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 (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.
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 2, 4-10, 12, 16-18 and 20 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 2 recites the limitation "the at least one turbine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the at least one turbine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 further recites “a first turbine” and “a second turbine” in line 2. This is double recitation. It is unclear whether these are the same or differ from “a first turbine” and “a second turbine” recited in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 5 recites “an inlet of the second turbine”. This is double recitation. It is unclear whether this are the same or differ from “an inlet of the second turbine” recited in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one turbine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one turbine" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the turbine" in line 5 and line 11; “the second turbine” in lines “6-7” and “the electric generator” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17-18 each recites the limitation "the turbine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the another turbine" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burd (US 2022/0333533 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burd teaches a cooling system for an aircraft capable of travelling at hypersonic speeds, the cooling system comprising:
an inlet (522) configured to receive a first medium (see fluid flow path 520) (Fig. 5, para. 0058);
a thermodynamic device fluidly connected to the inlet (Fig. 5), the thermodynamic device including a first turbine (524), a second turbine (526) and a compressor (528) operably coupled via a shaft (536, 532) (Fig. 5; para. 0058), wherein an outlet of the at the first turbine is directly fluidly connected to an inlet of the compressor and to an inlet of the second turbine (Fig. 5, note that the same medium that enters the second turbine 526 is the same medium that enters the compressor); and
an electric generator (534) operably coupled to at least one of the first turbine and the first turbine and second turbine (Fig. 5, para. 0058).
Regarding claim 4, Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Burd further teaches the at least one turbine further comprises a first turbine (524) and a second turbine (526), the first turbine and the second turbine being arranged in series relative to a flow of medium (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 4. Burd further teaches an inlet of the second turbine is directly fluidly connected to the outlet of the first turbine (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 4. Burd further teaches the outlet of the first turbine is directly fluidly connected to the inlet of the compressor (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 6. Burd further teaches the compressor and the second turbine are arranged in parallel relative to the outlet of the first turbine (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Burd further teaches the electric generator is operably coupled to at least one electrical load (ACS, VACS and/ ECS) of the aircraft (para. 0003).
Regarding claim 12, Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Burd further teaches the at least one turbine is operable to extract a first energy from the first medium, the compressor is operable to use a second energy, and the electric generator is operable to use a third energy, the first energy being generally equal to the second energy and the third energy when combined (Fig. 5, para. 0047).
Regarding claim 14, Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Burd further teaches the first medium is a bleed air (para. 0058).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burd in view of Ho et al. (US 2021/0001992 A1) hereinafter Ho.
Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Burd fails to teach a heat exchanger, the heat exchanger being arranged upstream from the at least one turbine relative to a flow of the first medium and; a heat exchanger, the heat exchanger being arranged upstream from the thermodynamic device relative to a flow of the first medium.
However, Ho teaches a cooling system for an aircraft comprising an inlet (26) configured to receive a first medium (A2) (Fig. 1, para. 0037), a thermodynamic device fluidly connected to the inlet (Fig. 1), the thermodynamic device comprises a first turbine (46) configured to receive the first medium (Fig. 1), a compressor (42) and a second turbine (46) (Fig. 1, para. 0041). Ho further teaches a heat exchanger (36), the heat exchanger being arranged upstream from the at least one turbine relative to a flow of the first medium (Fig. 1, para. 0039) and;
a heat exchanger (36), the heat exchanger being arranged upstream from the thermodynamic device relative to a flow of the first medium (Fig. 1, para. 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Burd by including a heat exchanger in the cooling system as taught by Ho in order to cool the first medium entering the first turbine.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burd in view of Zywiak (US 6,615,606 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 4. Burd fails to teach a heat exchanger, the heat exchanger being arranged downstream from the at least one turbine relative to a flow of the first medium.
However, Zywiak teaches a cooling system comprising a first turbine (22), a second turbine (24) and a compressor (20) arranged on a common shaft (Col. 2, line 59-Col. 3, line 4; Fig. 1). Zywiak further teaches a heat exchanger (58), the heat exchanger being arranged downstream from the at least one turbine relative to a flow of a medium (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 44-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Burd by providing a heater exchanger downstream of the second turbine as taught by Zywiak in order warm the medium exiting the second turbine (Zywiak; Col. Col. 4, lines 44-52).
Regarding claim 9, Burd as modified by Zywiak teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 9. Burd as modified by Zywiak further teaches the heat exchanger is arranged directly downstream from an outlet of the second turbine (Zywiak, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burd in view of Dierksmeier (US 2019/0234308 A1).
Burd teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Burd does not specifically state the first medium at the inlet temperature has a temperature of at least 1000°F and the first medium is fresh air
However, Dierksmeier teaches a cooling system for an aircraft capable of travelling at hypersonic speeds comprising an inlet (46) to receive a first medium and a thermodynamic device including a turbine (48) (air at high-temperature enters the inlet (46) and then enters the turbine (48) and the air exiting the turbine has a lower temperature; para. 0031; Figs. 3-4). Dierksmeier further teaches the first medium is a fresh air has a temperature of at least 1000°F (para. 0029).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Burd such that the first medium is a fresh air has a temperature of at least 1000°F as the high temperature increases the energy extracted from the turbine.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burd in view Zywiak and further in view of Coffinberry (US 8,789,376).
