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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 10/02/2025. Claim 3 is cancelled. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4-13 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (EP2644508B1) in view of Grilletto et al. (US5603892A) and Klassen (US20180001124A1)
Regarding Claims 1, Bray teaches a cryogenic system [cooling system 10, Figure 1] configured to cool down at least one electrical or electronic component [electrical component 12, Figure 1;0010] on-board an aircraft [aircraft 100, Figure 2], the cryogenic system comprising:
a cryogenic fluid storage tank [where supply 14 may be fuel tank 126 of aircraft 100, Figure 2; 0011],
a thermal coupling system [heat sink 16, Figure 1] able to thermally connect the cryogenic fluid storage tank and a housing [where heat sink 16 connects to supply 14 through conduit system 18 and may engage a thermal interface material engaged with the electrical component 12, Figure 1;0012;0013].
Bray does not teach a main inert fluid tank configured to deliver an inert fluid, the main inert fluid comprising at least one chemical element belonging to a family of inert gas or to nitrogen, a first opening connected to the main inert fluid tank, each opening enabling a fluid to pass from inside to outside the housing, an intermediate inert fluid storage tank connected between the main inert fluid tank and the first opening, and means configured to inject the inert fluid into the housing at a first predefined pressure value.
However, Klassen teaches systems and processes for providing inerting systems that supply inert gas to electrical compartments that house electrical components [0022] including a housing [compartments 14A-E, containing electrical component;0027-0032], the housing being airtight [where the compartments 14 may be sealed so that fluid communication is only permitted by ducts and valves;0033] and being arranged to contain the at least one electrical or electronic component [0027-0032]; a main inert fluid tank [an ASM 4141 separates air into nitrogen enriched air (NEA) and oxygen enriched air (OEA); where the ASM 14 is a semi-permeable hollow fiber membrane bundle in a pressure containment canister; 0052;0053] configured to deliver an inert fluid [via an NEA outlet port; 0053], the main inert fluid comprising at least one chemical element belonging to a family of inert gas or to nitrogen [nitrogen enriched air; 0054], a first opening connected to the main inert fluid tank [where NEA outlet port of ASM 414 canister; 0053], each opening enabling a fluid to pass from inside to outside the housing [via reservoir 22, regulator 24, and ducts 28, Figure 2;0033] , an intermediate inert fluid storage tank [reservoir 22, Figure 2] connected between the main inert fluid tank and the first opening [where ASM 414 delivers nitrogen enriched air as an inerting gas to ODA source 11 or intermediary elements like reservoir 22, Figure 2;0054] and means [regulator 24 with valves 34A-E, Figure 2] configured to inject the inert fluid into the housing at a first predefined pressure value [where controlling the mass-flow of ODA into the compartment 14 via an associated valve 34 in conjunction with controlling the mass-flow out of the compartment 14 may permit targeted pressures; 0046], and a third opening [at valves 32A-E, Figure 2] connected to an exhaust line being connected to air, [where valves 32 are for exhausting gas from compartments 14;0033], a shut-off valve disposed on the exhaust line [valves 32, Figure 2], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., supplementing safety measures against fire risk for electrical components on-board aircraft [Klassen, 0007]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray to have a main inert fluid tank configured to deliver an inert fluid, the main inert fluid comprising at least one chemical element belonging to a family of inert gas or to nitrogen, a first opening connected to the main inert fluid tank, each opening enabling a fluid to pass from outside to inside the housing, an intermediate inert fluid storage tank connected between the main inert fluid tank and the first opening, means configured to inject the inert fluid into the housing at a first predefined pressure value, and a third opening connected to an exhaust line being connected to air in view of the teachings of Klassen where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing the degradation of sensitive electronic components in an aircraft from atmospheric contaminants.
The combined teachings do not teach:
a second opening connected to a relief valve configured to release gas from the housing only when a pressure inside the housing exceeds a second predefined pressure value, the second predefined pressure value being lower than the first predefined pressure value,
a third opening connected to an exhaust line being connected to air at a third predefined pressure value, the third predefined pressure value being lower than the first predefined pressure value and equal to or lower than the second predefined pressure value,
a composition sensor configured to detect a gas composition inside the housing, and
a control unit comprising electronic circuitry configured to maintain the shut-off valve in an open position as long as an inert fluid proportion inside the housing is lower than a predefined proportion threshold and to close the shut-off valve when the inert fluid proportion inside the housing reaches or exceeds the predefined proportion threshold.
However, Grilletto teaches an approach to maintain multichip modules in a controlled ambient atmosphere [col. 1, lines 5-11] including
a second opening [refer to annotated Figure 1 below] connected to a relief valve [relief valve 150 which may be a ball valve, Figure 1; col. 4, lines 43-51] configured to release gas from the housing only when a pressure inside the housing exceeds a second predefined pressure value [where valve 150 ensures pressure within the enclosure does not rise above a predefined level; col. 4, lines 43-51], the second predefined pressure value being lower than the first predefined pressure value [in an alternative startup operation, exhaust valve 160 and relief valve 150 are closed and valve 140 opens to allow gas to flow into enclosure 100 until pressure builds up such that the release valve 150 is forced to open and allow gas to continue to flow; after valve 140 closes and the enclosure pressure stabilizes the release valve 150 closes; col. 5, lines 37-52 ],
a third opening [refer to annotated Figure 1 below] connected to an exhaust line [through exhaust valve 160, Figure 1] being connected to air at a third predefined pressure value [where, in a startup routine, the exhaust valve releases atmospheric gases and closes once the enclosure is at a predetermined pressure level of slightly above atmospheric pressure; col. 5, lines 20-36], the third predefined pressure value being lower than the first predefined pressure value and equal to or lower than the second predefined pressure value [where the pressure level slightly above atmospheric creates a positive pressure in the enclosure 100 and is less than the pressure required to open the pressure release valve 150 because otherwise release valve 150 would be forced open and the preferred positive pressure would be reduced; col. 5 lines, 20-36]
a composition sensor configured to detect a gas composition inside the housing [where one or more sensors may be positioned in enclosure 100 to monitor the level of contaminants; col. 6, lines 32 - 37], and
a control unit [control system 170, Figure 1; col. 4, lines 59 - 66] comprising electronic circuitry [where control system 170 may open and close supply valve 140 and exhaust valve 160; col. 4, lines 40-55] configured to maintain the shut-off valve in an open position as long as an inert fluid proportion inside the housing is lower than a predefined proportion threshold and to close the shut-off valve when the inert fluid proportion inside the housing reaches or exceeds the predefined proportion threshold [where one or more sensors coupled to control system 170 may monitor contaminant levels and initiate flushing of the enclosure with inert gas when a threshold level of contaminant is detected; col. 6, lines 32-38], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing the degradation of sensitive electronic components in an aircraft from atmospheric contaminants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have the invention of claim 1 in view of the teachings of Grilletto where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing the degradation of sensitive electronic components in an aircraft from atmospheric contaminants.
PNG
media_image1.png
697
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Bray, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further does not teach a plurality of second heaters distributed over a surface of the housing.
However, Grilletto teaches where a heater may be distributed over a surface of the housing [where those skilled in the art will recognize that the heater may also conveniently be placed on an outside surface of the enclosure; col. 7, lines 41 – 47] , where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing contaminants by promoting outgassing with the heater.
Regarding “a plurality” of the second heater, “the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.04-VI-B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray to where a plurality of second heaters distributed over a surface of the housing in view of the teachings of Grilletto where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing contaminants by promoting outgassing with the heater.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (EP2644508B1) in view of Grilletto et al. (US5603892A) and Klassen (US20180001124A1) and in further view of Sundarrajan (US20010029888A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Bray, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the control unit comprises electronic circuitry further configured to activate and deactivate the thermal coupling system depending on the detected gas composition.
However, Sundarrajan teaches a system to cool down a semiconductor chamber [0002] where the control unit [controller 137, Figure 5] comprises electronic circuitry further configured to activate and deactivate the thermal coupling system [where controller controls cooling system 141; 0058] depending on the detected gas composition [where the gas supply lines 122, 132 for each of the gases comprise one or more components that can be used to measure and control the flow of gas into the chamber 110 such as the mass flow controllers 125, 128, 130 connected to controller 137, Figure 5; 0063] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., optimizing cooling performance by coordinating cooling operations to varying gas compositions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray where the control unit comprises electronic circuitry further configured to activate and deactivate the thermal coupling system depending on the detected gas composition in view of the teachings of Sundarrajan where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., optimizing cooling performance by coordinating cooling operations to varying gas compositions.
Claim 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (EP2644508B1) in view of Grilletto et al. (US5603892A) and Klassen (US20180001124A1) and in further view of Luong et al. (US20220154885A1).
Regarding Claims 4, Bray, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the main inert fluid tank is configured to store the inert fluid in liquid form and where the cryogenic system further comprises a first heater arranged to heat the inert fluid so as to vaporize the inert fluid into gaseous form.
However, Luong teaches a method of vaporizing cryogenic liquid in an exchanger [0003] where a first heater [heat exchanger 3, Figure 1] is arranged to heat the inert fluid so as to vaporize the inert fluid into gaseous form [where heat exchanger 3 allows liquid 5 to be vaporized, Figure 1; 0019] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., minimizing contaminants by promoting degassing with a heater.
Claim 4 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “…configured to store the inert fluid in liquid form.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray to where the inert fluid tank is configured to store the inert fluid in liquid form, the cryogenic system further comprising a first heater arranged to heat the inert fluid so as to vaporize the inert fluid into gaseous form in view of the teachings of Luong where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing contaminants by promoting degassing with a heater.
Regarding Claim 5, Bray, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 and further teaches the main inert fluid tank and an injection line connecting the inert fluid tank to the first opening of the housing, the inert fluid being injected into the housing in gaseous form [refer to Grilletto as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above] and does not teach where the first heater is disposed on the injection line.
However, Luong teaches a method of vaporizing cryogenic liquid in an exchanger [0003] where a first heater [heat exchanger 3, Figure 1] is disposed on the injection line [where gas pipe 9 leads to the user of the gas, Figure 1; 0021], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing corrosion or oxidization of sensitive electronic components by minimizing condensation or liquid phase fluid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray to where the first heater is disposed on the injection line in view of the teachings of Luong where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing corrosion or oxidization of sensitive electronic components by minimizing condensation or liquid phase fluid.
Regarding Claim 6, Bray, as modified teaches the invention of Claim 4 and does not teach where the first heater is disposed inside the housing, the inert fluid being injected into the housing in liquid form.
However, Grilletto teaches an approach to maintain multichip modules in a controlled ambient atmosphere [col. 1, lines 5-11] where the first heater [heater 290 in second embodiment, Figure 2] is disposed inside the housing [enclosure 200, Figure 2], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing corrosion or oxidization of sensitive electronic components by minimizing condensation or liquid phase fluid.
Claim 6 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitation is: “…the inert fluid being injected into the housing in liquid form”. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray to where the first heater is disposed inside the housing, the inert fluid being injected into the housing in liquid form in view of the teachings of Grilletto where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing corrosion or oxidization of sensitive electronic components by minimizing condensation or liquid phase fluid.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (EP2644508B1) in view of Grilletto et al. (US5603892A) and Klassen (US20180001124A1) and in further view of Luong et al. (US20220154885A1) and Grant (US20120308462A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Bray, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach a first heater is disposed on an injection line connecting the inert fluid tank to the first opening of the housing, the main inert fluid being injected into the housing in gaseous form. Refer to Luong as applied to the rejection of claim 5 above.
Bray also does not teach where an inert fluid bypass line configured to bypass the housing from the exhaust line back to the injection line connecting the inert fluid tank to the first opening of the housing and a flow control valve located at an inlet of the inert fluid bypass line.
However, Grant teaches a method for recovering inert gas from a gas stream [0001] where an inert fluid bypass line [recycle system 1, Figure 1; ] configured to bypass the housing [furnace 100, Figure 1] from the exhaust line [exhaust line 12, Figure 1] back to the injection line [line 44;0047] connecting the inert fluid tank [backup supply 36, Figure 1; 0047] to the first opening of the housing [via line 44, Figure 1] and a flow control valve located at an inlet of the inert fluid bypass line [valve 80, Figure 1; 0043] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique of a recovery line to a known device, a housing with an inert gas, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a cost effective and sustainable method to replenish the supply of inert gases during operation [Grant, 0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray to where an inert fluid bypass line configured to bypass the housing from the exhaust line back to the injection line connecting the inert fluid tank to the first opening of the housing and a flow control valve located at an inlet of the inert fluid bypass line in view of the teachings of Grant where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a cost effective and sustainable method to replenish the supply of inert gases during operation [Grant, 0008].
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bray (EP2644508B1) in view of Grilletto et al. (US5603892A) and Klassen (US20180001124A1) and in further view of Mills et al. (US9944452B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Bray, as modified teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where a thermal insulating material disposed on a surface of the housing.
However, Mills teaches a thermal multi-layer insulation [col. 1, lines 13-15] a thermal insulating material [integrated multilayer insulation IMLI structure 108, Figure 3A] disposed on a surface of the housing [assembly, storage vessel, tank or other object 104, Figure 2A], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving thermal performance of a housing by minimizing heat leak.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray to have where a thermal insulating material disposed on a surface of the housing in view of the teachings of Mills where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving thermal performance of a housing by minimizing heat leak.
Regarding Claim 9, Bray, as modified teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach interstitial areas, where each interstitial area is delimited by two superposed layers of the thermal insulating material, each interstitial area comprising an opening connected to the inert fluid tank.
However, Mills teaches a thermal multi-layer insulation [col. 1, lines 13-15] a thermal insulating material [integrated multilayer insulation IMLI structure 108, Figure 3A] where interstitial areas [spacings D1, Figure 3A], each interstitial area being delimited by two superposed layers of the thermal insulating material [inner layers 316 b and 316 c, Figure 3A], each interstitial area comprising an opening connected to the inert fluid tank [where manifold structure 328 provides communication path between different adjacent pairs of layers 308 for gas 128 from gas supply 116, Figure 3A], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving thermal performance of a cryogenic system by minimizing heat leak.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray to have where a thermal insulating material disposed on a surface of the housing in view of the teachings of Mills where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving thermal performance of a cryogenic system by minimizing heat leak.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over Bray (EP2644508B1) in view of Grilletto et al. (US5603892A) and Klassen (US20180001124A1) and in further view of Epstein et al. (US20150344145A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Bray, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the aircraft [aircraft 100, Figure 2] comprises a global cooling system [where electrical components 112 of aircraft 100 may be cooled by the fuel tank; 0024, Figure 2] and does not teach where the inert fluid used by the at least one cryogenic system is diverted from the global cooling system.
However, Epstein teaches an on board inert gas generating system (OBIGGS) [0005] where the inert fluid used by the at least one cryogenic system [cryogenic fuel tank 504; 0092, Figure 8] is diverted from the global cooling system [where OBIGGS is cooled by the air cooling system, Figure 8; 0088], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique of an integral inert fluid source to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., minimizing weight and cost by leveraging existing on board systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bray to have where the inert fluid used by the at least one cryogenic system is diverted from the global cooling system in view of the teachings of Epstein where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., minimizing weight and cost by leveraging existing on board systems.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen (US20180001124A1) in view of Grilletto et al. (US5603892A) and Bray (EP2644508B1).
Regarding Claim 12, Klassen teaches a method for isolating at least one electrical or electronic component [0014] in a fuel system on-board an aircraft [0022], a housing [compartments 14A-E, containing electrical component;0027-0032] being airtight [where the compartments 14 may be sealed so that fluid communication is only permitted by ducts and valves;0033] and being configured to contain at least one electrical or electronic component [0027-0032], a main inert fluid tank [an ASM 4141 separates air into nitrogen enriched air (NEA) and oxygen enriched air (OEA); where the ASM 14 is a semi-permeable hollow fiber membrane bundle in a pressure containment canister; 0052;0053] and an intermediate inert fluid storage tank [an ASM 4141 separates air into nitrogen enriched air (NEA) and oxygen enriched air (OEA); where the ASM 14 is a semi-permeable hollow fiber membrane bundle in a pressure containment canister; 0052;0053] configured to deliver an inert fluid [via an NEA outlet port; 0053], the method comprising:
injecting an inert fluid into the housing [via reservoir 22, regulator 24, and ducts 28, Figure 2;0033;where ASM 414 delivers nitrogen enriched air as an inerting gas to ODA source 11 or intermediary elements like reservoir 22, Figure 2;0054] at a first predefined pressure value [where controlling the mass-flow of ODA into the compartment 14 via an associated valve 34 in conjunction with controlling the mass-flow out of the compartment 14 may permit targeted pressures; 0046] via a first opening of the system [via an NEA outlet port; 0053], said inert fluid comprising at least one chemical element belonging to a family of inert gas or to nitrogen [nitrogen enriched air; 0054], each opening being configured to enable a fluid to pass from outside to inside the housing [where the compartments 14 may be sealed so that fluid communication is only permitted into or out of the compartment by the ducts 28 and the output valves 32;0033],
Klassen does not teach detecting a gas composition inside the housing, enabling a gas release from the housing via a second opening of the cryogenic system only when a pressure inside the housing exceeds a second predefined pressure value, and further when an inert fluid proportion inside the housing reaches or exceeds a predefined proportion threshold, the second predefined pressure value being lower than the first predefined pressure value, enabling a gas release from the housing via a third opening of the cryogenic system as long as the inert fluid proportion inside the housing is lower than the predefined proportion threshold, when the pressure inside the housing exceeds a third predefined pressure value, the third predefined pressure value being lower than the first predefined pressure value and equal to or lower than the second predefined pressure value.
However, Grilletto teaches a method for isolating at least one electrical or electronic component in a system [col. 1, lines 5-11] including detecting a gas composition inside the housing [where one or more sensors may be positioned within enclosure 100 coupled to control system 170 to monitor contaminant levels; col. 6, lines 32-38],
enabling a gas release from the housing [via relief valve 150, Figure 1; col. 4, lines 43-51] via a second opening of the system [refer to annotated Figure 1 above] only when a pressure inside the housing exceeds a second predefined pressure value [where valve 150 ensures pressure within the enclosure does not rise above a predefined level; col. 4, lines 43-51], and further when an inert fluid proportion inside the housing reaches or exceeds a predefined proportion threshold [where one or more sensors coupled to control system 170 may monitor contaminant levels and initiate flushing of the enclosure with inert gas when a threshold level of contaminant is detected; col. 6, lines 32-38; where flushing may occur where valve 150 is forced open and exhaust valve is closed; col. 5, lines 37-52], the second predefined pressure value being lower than the first predefined pressure value [where exhaust valve 160 and relief valve 150 are closed and valve 140 opens to allow gas to flow into enclosure 100 until pressure builds up such that the release valve 150 is forced to open and allow gas to continue to flow; after valve 140 closes and the enclosure pressure stabilizes the release valve 150 closes; col. 5, lines 37-52],
enabling a gas release from the housing [via exhaust valve 160, Figure 1] via a third opening of the system [refer to annotated Figure 1 above] as long as the inert fluid proportion inside the housing is lower than the predefined proportion threshold [where flushing of the enclosure with inert gas initiates when a threshold level of contaminant is detected; col. 6, lines 32-38; where, in a flushing operation, exhaust valve 160 releases atmospheric gases and closes once after a metered quantity of gas is released; col. 5, lines 20-36], and further when the pressure inside the housing exceeds a third predefined pressure value [where, in a startup routine, the exhaust valve releases atmospheric gases and closes once the enclosure is at a predetermined pressure level of slightly above atmospheric pressure; col. 5, lines 20-36], the third predefined pressure value being lower than the first predefined pressure value and equal to or lower than the second predefined pressure value [where the pressure level slightly above atmospheric creates a positive pressure in the enclosure 100 and is equal to or lower than the pressure threshold to open the release valve 150 because otherwise release valve 150 would be forced open and the preferred positive pressure would be reduced; col. 5 lines, 20-36] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., maintaining a controlled atmosphere of a desired gas in a chamber housing sensitive electronic components
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Klassen to have the method of claim 12 in view of the teachings of Grilleto where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., maintaining a controlled atmosphere of a desired gas in a chamber housing sensitive electronic components
Klassen further does not teach the system is a cryogenic system, the cryogenic system comprising a cryogenic fluid storage tank and a thermal coupling system able to thermally connect the cryogenic fluid storage tank and the housing.
However Bray teaches a cryogenic system [cooling system 10, Figure 1] on board an aircraft [aircraft 100, Figure 2], the cryogenic system further comprising a cryogenic fluid storage tank [where supply 14 may be fuel tank 126 of aircraft 100, Figure 2; 0011] and a thermal coupling system [heat sink 16, Figure 1] able to thermally connect the cryogenic fluid storage tank and the housing [where heat sink 16 connects to supply 14 through conduit system 18 and may engage a thermal interface material engaged with the electrical component 12, Figure 1;0012;0013], where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing the degradation of sensitive electronic components from atmospheric contaminants on a cryogenic fueled aircraft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the system is a cryogenic system on-board an aircraft, the cryogenic system further comprising a cryogenic fluid storage tank and a thermal coupling system able to thermally connect the cryogenic fluid storage tank and the housing in view of the teachings of Grilletto where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing the degradation of sensitive electronic components from atmospheric contaminants on a cryogenic fueled aircraft.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen (US20180001124A1) in view of Grilletto et al. (US5603892A) and Bray (EP2644508B1) and in further view of Sundarrajan (US20010029888A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Grilletto, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and does not teach activating the thermal coupling system when the inert fluid proportion inside the housing reaches or exceeds the predefined proportion.
However, Sundarrajan teaches a method of cooling down a semiconductor chamber [0002] where the thermal coupling system activates [where in step 315, to cool the inert gas, cooling fluid is flowed to the adapter 31, Figure 3A; 0042] when the inert fluid proportion inside the housing [chamber 21, Figure 3A] reaches or exceeds the predefined proportion [where inert gas such as nitrogen is injected until pressure reaches about 500 Torr; 0039; where cooling at step 315 may activate after injection step 307, Figure 3B] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique of activating cooling once inert fluid is injected to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., protecting the electronics from condensation and oxidation by conducting thermal energy through a dry, inert gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Grilletto to have where the predefined temperature range includes activating the thermal coupling system when the inert fluid proportion inside the housing reaches or exceeds the predefined proportion in view of the teachings of Sundarrajan where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., protecting the electronics from condensation and oxidation by conducting thermal energy through a dry, inert gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 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.
On page 6 and 7 of the remarks filed 10/02/2025, Applicant argues in regards to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 that none of the cited documents cite both a main inert fluid tank and an intermediate fluid tank and that duplication of fluid tanks would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, without more, as doing so would increase the weight of the aircraft. Applicant’s arguments 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.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2 and 4-13 except for their dependence upon claim 1 and 12. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
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 KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights