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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to propeller gearbox” appears to be in error for “to a propeller gearbox”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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: “pressurization and temperature control systems” (i.e. systems [generic placeholder] for pressurization and temperature control [functional language]) in claims 1-12; and “heat exchange systems” (i.e. systems [generic placeholder] for heat exchange [functional language]) in claims 1, 5-15.
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. In the case of “pressurization and temperature control systems”, please see below. In the case of “heat exchange systems”, the corresponding structure(s) are found to be at least one heat exchanger.
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.
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 1-12 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 limitation “pressurization and temperature control systems” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-11 and 12 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on or incorporate claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 2-4 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 “wherein the at least one heat exchange system comprises respective heat exchangers which exchange heat from the heated compressed air with a hydrogen (H2) flow to the fuel cell, a coolant supplied to the fuel cell and/or external ram air impinging on a wing of the aircraft”. It is unclear how many heat exchangers are required since Applicant uses “or” as an option, which would only require one respective heat exchanger. It is believed that Applicant intended for at least two of the options based on the plural use of heat exchangers. Claims 3-4 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 2 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 3-4 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 3 recites the limitation “the flight conditions of the aircraft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is believed Applicant should refer to “flight conditions”. Claim 4 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 3 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation “wherein the heat exchanger which exchanges heat from the heated compressed air with external ram air impinging on a wing of the aircraft comprising a thermal anti-icing system associated with a leading edge of a wing of the aircraft, the heated compressed air being directed to the anti- icing system so as to heat the leading edge of the wing whereby cooled compressed air is discharged from the anti-icing system”. This limitation is unclear in that the heat exchanger which exchanges heat from the heated compressed air with external ram air impinging on a wing of the aircraft is not required by claim 2, upon which claim 4 depends. Additionally, “comprising a thermal anti-icing system associated with a leading edge of a wing” is unclear. First “comprising” appears to be in error for “is comprising” or “comprises” and is “a wing” the same or different from the earlier recited wing?
Claims 5-9 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 5 recites the limitations “which comprises: first and second compressors and first and second turbines” and “first shaft” and “second shaft”. It is unclear if these are a part of or in addition to the “at least one compressor”, “at least one turbine”, and “at least one shaft” of claim 1. It is believed that they are each a part of the “at least one” and that the claim should be amended to reflect this. Additionally, claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the second compressor and the second compressor are connected together by a second shaft”. It is unclear how the second compressor can be connected to itself. It is believed that Applicant intended for the second compressor and the second turbine to be so connected. Claims 6-9 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 5 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claims 8-9 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 8 recites the limitation “wherein the first and second shafts are interconnected by a shaft gearbox”. Claim 7 has already recited such a limitation. It is, therefore unclear if the limitation is redundant or if the limitation is intended to require a second gearbox. It is believed to be redundant. Claim 9 is rejected insofar as it is dependent on claim 8 and therefore includes the same error(s).
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitations “wherein the air system further comprises: first and second compressors and first and second turbines”. It is unclear if these are a part of or in addition to the “at least one compressor”, and “at least one turbine” of claim 1. It is believed that they are each a part of the “at least one” and that the claim should be amended to reflect this. Additionally, claim 11 recites the limitation “so as to supply heated compressed air to the port side heat exchanger” and “recites cooled compressed air from the port side heat exchanger”. Is the heated compressed air and cooled compressed air the same or different from that of claim 1? Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the port side heat exchanger” since it has not been established that the port side heat exchange system has a port side heat exchanger. Additionally claim 11 recites the limitation “the second compressor supplying heated compressed air to the starboard side heat exchanger” and “receiving cooled compressed air from the starboard side heat exchanger”. Is the heated compressed air and cooled compressed air the same or different from that of claim 1? Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the starboard side heat exchanger” since it has not been established that the starboard side heat exchange system has a starboard side heat exchanger. It is recommended to recite the respective heat exchangers with their respective heat exchanger systems. It is also believed that the compressed heated/cooled air corresponds with that of claim 1.
Claim 12 is 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 12 refers to “a fuel cell powered propeller aircraft which comprises the air system according to claim 1”. Claim 1 refers to a fuel cell, an aircraft, etc. It is unclear whether the fuel cell powered aircraft of claim 12 is the same or different from that referenced in claim 1 and/or which portions, i.e. fuel cell, etc. would be the same or different from that of claim 1.
Claim 13-15 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 13 recites the limitation “from the at least one heat exchanger”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it has not been established that the at least one heat exchanger system has a heat exchanger. Applicant should recite the heat exchanger with the heat exchanger system before referring back to it. Claims 14-15 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on or incorporate claim 13 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim 15 is 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 15 refers to “a fuel cell powered propeller aircraft which comprises the air system according to claim 13”. Claim 13 refers to a fuel cell, an aircraft, etc. It is unclear whether the fuel cell powered aircraft of claim 15 is the same or different from that referenced in claim 13 and/or which portions, i.e. fuel cell, etc. would be the same or different from that of claim 13.
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.
(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) 1-6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke et al. (US 2022/0055762).
Regarding claim 1, Clarke et al. shows an air system (see at least system #1000) for a fuel cell powered aircraft (see at least aircraft #10) comprising:
at least one compressor for supplying heated compressed air (see at least compressor #2108/#2112);
at least one heat exchange system for receiving the heated compressed air and from the at least one compressor and discharging cooled compressed air (see at least heat exchanger within stack #2103; flow to “Aircraft Systems”: Examiner notes that the heat exchangers are arranged downstream of the compressor(s) and thus are presumed capable of meeting “for…”);
at least one turbine for receiving the cooled compressed air from the heat exchange system and directing the cooled compressed air to on-board aircraft cabin pressurization and temperature control systems (see at least turbine #2104 receiving air from at least one of the above heat exchangers and indirectly supplying flow to “Aircraft Systems” and “stack #2103, thus turbine #2104 is presumed capable of meeting “for…”);
at least one shaft operatively interconnecting the at least one compressor and the at least one turbine (see at least turbine #2104 and compressor #2108 are connected to the same shaft); and
an electric motor adapted to being powered by electrical power supplied by an on-board fuel cell of the aircraft, the electric motor being operatively connected to the shaft interconnecting the at least one compressor and the at least one turbine so as to operatively cause the shaft to drive the at least one compressor and the at least one turbine (see at least paragraph [0048]: turbine #2104 receives power from fuel cell stack #2103 which is indicative of an electric motor).
Regarding claim 2, Clarke et al. further shows wherein the at least one heat exchange system comprises respective heat exchangers which exchange heat from the heated compressed air with a hydrogen (H2) flow to the fuel cell, a coolant supplied to the fuel cell and/or external ram air impinging on a wing of the aircraft (see at least flow within stack #2103 and “deicing” within “aircraft systems”).
Regarding claim 3, Clarke et al. further shows which further comprises a selector/mixing valve for selectively directing the heated compressed air to one of the heat exchangers in dependence upon the flight conditions of the aircraft (see at least paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Clarke et al. further shows wherein the heat exchanger which exchanges heat from the heated compressed air with external ram air impinging on a wing of the aircraft comprising a thermal anti-icing system associated with a leading edge of a wing of the aircraft, the heated compressed air being directed to the anti- icing system so as to heat the leading edge of the wing whereby cooled compressed air is discharged from the anti-icing system (see at least paragraph [0046]: the deicing heat exchanger selectively receives heated air and selectively discharges the air).
Regarding claim 5, Clarke et al. further shows which comprises: first and second compressors and first and second turbines (see at least left and right systems #1000, each having compressor(s) and turbine(s) as in claim 1),
wherein
the first compressor and the first turbine are interconnected by a first shaft (see at least i.e. left (port) side shaft of claim 1), and wherein
the second compressor and the second compressor are connected together by a second shaft (see at least i.e. right (starboard) side shaft of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Clarke et al. further shows wherein the at least one heat exchange system comprises port and starboard side heat exchange systems (see at least Figure 1, port and starboard systems #1000), and wherein the first and second compressors respectively supply heated compressed air to the port and starboard side heat exchange systems (see at least Figure 1: port and starboard systems respectively supply port and starboard sides as in claim 1), and wherein the port and starboard side heat exchange systems respectively supply cooled compressed air to the first and second turbines (see at least Figure 1: port and starboard systems respectively supply port and starboard sides as in claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Clarke et al. further shows wherein the electric motor is adapted to being operatively coupled to a propeller gearbox associated with a propeller of the aircraft, and wherein the at least one shaft is connected to the propeller gearbox (see at least propellor # 2116 operatively connected to the turbine motor driven by the fuel cell stack via the primary electric power unit also driven by the fuel cell stack).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2023/0365263).
Regarding claim 1, Wang shows an air system (see at least system #100) for a fuel cell powered aircraft (see at least aircraft #10) comprising:
at least one compressor for supplying heated compressed air (see at least compressor #116/#126);
at least one heat exchange system for receiving the heated compressed air and from the at least one compressor and discharging cooled compressed air (see at least heat exchangers #124/#134/#166/flow within stack #156: Examiner notes that the heat exchangers are arranged downstream of the compressor(s) and thus are presumed capable of meeting “for…”);
at least one turbine for receiving the cooled compressed air from the heat exchange system and directing the cooled compressed air to on-board aircraft cabin pressurization and temperature control systems (see at least turbine #128 receiving air from at least one of the above heat exchangers and supplying cabin air flow delivery system #108, thus turbine #128 is presumed capable of meeting “for…”);
at least one shaft operatively interconnecting the at least one compressor and the at least one turbine (see at least shaft #130); and
an electric motor adapted to being powered by electrical power supplied by an on-board fuel cell of the aircraft, the electric motor being operatively connected to the shaft interconnecting the at least one compressor and the at least one turbine so as to operatively cause the shaft to drive the at least one compressor and the at least one turbine (see at least electric motor #118 on shaft #130 and receiving power from fuel cell stack #156).