Burd as modified by Zywiak teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 9. Burd does not teach a second medium is arranged in a heat transfer relationship with the first medium within the heat exchanger and the second medium is fuel.
However, Coffinberry teaches a cooling system for an aircraft capable of travelling at hypersonic speed, the cooling system comprising:
an inlet (74) configured to receive a first medium (Fig. 1);
a thermodynamic device fluidly connected to the inlet, the thermodynamic device including at least one turbine (52) and a compressor (50) operably coupled via a shaft (56), wherein an outlet (75) of the at least one turbine is directly fluidly connected to an inlet of the compressor (Fig. 1; Col. 5, line 59-Col. 6, line 24) and
an electric generator (120) operably coupled to the at least one turbine (Fig. 1).
Coffinberry further teaches a second medium (38) is arranged in a heat transfer relationship with the first medium within a heat exchanger and the second medium is fuel (38) (Fig.1, Col. 6, line 62-Col. 7, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a second medium in the cooling system as taught by Coffinberry in order to increase cooling efficiency.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burd in view of Vignali (US 2023/0408153 A1) and further in view of Dierksmeier.
Regarding claim 16, Burd teaches a method of cooling a medium comprising:
providing a first medium (see fluid flow path 520) (Fig. 5, para. 0058);
extracting energy from the first medium to form an expanded first medium (medium in first turbine 524 is expanded to form a first expanded medium; Fig. 5, para. 0058);
extracting energy from the expanded first medium within the second turbine (526), wherein the energy extracted from the expanded first medium within the second turbine is use to drive the compressor and the electrical generator (Fig. 5, para. 0058).
compressing at least a portion of the expanded first medium via a compressor (528) (Fig. 5; para. 0058), wherein an inlet of the compressor and an inlet of the second turbine (526) are directly fluidly connected to an outlet of the first turbine (Fig. 5, note that the same medium that enters the second turbine 526 is the same medium that enters the compressor).
Burd does not teach the first medium at the inlet has a temperature of at least 1000°F and that the extracted energy of the first medium within the second turbine is extracted from another portion of the first medium.
However, Vignali discloses a cooling system comprising a turbine (28), a compressor (26) and motor (Fig. 1; para. 0028). Vignali teaches extracting energy from a portion of a medium (A) to form an expanded medium (A2) (Fig. 1, paras. 0032-0033). Here is the teaching that extracting an energy from a portion of a medium is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Burd such that the extracted energy of the first medium within the second turbine is extracted from another portion of the first medium as taught by Vignali in order to use the same medium to cool other parts of the cooling system.
Burd as modified by Vignali does not teach the first medium at the inlet has a temperature of at least 1000°F.
However, Dierksmeier teaches a cooling system for an aircraft capable of travelling at hypersonic speeds comprising an inlet (46) to receive a first medium and a thermodynamic device including a turbine (48) (air at high-temperature enters the inlet (46) and then enters the turbine (48) and the air exiting the turbine has a lower temperature; para. 0031; Figs. 3-4). Dierksmeier further teaches the first medium is a fresh air has a temperature of at least 1000°F (para. 0029).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Burd such that the first medium has a temperature of at least 1000°F in as the high temperature increases the energy extracted from the turbine.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burd in view of Vignali and further in view of Dierksmeier and further in view of Ho.
Burd as modified by Vignali and Dierksmeier teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 16 but fails to teach cooling the first medium prior to extracting energy from the first medium within the turbine.
However, Ho teaches a cooling system for an aircraft comprising an inlet (26) configured to receive a first medium (A2) (Fig. 1, para. 0037), a thermodynamic device fluidly connected to the inlet (Fig. 1), the thermodynamic device comprises a first turbine (46) configured to receive the first medium (Fig. 1), a compressor (42) and a second turbine (46) (Fig. 1, para. 0041). Ho further teaches a heat exchanger (36), the heat exchanger being arranged upstream from the at least one turbine relative to a flow of the first medium (Fig. 1, para. 0039). Ho further teaches cooling (via the heat exchanger) the first medium prior to extracting energy from the first medium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Burd by including the heat exchanger as taught by Ho in order to cool the first medium.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burd in view of Vignali and further in view of Dierksmeier and further in view of Zywiak.
Burd as modified by Vignali and Dierksmeier teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 16 but fails to teach cooling the first medium after the extracting energy from the first medium within the turbine and cooling the first medium after the extracting energy from the expanded first medium within the another turbine.
However, Zywiak teaches a cooling system comprising a first turbine (22), a second turbine (24) and a compressor (20) arranged on a common shaft (Col. 2, line 59-Col. 3, line 4; Fig. 1). Zywiak further teaches a heat exchanger (58), the heat exchanger being arranged downstream from the at least one turbine relative to a flow of a medium (Fig. 1; Col. 4, lines 44-52). Zywiak further teaches cooling the first medium after the extracting energy from the first medium within the turbine and cooling the first medium after the extracting energy from the expanded first medium within the another turbine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Burd by providing a heater exchanger downstream of the second turbine as taught by Zywiak in order to cool the medium exiting the second turbine (Zywiak; Col. Col. 4, lines 44-52).
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 MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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, NATHANIEL E WIEHE can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights