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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2023 and 06/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a heat exchanger” recited in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 7, 14, 17-18 and 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the term “a relatively hotter medium” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “surge relief air" in line 4 which is confusing as it is unclear whether it is the same or different than in lines 2-3 of claim 12 above.
Claim 17 recites the term “a relatively hotter medium” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 calls for the recitation of “ a low altitude” which word low is constituted a relative term with no specific range of value of height in the spec for what constitute low altitude. As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the term “a relatively hotter medium” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 19 recites the term “a second operating mode” which supposed to cited after the first operating mode.
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 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.
Claims 12-13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruno et al. (US 2022/0169393).
In regards to claim 12, Bruno discloses a method of operating an aircraft air supply system (an environment control system, ECS 20) in a first operating mode, the method comprising: pressurizing (par. 33), using a compressor (42), a flow of outside air (A1 is fresh air, such as outside air; par. 27); evacuating an amount of the pressurized air from the compressor (42) as surge relief air via a surge relief pathway (via V5) to prevent surging of the compressor (42), the surge relief pathway fluidly connected to an outflow pathway (cabin discharge air from 28 via V6 and 60 to turbine 46) and a turbine (44/46) of the air supply system; depressurizing, using the turbine (46), the surge relief air; and powering, using the turbine, the compressor (42) using energy recovered from depressurizing the surge relief air (Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 13, Bruno meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 12. Further, Bruno teaches wherein evacuating the amount of the pressurized air from the compressor (42) comprises: opening a surge relief valve (surge control valve V5) disposed within the surge relief pathway to permit the surge relief air (via V5) to flow therethrough (as can be seen in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 15, Bruno meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 12. Further, Bruno teaches and further comprising: providing the amount of pressurized air (from compressor 42) to a heat exchanger (an outflow heat exchanger 60) of an environmental control system pack (par. 27) prior to evacuating the amount of the pressurized air from the compressor (42).
In regards to claim 16, Bruno meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 12. Further, Bruno teaches wherein the step of depressurizing (cooled, reduced pressure first medium A1 output from the turbine 44; par. 45) the surge relief air cools the surge relief air (air pass via V5).
In regards to claim 18, Bruno meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 12. Further, Bruno teaches wherein the first operational mode (first mode) is a low altitude or ground operational mode (first mode when the aircraft is on the ground).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BOEING (GB 768975, see attached doc.).
In regards to claim 19, BOEING discloses a method of operating an aircraft air supply system (Fig. 1) in a second operating mode, the method comprising: providing outflow air (via conduit 28) from a cabin (18) of the aircraft to a turbine (30); depressurizing, using the turbine (30), the outflow air to cool the outflow air; and placing the cooled outflow air (via conduit 32) in thermal communication with (within after cooler 16) a relatively hotter medium of an aircraft system (air from compressor 13) to cool the relatively hotter medium.
In regards to claim 20, BOEING meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 19. Further, BOEING teaches wherein the second operational mode is a cruise operational mode (page 3, lines 51-60; Fig. 1).
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Bruno et al. (US 2022/0169393) in view of BEMMENT et al.
(US 2020/0025073 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Bruno discloses an aircraft air supply system (an environment control system, ECS 20) for generating pressurized air, the air supply system (20) comprising: a compressor (42) configured to receive and pressurize (par. 33) a flow of outside air (A1 is fresh air, such as outside air; par. 27); a turbine (44, 46) operatively coupled to the compressor (42) by a shaft (48) and configured to drive the compressor (42); a fluid pathway (via 60, CV and 62) fluidly connecting the compressor (42) to an environmental control system pack (par, 27); an outflow pathway (cabin discharge air from 28 via V6 and 60 to turbine 46) fluidly connecting a cabin (24) of the aircraft to the turbine (46); a surge relief pathway (via V5) fluidly connecting the compressor (42) to the outflow pathway and the turbine (44/46); and a surge relief valve (surge control valve V5) disposed within the surge relief pathway (via V5), wherein in a first operational state, the surge relief valve (V5) is open to allow a flow of surge relief air to flow from the compressor (refer to par. 38).
Bruno fails to explicitly teach wherein in a first operational state, the surge relief valve is open to allow a flow of surge relief air to flow from the compressor to the outflow pathway via the surge relief pathway, the surge relief air further flowing through the turbine. BEMMENT teaches aircraft systems (Fig. 2) wherein in a first operational state, the surge relief valve (34) is open to allow a flow of surge relief air (via duct 28) to flow from the compressor (14/15) to the outflow pathway (path towards air starter turbine 30) via the surge relief pathway (34), the surge relief air (via duct 28) further flowing through the turbine (30).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bruno such that in a first operational state, the surge relief valve is open to allow a flow of surge relief air to flow from the compressor to the outflow pathway via the surge relief pathway, the surge relief air further flowing through the turbine as taught by BEMMENT in order to reduce noise significantly, and weight savings may also be achieved, since the handling bleed valve 26 could be reduced in size, or deleted entirely (refer to par. 45 of BEMMENT).
In regards to claim 3, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Bruno teaches and further comprising: a motor mounted on the shaft (48) and configured to drive the compressor (refer to par. 33 of Bruno and par. 29 of Sipprell).
In regards to claim 4, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Bruno teaches and further comprising: an inlet pathway (a first inlet 22) fluidly connecting the compressor (42) to a source of the outside air (refer to par. 41).
In regards to claim 8, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 7. Further, Bruno teaches wherein the surge relief pathway is disposed downstream of a heat exchanger (an outflow heat exchanger 60) of the environmental control system pack (par. 27) to indirectly fluidly connect the compressor (42) to the outflow pathway (cabin discharge air from 28 via V6 and 60 to turbine 46).
In regards to claim 9, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach wherein in the first operational state, the turbine receives and expands the surge relief air, cooling the surge relief air, and wherein the cooled surge relief air is provided to the environmental control system pack via the outflow pathway.
BEMMENT teaches aircraft systems (Fig. 2) wherein in the first operational state, the turbine (air starter turbine 30) receives and expands the surge relief air (via duct 28), cooling the surge relief air, and wherein the cooled surge relief air is provided to the environmental control system pack (air cycle machine air conditioning unit 35) via the outflow pathway (path towards air starter turbine 30).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bruno such that in the first operational state, the turbine receives and expands the surge relief air, cooling the surge relief air, and wherein the cooled surge relief air is provided to the environmental control system pack via the outflow pathway as taught by BEMMENT in order to reduce noise significantly, and weight savings may also be achieved, since the handling bleed valve 26 could be reduced in size, or deleted entirely (refer to par. 45 of BEMMENT).
In regards to claim 10, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Bruno teaches wherein the surge relief pathway (via V5) directly fluidly connects the compressor (42) to the outflow pathway.
In regards to claim 11, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Bruno teaches wherein the outside air (A1) is one of ambient air and ram air (refer to par. 27).
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno et al. (US 2022/0169393) in view of BEMMENT et al. (US 2020/0025073 A1), further in view of Sipprell (US 2021/0380269).
In regards to claim 2, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach and further comprising: a check valve disposed within the outflow pathway downstream of the cabin, the check valve operable to prevent a backflow of surge relief air into the cabin during the first operational state.
Sipprell teaches aircraft systems (Fig. 8) and further comprising: a check valve (a check valve 62) disposed within the outflow pathway downstream of the cabin (12), the check valve (62) operable to prevent a backflow of surge relief air into the cabin during the first operational state (refer to par. 27).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bruno such that further comprising: a check valve disposed within the outflow pathway downstream of the cabin, the check valve operable to prevent a backflow of surge relief air into the cabin during the first operational state as taught by Sipprell in order to decrease aircraft drag, as well as an increase in overall aircraft performance and efficiency (refer to par. 5 of Sipprell).
In regards to claim 5, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the outflow pathway fluidly connects the cabin and the turbine to an aircraft system. Sipprell teaches aircraft systems (Fig. 8) wherein the outflow pathway fluidly connects the cabin (12) and the turbine (a turbine/compressor 18) to an aircraft system (Figs. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bruno such that wherein the outflow pathway fluidly connects the cabin and the turbine to an aircraft system as taught by Sipprell in order to decrease aircraft drag, as well as an increase in overall aircraft performance and efficiency (refer to par. 5 of Sipprell).
In regards to claim 6, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, Bruno teaches wherein in a second operation state (second mode), the turbine (46) receives and expands the cabin outflow air (cabin discharge air from 28 via V6 and 60 to turbine 46), cooling the cabin outflow air, and wherein the cooled cabin outflow air is provided to the aircraft system via the outflow pathway (refer to par. 47).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno et al.
(US 2022/0169393) in view of Sipprell (US 2021/0380269).
In regards to claim 14, Bruno meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 13, but fails to explicitly teach and further comprising: closing a check valve disposed downstream of a cabin of the aircraft within the outflow pathway to prevent backflow of surge relief air into the cabin. Sipprell teaches aircraft systems and method (Fig. 8) and further comprising: closing a check valve (a check valve 62) disposed downstream of a cabin (12) of the aircraft within the outflow pathway to prevent a backflow of surge relief air into the cabin (refer to par. 27).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bruno such that further comprising: closing a check valve disposed downstream of a cabin of the aircraft within the outflow pathway to prevent backflow of surge relief air into the cabin as taught by Sipprell in order to decrease aircraft drag, as well as an increase in overall aircraft performance and efficiency (refer to par. 5 of Sipprell).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bruno et al. (US 2022/0169393) in view of BEMMENT et al. (US 2020/0025073 A1),
further in view of BOEING (GB 768975).
In regards to claim 7, Bruno as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 6, but fails to explicitly teach wherein within the aircraft system, the cooled cabin outflow air is placed in thermal exchange relationship with a relatively hotter medium to cool the relatively hotter medium. BOEING teaches wherein within the aircraft system (Fig. 1), the cooled cabin outflow air (via conduit 28) is placed in thermal exchange relationship with (within after cooler 16) a relatively hotter medium (air from compressor 13) to cool the relatively hotter medium.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bruno such that further comprising: closing a check valve disposed downstream of a cabin of the aircraft within the outflow pathway to prevent backflow of surge relief air into the cabin as taught by BOEING in order to operate as higher efficiency and to have simpler apparatus requirements (refer to page 2, lines 56-64 of BOEING).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bruno et al. (US 2022/0169393) in view of BOEING (GB 768975, see attached doc.).
In regards to claim 17, Bruno meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 16, but fails to explicitly teach and further comprising: placing the cooled surge relief air in thermal communication with a relatively hotter medium of an aircraft system to cool the relatively hotter medium. BOEING teaches and further comprising: placing the cooled surge relief air in thermal communication with a relatively hotter medium (air from compressor 13) of an aircraft system to cool the relatively hotter medium.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bruno such that further comprising: placing the cooled surge relief air in thermal communication with a relatively hotter medium of an aircraft system to cool the relatively hotter medium as taught by BOEING in order to operate as higher efficiency and to have simpler apparatus requirements (refer to page 2, lines 56-64 of BOEING).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST. 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.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights