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 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 1-20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 12, and 20 recite the broad recitation “a turbine” and the claims also recite “a flash turbine” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claims, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claims 1, 12, and 20 recite the broad recitation “a coupling” and the claims also recite “the coupling is one of: a magnetic coupling; a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro-magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claims, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 1-20 are rejected to because of the following: claims 1, 12, and 20 contain content in a parenthesis. It is unclear if the content in the parenthesis is intended to be included or excluded from the claim, thus rendering metes and bounds sought by the claim indefinite. Applicant is encouraged to replace any acronyms in the claims with the corresponding terms written out in full throughout the claims and to delete all content in parenthesis from the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 12-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres (US 2007/0193301 A1) in view of Behrens et al. (EP 3543131 A1), hereafter referred to as “Behrens,” Adolph et al. (5,628,203), hereafter referred to as “Adolph,” and Poteet et al. (US 2003/0052485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Poteet.”
Regarding Claim 1: Andres teaches an environmental control system (title) of an aircraft (paragraph [0002]), comprising: a cooling circuit (40 or 62) including: a turbo-compressor (14, 34), wherein the turbo-compressor (14, 34) includes: a compressor (14) fluidly coupled to the circuit (see Figures 2, 3); a turbine (34) fluidly coupled to the circuit downstream of the compressor (see Figures 2, 3), a shaft (36) operably coupling the compressor and the turbine (paragraph [0018]); a motor generator (16, paragraph [0012]) operably coupled to the turbo-compressor (see Figures 2, 3); and an exterior shaft (38, see Figures 2, 3), located exterior to the components (see Figures 2, 3) and operably coupled to the motor generator (16), wherein: the motor generator is directly coupled to the turbo-compressor (see Figures 2, 3).
Andres fails to teach a sealed housing; wherein the turbine is a flash turbine; wherein: the motor generator is coupled to the exterior shaft via a coupling, wherein the coupling is one of: a magnetic coupling; a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro- magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor.
Behrens teaches a sealed housing (142, paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a sealed housing to the structure of Andres as taught by Behrens in order to advantageously provide rigid material to protect components of the system (see Behrens, paragraph [0036]).
Adolph teaches a flash turbine (Column 1, lines 55-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the turbine is a flash turbine to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Adolph in order to advantageously provide know turbine to provide driving power (see Adolph, Column 1, lines 55-57).
Poteet teaches a motor generator (102) is coupled to a shaft (paragraph [0018]) via a coupling (106), wherein the coupling (106) is one of: a magnetic coupling (paragraph [0018]); a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro- magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein: the motor generator is coupled to the exterior shaft via a coupling, wherein the coupling is one of: a magnetic coupling; a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro- magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Poteet in order to advantageously provide suitable types of couplings to engage/disengage the shaft (see Poteet, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 2: Andres modified supra teaches wherein the housing (142 of Behrens) includes ports to fluidly couple (functional limitations) the compressor (14 or 64 of Andres) and the turbine (34 of Andres) with the cooling circuit (40 or 62 of Andres).
Regarding Claim 4: Andres modified supra teaches wherein the housing (142 of Behrens) is formed of one or more of aluminum or plastic(paragraph [0036] of Behrens).
Regarding Claim 7: Andres teaches wherein the cooling circuit (40 or 62) further includes an evaporator (10, paragraph [0011]) and a condenser (22, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 12: Andres teaches an environmental control system (title) of an aircraft (paragraph [0002]), comprising: a cooling circuit (40 or 62) including: a turbo-compressor (14, 34), wherein the turbo- compressor (14, 34) includes: a compressor (14) fluidly coupled to the circuit (see Figures 2, 3); a turbine (34) fluidly coupled to the circuit downstream of the compressor (see Figures 2, 3), a shaft (36) operably coupling the compressor (14) and the turbine (34, see Figures 2, 3); and a motor generator (16, paragraph [0012]) operably coupled to the turbo-compressor (see Figures 2, 3).
Andres fails to teach a sealed housing; wherein the turbine is a flash turbine; wherein: the compressor and turbine are coupled to each other via a coupling, and the coupling is one of: a magnetic coupling; a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro-magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor.
Behrens teaches a sealed housing (142, paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a sealed housing to the structure of Andres as taught by Behrens in order to advantageously provide rigid material to protect components of the system (see Behrens, paragraph [0036]).
Adolph teaches a flash turbine (Column 1, lines 55-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the turbine is a flash turbine to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Adolph in order to advantageously provide know turbine to provide driving power (see Adolph, Column 1, lines 55-57).
Poteet teaches a compressor (104) and a turbine (108) are coupled to each other via a coupling (110), and the coupling (110) is one of: a magnetic coupling (paragraph [0018]); a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro-magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein: wherein: the compressor and turbine are coupled to each other via a coupling, and the coupling is one of: a magnetic coupling; a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro-magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Poteet in order to advantageously provide suitable types of couplings to engage/disengage the shaft (see Poteet, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 13: Andres modified supra teaches wherein the housing (142 of Behrens) includes ports (124 of Behrens) to fluidly couple (functional limitations) the compressor (14 or 64 of Andres) and the turbine (34 of Andres) with the cooling circuit (40 or 62 of Andres).
Regarding Claim 15: Andres modified supra teaches wherein the housing (142 of Behrens) is formed of one or more of aluminum or plastic (paragraph [0036] of Behrens).
Regarding Claim 16: Andres further teaches wherein the cooling circuit (40 or 62) further includes an evaporator (10, paragraph [0011]) and a condenser (22, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 20: Andres teaches an environmental control system (title) of an aircraft (paragraph [0002]), comprising: a cooling circuit (40 or 62) including: a turbo-compressor (14, 34), wherein the turbo- compressor (14, 34) includes: a compressor fluidly coupled to the circuit (40 or 62); a turbine (34) fluidly coupled to the circuit downstream of the compressor (14), a shaft (36) operably coupling the compressor (14) and the turbine (34); and a motor generator (16, paragraph [0012]) operably coupled to the turbo-compressor (see Figures 2, 3).
Andres fails to teach a sealed housing; wherein the turbine is a flash turbine; wherein: the compressor and turbine are coupled to each other via a coupling, and the coupling is one of: a magnetic coupling; a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro-magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor.
Behrens teaches a sealed housing (142, paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a sealed housing to the structure of Andres as taught by Behrens in order to advantageously provide rigid material to protect components of the system (see Behrens, paragraph [0036]).
Adolph teaches a flash turbine (Column 1, lines 55-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the turbine is a flash turbine to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Adolph in order to advantageously provide know turbine to provide driving power (see Adolph, Column 1, lines 55-57).
Poteet teaches a compressor (104) and a turbine (108) are coupled to each other via a coupling (110), and the coupling (110) is one of: a magnetic coupling (paragraph [0018]); a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro-magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein: the compressor and turbine are coupled to each other via a coupling, and the coupling is one of: a magnetic coupling; a mechanical coupling; a geared axial flux motor; an electro-magnetic geared coupling; or a radial-axial flux permanent magnet (RADAX) motor to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Poteet in order to advantageously provide suitable types of couplings to engage/disengage the shaft (see Poteet, paragraph [0018]).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres (US 2007/0193301 A1) in view of Behrens et al. (EP 3543131 A1), hereafter referred to as “Behrens,” Adolph et al. (5,628,203), hereafter referred to as “Adolph,” and Poteet et al. (US 2003/0052485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Poteet” as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Houshmand et al. (US 2020/0373873 A1), hereafter referred to as “Houshmand.”
Regarding Claim 3: Andres modified supra fails to teach wherein the motor generator is an axial flux motor generator or a geared axial flux motor generator.
Houshmand teaches wherein a motor generator is an axial flux motor generator (paragraph [0055]) or a geared axial flux motor generator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the motor generator is an axial flux motor generator or a geared axial flux motor generator to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Houshmand in order to advantageously provide to utilize an electric machine to provide power to the portions of the aircraft (see Houshmand, paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 14: Andres modified supra fails to teach wherein the motor generator is an axial flux motor generator or a geared axial flux motor generator.
Houshmand teaches wherein a motor generator is an axial flux motor generator (paragraph [0055]) or a geared axial flux motor generator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the motor generator is an axial flux motor generator or a geared axial flux motor generator to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Houshmand in order to advantageously provide to utilize an electric machine to provide power to the portions of the aircraft (see Houshmand, paragraph [0034]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres (US 2007/0193301 A1) in view of Behrens et al. (EP 3543131 A1), hereafter referred to as “Behrens,” Adolph et al. (5,628,203), hereafter referred to as “Adolph,” and Poteet et al. (US 2003/0052485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Poteet,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright et al. (US 9,388,817 B1), hereafter referred to as “Wright.”
Regarding Claim 5: Andres modified supra fails to teach further comprising a compressor-side outboard shaft coupled to the compressor, and the motor generator is directly coupled to the compressor-side outboard shaft.
Wright teaches a compressor-side outboard shaft (see shaft on 108) coupled to a compressor (108), and a motor generator (102) is directly coupled to the compressor-side outboard shaft (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a compressor-side outboard shaft coupled to the compressor, and the motor generator is directly coupled to the compressor-side outboard shaft to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Wright in order to advantageously provide power generated by the motor generator to the compressor (see Wright, Column 4, lines 14-26).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres (US 2007/0193301 A1) in view of Behrens et al. (EP 3543131 A1), hereafter referred to as “Behrens,” Adolph et al. (5,628,203), hereafter referred to as “Adolph,” and Poteet et al. (US 2003/0052485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Poteet,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Finney et al. (US 2012/0312037 A1), hereafter referred to as “Finney.”
Regarding Claim 6: Andres modified supra fails to teach further comprising a turbine-side outboard shaft coupled to the turbine, and the motor generator is directly coupled to the turbine-side outboard shaft.
Finney teaches a turbine-side outboard shaft (see 22, see Figure 1) coupled to a turbine (66), and a motor generator (68, paragraph [0031]) is directly coupled to the turbine-side outboard shaft (paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a turbine-side outboard shaft coupled to the turbine, and the motor generator is directly coupled to the turbine-side outboard shaft to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Finney in order to advantageously provide energy to the elements on the shaft (see Finney, paragraph [0031]).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres (US 2007/0193301 A1) in view of Behrens et al. (EP 3543131 A1), hereafter referred to as “Behrens,” Adolph et al. (5,628,203), hereafter referred to as “Adolph,” and Poteet et al. (US 2003/0052485 A1), hereafter referred to as “Poteet,” as applied to claims 7 and 16 above, and further in view of Hass et al. (US 2003/0177781 A1), hereafter referred to as “Hass.”
Regarding Claim 8: Andres modified supra fails to teach wherein the condenser is a RAM air condenser.
Hass teaches a condenser (paragraph [0052]) is a RAM air condenser (paragraph [0052], see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the condenser is a RAM air condenser to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Hass in order to advantageously provide ambient air to cool the condenser (see Hass, paragraph [0012]).
Regarding Claim 17: Andres modified supra fails to teach wherein the condenser is a RAM air condenser.
Hass teaches a condenser (paragraph [0052]) is a RAM air condenser (paragraph [0052], see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the condenser is a RAM air condenser to the structure of Andres modified supra as taught by Hass in order to advantageously provide ambient air to cool the condenser (see Hass, paragraph [0012]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and amended without any patentably significant broadening of the claims and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as overcoming the indefiniteness rejections made herein.
REASONS FOR ALLOWABILITY
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowability:
In Claim 9: the references fail to teach or make obvious the specific limitations regarding the configuration of a splitter, a mixing chamber, and branching. Claims 10-11 depend from claim 9.
In Claim 18: the references fail to teach or make obvious the specific limitations regarding the configuration of a splitter, a mixing chamber, and branching. Claim 19 depends from claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zywiak (5,461,882).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763