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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/21/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species L, Species AA, Species BA in the reply filed on 5/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there no search burden due to overlapping matter and only a difference in subclass. This is not found persuasive because Group I is also classified in H01M8/04014, and Group II is also classified in H01M2250/20 . Additionally, applicant is citing from MPEP 904 “How to Search” which does not outline serious burden details. Applicant states that “citing MPEP 806.06” however MPEP 806.06 only dictates “ If it can be shown that two or more inventions are independent, and if there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required, applicant should be required to restrict the claims presented to one of such independent inventions”. Even with overlapping scope, a serious examination burden exists.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikic et al. US 2023/0058816 Al.
Re claim 1, Mikic et al. teach an aircraft air management system comprising: an air heat exchanger (323); an intercooler (308, 324); and a conduit system (fig 1) connected to the air heat exchanger, the intercooler, and a fuel cell stack (314; fig 1), wherein: heated air flows through the conduit system to the air heat exchanger (fig 1), wherein the air heat exchanger is configured to cool the heated air to form cooler air; the cooler air flows from the air heat exchanger through the conduit system to the intercooler; the intercooler is configured to cool the cooler air to form cooled air; and the cooled air flows from the intercooler through the conduit system to the fuel cell stack (fig 1).
Re claim 3, Mikic et al. teach wherein a compressor (303) generates the heated air that flows to the air heat exchanger.
Re claim 4, Mikic et al. teach wherein the heated air, the cooler air, and the cooled air are all compressed air (see the rejection of claim 2, fig 1).
Re claim 5, Mikic et al. teach wherein the fuel cell stack comprises low temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells (para 28).
Re claim 6, Mikic et al. teach wherein the cooled air is at an operating temperature for the fuel cell stack.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the cooled air is at an operating temperature for the fuel cell stack” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 7, Mikic et al. teach wherein the conduit system routes heated air from the intercooler to a fuel system heat exchanger (309) that heats liquid hydrogen to form gaseous hydrogen (para 34).
Re claim 8, Mikic et al. teach wherein the conduit system routes the gaseous hydrogen from the fuel system heat exchanger to the fuel cell stack (fig 3).
Re claim 9, Mikic et al. teach wherein the fuel cell stack uses oxygen in the cooled air and gaseous hydrogen to generate electricity (para 28).
Re claim 10, Mikic et al. teach an aircraft air management system comprising: a compressor (303) configured to generate compressed air; a charge air heat exchanger (323); a charge air intercooler (308, 324); and a conduit system (fig 1) configured to: receive the compressed air from the compressor; send compressed air to the charge air heat exchanger, wherein the charge air heat exchanger cools the compressed air in which cooling the compressed air forms cooler compressed air; send the cooler compressed air through the charge air intercooler in which cooling the cooler compressed air forms cooled compressed air; and send the cooled compressed air from the charge air intercooler to a fuel cell stack (314; fig 1; paras 32-37).
Re claim 11, Mikic et al. teach wherein the fuel cell stack comprises low temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells (para 28).
Re claim 12, Mikic et al. teach an aircraft air management system comprising: a compressor (303) configured to generate heated compressed air; a charge air heat exchanger (323) configured to receive the heated compressed air and cool the heated compressed air in which cooling the heated compressed air forms cooler compressed air; and a charge air intercooler (308, 324) configured to receive the cooler compressed air and cool the cooler compressed air in which cooling the cooler compressed air forms cooled compressed air, wherein a fuel cell stack (314; fig 1; paras 32-37) receives the cooled compressed air.
Re claim 13, Mikic et al. wherein the fuel cell stack comprises low temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells (para 28).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikic et al. in view of Schneider et al. US 2025/0051019 Al.
Re claim 2, Mikic et al. fail to explicitly teach nacelle details.
Schneider et al. teach wherein the air heat exchanger, the intercooler, the conduit system, and the fuel cell stack are located in a nacelle for an engine for an aircraft (para 47) to optimize space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include nacelle details as taught by Schneider et al. in the Mikic et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for minimizes friction losses and drag.
Re claim 14, Mikic et al. teach an aircraft comprising: a fuselage; a first wing and a second wing connected to the fuselage (figs 5-8); and engines connected to the first wing and the second wing (figs 5-8), wherein each engine in the engines comprises: a nacelle (figs 12-14); an electric motor (para 58, figs 12-14, para 50) within the nacelle; a fuel cell stack (314);
and an aircraft air management system comprising: an air heat exchanger (323); an intercooler (308, 324); a conduit system connected to the air heat exchanger the intercooler and the fuel cell stack (fig 1), wherein heated air flows through the conduit system to the air heat exchanger; wherein the air heat exchanger cools the heated air, the heated air flows from the air heat exchanger through the conduit system to the intercooler; wherein the intercooler further cools heated air in which further cooling the heated air forms cooled air; and wherein the cooled air flows from intercooler through the conduit system to the fuel cell stack (see the rejections of claims 1 and 10).
Schneider et al. teach an electric motor within the nacelle; a fuel cell stack within the nacelle (para 47) to optimize space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include nacelle details as taught by Schneider et al. in the Mikic et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for minimizes friction losses and drag.
Re claim 15, Mikic et al. teach wherein the fuel cell stack comprises low temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells (para 28).
Alternatively, Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikic et al. in view of Schneider et al. US 2025/0051019 Al and NASA iTech, 2020 NASA iTech Cycle Il Forum - HyPoint, 23 October 2020.
Re claim 2, Additionally, NASA teach the air heat exchanger, the intercooler and the fuel cell stack are located in a nacelle (in case that a nacelle is considered a single nacelle) to integrate the fuel cell with heat exchangers (6:20-6:54 of video).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include nacelle details as taught by NASA in the Mikic et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for minimizes friction losses and drag.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights