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 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:
“an external heat rejection assembly” in claim 1, line 10 and claim 12, line 2 interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 34 of the specification (as numbered in the original filing) as a portion of tubing carrying coolant to contact and a fan for driving air to flow over the tubing and equivalents thereof.
“a phase change material (PCM) heat exchange assembly” in claim 1, line 13 and claim 10, lines 6-7 interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 35 of the specification as a housing enclosing a solid and/or liquid form of a phase change material and including tubing or pipes passing through the housing to allow a coolant to exchange heat with the phase change material and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 Objections
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claim 4, the word “the” should be inserted between “wherein” and “second valve”.
In line 4 of claim 5, an article such as “a” or “the” should be inserted between “temperature of” and “coolant”. In addition, see the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below regarding this “coolant fluid”.
In line 3 of claim 9, the word “measure” should be replaced with “measures” to agree in number with the noun “sensor”.
In line 4 of claim 9, the word “control” should be replaced with “controls” to agree in number with the noun “sensor”.
In line 8 of claim 10, the word “toto” should be replaced with “to”.
In line 5 of claim 12, an article such as “a” or “the” should be inserted between “temperature of” and “coolant”. As the language used is equivalent to that found in claim 5, see the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below regarding this “coolant fluid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in fig. 1, the line along which the sensor 182 is disposed (at the lower left of the figure, below the external heat rejection assembly 108 and to the left of the pump) and the bypass 158 (at the top of the figure and inside the PCM heat exchange assembly 150) each include arrows at both ends, appearing to illustrate a flow of coolant in two directions while all other arrows forming the coolant circuit include one arrow and show flow in a single direction. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 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.
In lines 21 and 25 of claim 1, there is recited “the temperate sensor”. The recitation of “the temperature sensor” lacks antecedent basis as this name is not used for any element previously in the claim. Line 16 of the claim teaches “a first temperature sensor that measures a temperature of air”, but the use of “first” in the name of this element as well as the inconsistent use of articles as “the temperature sensor” of line 21 is taught in lines 20-21 to measure “the temperature” whereas “the temperature sensor” of line 25 is taught in lines 24-25 to measure “a temperature” makes it unclear whether these three recitations all refer to the same sensor and require it/them to measure the same temperature. As a result, the structure, placement, and the temperature(s) measured by “the temperature sensor” of lines 21 and 25 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Similarly, in lines 13-14 of claim 10, there is recited “a temperature measured by the temperature sensor” whereas in line 3 of the claim there is recited “measuring with a first temperature sensor a temperature of air”. As discussed above with regard to claim 1, the language used renders it unclear whether these sensors and the temperatures they measure are or are not required to be the same and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claims 1 and 10 have each been given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and “the temperature sensor” has been interpreted as referring to the same element as “a first temperature sensor” as only the “first temperature sensor” (reference number 170), an “external sensor” (180), and a “coolant temperature sensor” (no reference numeral) are taught in the specification as temperature sensors and the “external sensor” and “coolant temperature sensor” is clearly identified as different elements in claim 12 which depends from claim 10.
Claims 2 and 4 depend upon claim 1 and includes a further recitation of “the temperature measured by the temperature sensor” in lines 2-3 of claim 2 and line 3 of claim 4. Claim 11 depends upon claim 10 and includes a further recitation of “the temperature measured by the temperature sensor” in lines 3-4. Claims 2, 4, and 11 are rejected as being indefinite and interpreted for examination in the same manner set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 10.
In line 2 of claim 5, the term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. Because the location of the external sensor and particularly how “near” to the capsule exterior it must be cannot be determined, the scope of claim 5 with regard to this element cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 12 includes language equivalent to that of claim 5 in lines 2-3 (“providing an external heat rejection assembly at or near an exterior of the capsule”) and line 4 (“measuring a temperature at or near a capsule exterior”) and this claim is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 5.
Further, claim 5 teaches in lines 4-5 “a coolant temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of coolant fluid leaving the external heat rejection assembly”, the “external heat rejection assembly” having been previously taught in claim 1, lines 10-12 to be “configured to reject heat from the cooling fluid to external air” (emphasis by examiner). It is not clear in claim 5 whether the “coolant fluid” refers to the same fluid as the “cooling fluid”, both because of the similar names used and the lack of an article such as “a” or “the” in referring to the “coolant fluid”. For this reason, it is unclear whether the external heat rejection assembly (interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as requiring only one set of tubes for exchanging heat of a fluid with external air) is required by claim 5 to include tubes or similar structure to accommodate a second fluid (a coolant fluid in addition to the cooling fluid) or if the difference in terminology is the result of an error. For this reason, the scope of claim 5 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim 12 includes equivalent language in lines 5-6 thereof and is rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 5.
Further, claim 6 in line 3, claim 7 in line 5, and claim 8 in line 3 which all depend upon claim 5 and claim 13 in line 4, claim 14 in line 5, and claim 15 in line 3 which all depend upon claim 12 all use the term “coolant fluid” while depending upon independent claims 1 and 10 which use “cooling fluid” and are thus each rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons set forth above.
For purposes of examination, claims 5-8 and 12-15 have each been given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the “coolant fluid” in each of these claims has been interpreted as referring to the same fluid as the “cooling fluid” as the specification and especially fig. 1 only disclose a single circuit circulating a single fluid through the external heat rejection assembly and exchanging heat with air therein.
In lines 2-3 of claim 10, the recitation of “the internal air-cooling heat exchanger” lacks antecedent basis as this structure is not previously recited in the claim. Because of this lack of antecedent basis, it is not possible to determine what structure of features are or are not required for this heat exchanger, including any features that might have been set forth in other claims but omitted by error in independent claim 10. For this reason, the structure including features and connections to other elements required of “the internal air-cooling heat exchanger” cannot be positively established and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 3, 9, and 16 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including a stratospheric capsule including an environmental control system having an internal heat exchanger, an external heat exchanger, and a phase change material heat exchanger as well as first and second valves controlled based on a sensed temperature of air entering the internal heat exchanger to control the flow of coolant through the PCM heat exchanger and external heat exchanger, respectively as taught in independent claim 1 and a method for such control as taught in independent claim 10. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action. Specifically, the claims have been rejected as being indefinite due to the lack of antecedent basis of “the temperature sensor” and inconsistent reference to the temperatures sensed by this sensor, as well as inconsistent use of “cooling fluid” and “coolant fluid” in the dependent claims. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication No. 2018/0283709 A1 to Al-Hajjaj et al. teaches in fig. 2, shown above, and in ¶ 62-63, an air conditioning system and method of operating such a system, the system comprising a refrigerant circuit (30) which includes a compressor (11), a condenser (12), a thermal energy storage (TES) unit (20), and an evaporator (14) the evaporator and TES unit being arranged in parallel and each having a respective valve (5 in series with the TES unit and 6 in series with the evaporator) to be opened and closed alternatively (as taught in ¶ 63) to allow the refrigerant exiting the expansion valve to flow to one or the other of the TES unit and the evaporator, wherein both the TES unit and the evaporator are arranged along an air flow path (of ventilation system 50) an may cool air to be supplied to an interior space. Al-Hajjaj does not teach the “first valve disposed between the PCM heat exchange assembly [20] and the internal air-cooling heat exchanger [14]” and the “second valve disposed between the external heat rejection [12] assembly and the PCM heat exchange assembly [20]” as the valve 5 meets the limitations of the second valve of the claims but the valve 6 is not positioned between the PCM heat exchanger and evaporator and there is no teaching or suggestion to modify Al-Hajjaj in such a manner without relying on impermissible hindsight. Further, while Al-Hajjaj teaches the system to include a temperature sensor (45) for sensing a temperature of air flowing into the ventilation system (50) and thus toward the evaporator (14), they do not teach the valves to be controlled on the basis of this temperature as a PCM temperature sensor (43) used in such control (¶ 65) and further does not teach or suggest the use of such a system in a stratospheric capsule.
PNG
media_image2.png
464
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2023/0303269 A1 to Himmelmann et al. teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a coolant loop (104) for an spacecraft (¶ 13), the loop including a device (130) for rejecting heat by vaporization (taught as a heat of vaporization device (HVD) which may be a water membrane evaporator (WME)) for rejecting heat to the external environment (138) as well as a water/ice heat exchanger (150) and a cabin air heat exchanger (110) exchanging heat with a vehicle cabin (103). Himmelmann further teaches the system having a controller for opening and closing two valves (125 and 145) which allow circulating coolant to bypass one or both of the WME (130) and the WIHX (150) based on the present altitude of the craft. Himmelmann does not teach the system including a valve for bypassing the internal heat exchanger (110), or the control of the valves being based on a sensed temperature of air entering this heat exchanger as taught in the instant independent claims.
PNG
media_image3.png
456
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2019/0264933 A1 to Ignatiev et al. teaches a climate control system having a thermal energy storage tank (28) arranged in a refrigeration circuit (11) with a compressor (12), gas cooler (14), the storage tank (28), a flash tank (24) and an evaporator (25). The gas cooler (14) is provided with a bypass passageway (56) controlled by a bypass valve (26) and the flash tank (24) is provided with a fluid passageway (54) controlled by an expansion valve (22) to allow gaseous refrigerant to flow to the compressor (12), bypassing the evaporator (25). Ignatiev does not teach or suggest this system to include an arrangement for bypassing the thermal energy storage tank via one of these valves or the arrangement of valves taught the instant independent claims (i.e. the valves being disposed between the PCM heat exchanger and the internal air-cooling heat exchanger and between the external heat rejection heat exchanger and the PCM heat exchanger, respectively) or the system being used for climate control of a stratospheric capsule as taught in the instant independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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 (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763