Regarding claim 2, Wang further shows wherein the at least one heat exchange system comprises respective heat exchangers which exchange heat from the heated compressed air with a hydrogen (H2) flow to the fuel cell, a coolant supplied to the fuel cell and/or external ram air impinging on a wing of the aircraft (see at least humidifier exchanger #166 and flow within stack #156, which meet at least two of the above).
Regarding claim 3, Wang further shows which further comprises a selector/mixing valve for selectively directing the heated compressed air to one of the heat exchangers in dependence upon the flight conditions of the aircraft (see at least valve #164; paragraph [0099]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke et al. (US 2022/0055762).
Regarding claim 12, Clarke et al. shows a fuel cell powered propeller aircraft (see at least aircraft #10) which comprises the air system according to claim 1 (see at least rejection of claim 1, above)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2023/0365263).
Regarding claim 12, Wang shows a fuel cell powered propeller aircraft (see at least aircraft #10; paragraph [0029]) which comprises the air system according to claim 1 (see at least rejection of claim 1, above).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lents et al. (US 2017/0170494).
Regarding claim 13, Lents et al. shows an air system for a fuel cell powered aircraft (see at least Abstract; Title) comprising:
at least one compressor for supplying heated compressed air (see at least compressor #34);
at least one heat exchange system for receiving the heated compressed air and from the at least one compressor and discharging cooled compressed air (see at least within fuel cell #46 and ecs #56);
a vapor cycle machine which receives the cooled compressed air from the at least one heat exchanger, the VCM being adapted to supply pressurization and environmental air to an aircraft cabin (see at least ecs #56; see also at least paragraph [0029]: if ecs #56 includes both the air cycle machine and the vapor cycle machine, an additional heat exchanger will be present); and
an electric motor adapted to being powered by electrical power supplied by an on-board fuel cell of the aircraft, the electric motor being operatively connected to the at least one compressor (see at least motor #36; see also paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Lents et al. further shows which further comprises at least one turbine and at least one shaft interconnecting the at least one turbine with the at least one compressor and the electric motor (see at least turbine #38 on shaft #40; paragraph [0019]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brinson et al. (US 2018/0045068).
Regarding claim 5, Wang does not disclose which comprises: first and second compressors and first and second turbines, wherein the first compressor and the first turbine are interconnected by a first shaft, and wherein the second compressor and the second compressor are connected together by a second shaft.
Brinson et al. teaches another aircraft which comprises first and second compressors (see at least compressors # 21/#110) and first and second turbines (see at least turbines #31/#112), wherein the first compressor and the first turbine are interconnected by a first shaft (see at least shaft #168), and wherein the second compressor and the second compressor are connected together by a second shaft (see at least shaft #35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the aircraft of Wang with which comprises: first and second compressors and first and second turbines, wherein the first compressor and the first turbine are interconnected by a first shaft, and wherein the second compressor and the second compressor are connected together by a second shaft, as taught by Brinson et al., to improve the aircraft of Wang by allowing for the first and second compressor/turbine assemblies to power/act on different aircraft systems.
Regarding claim 7, Wang as modified by Brinson et al. further discloses further comprising a shaft gearbox interconnecting the first and second shafts (see at least Brinson et al. gearbox #47).
Regarding claim 8, Wang as modified by Brinson et al. further discloses wherein the electric motor is adapted to being operatively coupled to a propeller gearbox associated with a propeller of the aircraft (see at least Brinson et al. electrical motor #156 connected to propeller #170; Examiner notes that gearbox is inherent to propeller), and wherein the first shaft is connected to the propeller gearbox (see at least Brinson et al. shaft #168), and wherein the first and second shafts are interconnected by a shaft gearbox (see at least Brinson et al. gearbox #47).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lents et al. (US 2017/0170494) in view of Clarke et al. (US 2022/0055762).
Regarding claim 15, Lents et al. discloses a fuel cell powered aircraft (see at least Abstract; Title) which comprises the air system according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13, above).
Lents et al. does not disclose that the aircraft is a propeller aircraft.
However, there are only a finite number of aircraft types available to one having ordinary skill in the art. In this regard, it is noted that Clarke et al. teaches another fuel cell powered aircraft wherein the aircraft is a propeller aircraft (see at least Figure 1; Figure 2).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the aircraft of Lents et al. as a propeller aircraft, since as taught by Clarke et al., such is a suitable and known aircraft type for a fuel cell powered aircraft (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)): such would provide the predictable benefit of allowing for the both the environmental system and propulsion systems to be driven by a fuel cell stack.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Absent impermissible hindsight, the prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose the subject matter of claims 9 and 11 in combination with the features of the preceding claims. Specifically with regard to claim 9, there is no reason or motivation to modify the prior art to add a generator to the second shaft. Specifically with regard to claim 11, the prior art fails to teach the combination and interconnection of port and starboard heat exchange systems with shafts/subshafts associated with first/second compressors/turbines, propeller, and generator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights