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 § 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) 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0077242 (Emerson) in view of JP H0776544 (JP ‘544) as evidenced by or in view of Grennan (US 5069692).
Emerson discloses an aircraft fuel cell system including a fuel consumption device such as a fuel cell, combustion engine or the like (404), a fuel tank system (402), a fuel pipeline (420) fluidly connecting the tank system to the fuel cell, and an inerting system (418) for supplying inert gas [0044-0045, Figure 4]. Emerson does not expressly disclose the term “pipeline” to describe the fluid connections, however, the use of pipes for fluid connections is seen to be inherent to the structure for conduction of fluid/gas from one structure to another. The inerting gas system is fluidly coupled to a protective space (416) that surrounds the fuel tank (408) and is filled with an inert or low oxygen content gas [0045]. Emerson does not expressly disclose a shroud surrounding a portion of the fluid connection between the the fuel tank and an inlet of the fuel cell but does disclose discloses that in some embodiments, the non-mixture fuel lines of the system could be double-walled with the outer protective line/tube being vacuum insulated or incorporating a gas recovery line that can be purged with inert gases such as nitrogen (N.sub.2) or carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) and connected to a fuel tank vent [0042]. JP ‘544 discloses an internal combustion engine having a gas leak protection device for a fuel gas supply pipe. Specifically, JP ‘544 discloses providing a protective tube (shroud) to the fuel gas supply pipeline (4). The protective pipe is supplied with a nitrogen gas from an inert gas supply (not shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide a shroud (protective tube) within which is provided an inert gas (nitrogen) as disclosed by JP ‘544 to the gas supply fluid connection of Emerson to provide leak protection to the gas line as Emerson discloses a protection for the fuel tank and further discloses that the fuel lines may be double-walled wherein an outer protective line/tube can be provided with nitrogen gas in a similar manner. One of ordinary skill would readily understand from both Emerson and JP ‘544 that provision of an inert gas into a space surrounding a fuel tank and/or fuel line provides leak protection in the case of leaked fuel gas, thus obviating providing a protective shroud with nitrogen gas therein to provide protection of a fuel pipeline.
Emerson discloses the use of an on-board inert gas generation system (OBIGGS) to provide inert or low oxygen content gas to the space surrounding the fuel tank and JP ‘544 also provides nitrogen from a gas source to the internal space surrounding the pipeline [0041]. The inerting system of Emerson does not expressly disclose that the inerting system provides nitrogen enriched air (NEA) and oxygen enriched air (OEA), however, an OBIGGS is known and are known to be used in aircraft. Grennan discloses an on-board gas generating system that provides OEA and NEA for use in the aircraft system including for supplying NEA to fuel tanks for inerting them (abstract, col. 1). Grennan is seen to provide evidence that OBIGGS is known to provide NEA and OEA. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use an OBGGS system which supplies both OEA and NEA as disclosed by Grennan as the OBGGS of Emerson as Grennan discloses use of such a system is conventional in aircraft for providing OEA and NEA gas for various needs in the aircraft.
Regarding claim 4, the tank (408) has liquified fuel such as cryogenic hydrogen [0045].
Regarding claim 5, as stated above, Emerson discloses an aircraft.
Regarding claim 6, the fuel cell generates power which is considered to power an engine to propel the aircraft [0051].
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0077242 (Emerson) in view of JP H1776544 (JP ‘544) in view of Grennan (US 5069692).
As noted above, the combination of Emerson and Grennan to provide an inerter supplying OEA and NEA is considered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Emerson discloses that oxygen (312) is supplied to the fuel cell (Figure 3) but does not disclose using OEA from the inerting system to provide oxygen to the fuel cell. As suggested by Grennan, use of the oxygen enriched air from the inerting system for various needs in the aircraft is known and it would have been obvious to use the OEA from the inerting system of Emerson to provide oxygen to the fuel cell. The OEA would be readily available based upon the operation of the inerting system and using the OEA from the inerting system for the fuel cell would decrease the need for a separate source of oxygen gas.
Regarding claim 3, Grennan discloses that incoming air is fed to the separator (inerter) and the incoming air is first fed to a compressor (12) to elevate its pressure, thus inerting system is supplied with pressurized air (Figure 1, col. 3, lines 35-37).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0077242 (Emerson) in view of JP H1776544 (JP ‘544) in view of Grennan (US 5069692) and US 2018/0016025 (Rheaume) (cited on IDS filed 05/03/2024).
Emerson as modified above does not disclose other aspects of the aircraft such as the fuel tanks for supplying the engines. Grennan discloses using NEA from the inerter (separator) to inert the fuel tanks that power the engines (60). Grennan states that as fuel is consumed in a fuel tank, the voided volume is filled with NEA to displace any oxidant that might combust with fuel vapor within the tank as a result of the plane being struck during combat or the like (col. 1, lines 24-28). Grennan does not expressly disclose liquid fuel. However, Rheaume discloses that it is known to provide liquid fuel for aircraft engines and providing nitrogen (inert) gas to the ullage (107) of the liquid fuel tank to prevent explosive atmosphere in the tank in a manner similar to Grennan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide nitrogen to a liquid fuel tank that supplies the aircraft engine in the aircraft of Emerson to avoid an explosive atmosphere in the tank as disclosed by Grennan and Rheaume.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights