), and the PRV is controlled using the signals representative of the bleed air pressure to cause the bleed air pressure within the interior cavity of the circumferentially extending duct to be within the predetermined operating range of bleed air pressures (Greenberg et al.: the sensors are connected to a controller 88 to control the valves 70, 72).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pirat (US 9346549), Chilukuri (US 6354538), Vest (US 6267328), Porte (US 6079670), Lohman et al. (US 20200346766) and Kestler et al. (US 20200346764) disclose various de-icing systems that include providing a bleed air duct segment connected to a circumferentially extending duct in a nacelle inlet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753