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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “cooling system” and atomization system” recited throughout the claims.
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.
For the record:
“Cooling system” is interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0038 of the specification, and equivalents thereof (note that even though claim 1 recites the cooling system having a hot side and a cool side, such structure alone is not sufficient to perform the cooling function).
“Atomization system” is interpreted to correspond to reference numeral 402 as illustrated in Fig. 4B, and equivalents thereof, and including the corresponding structural components described at paras. 0004-0007, 0014-0017, and 0019-0022 of the specification.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran et al. (US 2017/0297716 A1) in view of Bortoletto et al. (US 2011/0236544 A1).
As per claim 1, Moran et al. disclose a galley 22 cooler, comprising: a cooled compartment comprising a volume (cooling compartment 50); a cooling system 40, the cooling system comprising: a hot side coupled to an exterior of the cooled compartment (condenser 112), wherein the hot side comprises a hot-side inlet (airflow inlet shown in Figs. 2-5); and a cold side (evaporator 114) coupled to an interior of the cooled compartment and configured to, in response chilled galley air entering the a cold side inlet on the cold side from the volume of the cooled compartment (via duct 44 from compartment 50), condense moist air into liquid water on the cold side thereby forming condensate liquid (airflow across galley cooling evaporator 114 generates condensate as shown in Figs. 2-5); and an atomization system 140 (Fig. 3; paras. 0036-0037; etc.) configured to, responsive to receiving the condensate liquid (received from condensate re-ingestor 136) atomize the condensate liquid into an atomized mist that is projected into ambient air outside of the cooled compartment (expelled into exhaust flow). Note, however, that the limitation “atomization system” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being directed to reference numeral 402 as shown in Fig. 4B of Applicant’s disclosure, as indicated above, and which includes a wick and vibrating disk arrangement. Moran does not teach the atomization system comprising these features. However, Bortoletto et al. teach the basic concept of a wick 202 and vibrating disk 212 type atomizer (para. 0034; Fig. 5; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply the atomization system of Bortoletto et al. to the system of Moran et al. as simply an alternative known arrangement for effectively atomizing liquid from a reservoir.
As per claim 2, Moran et al. do not disclose wherein the atomization system further comprises: a vibrating disk, wherein the vibrating disk is configured to vibrate at a frequency to atomize the condensate liquid. Bortoletto et al. teach an atomizer comprising a vibrating disk, wherein the vibrating disk is configured to vibrate at a frequency to atomize water (para. 0034; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide /vibrating disk-type atomizer to the system of Moran et al. as a generally known effective technique for atomizing water into a mist.
As per claim 3, Moran et al. do not disclose wherein the atomization system further comprises: a porous wick, wherein the porous wick is configured to deliver the condensate liquid to the vibrating disk. Bortoletto et al. further teach: a porous wick, wherein the porous wick 208 is configured to deliver the condensate liquid to the vibrating disk (para. 0034; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a wick/vibrating disk-type atomizer to the system of Moran et al. for the same purpose of effectively drawing water from the reservoir to the disk in order to be atomized.
As per claim 4, Moran et al. wherein the atomization system further comprises: a reservoir 142, wherein the condensate liquid is fed to the reservoir (Figs. 2-5; etc.). Moran et al. do not teach wherein a portion of the porous wick is positioned within a reservoir such that the porous wick absorbs the condensate liquid and feeds the liquid to the vibrating disk. Bortoletto et al. teach wherein a portion of the porous wick is positioned within a reservoir such that the porous wick absorbs the condensate liquid and feeds the liquid to the vibrating disk. Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a wick/vibrating disk-type atomizer to the system of Moran et al. for the same purpose of effectively drawing water from the reservoir to the disk in order to be atomized (paras. 0032-0034; Fig. 5; etc.).
As per claim 7, Moran et al. do not disclose wherein the frequency of the vibrating disk is between 50 Kilohertz and 200 Kilohertz. Bortoletto et al. teach wherein the frequency of the vibrating disk is between 50 Kilohertz and 200 Kilohertz (para. 0034 teaches a frequency of about 110 kilohertz. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly operate the disk at this frequency within the system of Moran et al. as already applied since Bortoletto et al. teach it as being an effective frequency for atomization (para. 0034; etc.).
As per claim 8, Moran et al. do not disclose wherein the porous wick has a shape and wherein the shape is at least one of a sheet shape or a cylinder shape. Bortoletto et al. teach the wick 202 having a sheet-like shape (Figs. 1, 4; etc.). Such shapes are considered simple mechanical expedients that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply within the system of Moran et al. for the purpose of effectively collecting and wicking the water along its length from the reservoir to the atomizer.
As per claim 9, neither Moran et al. nor Bortoletto et al. teach wherein the porous wick is formed via at least one of 3D printing or additive manufacturing. However, this limitation is directed to method of manufacturing rather than the actual structural features of the wick itself. Since the wick of Bortoletto et al. is considered to be capable of being manufactured in such a manner, it is deemed to read on this limitation. The use of the wick of Bortoletto et al. within the system of Moran et al. is obvious for the reasons already discussed above regarding claim 3, etc.
As per claim 10, Moran et al. do not disclose wherein the porous wick is at least one of a fabric, a metal, or a polymer. Bortoletto et al. teach wherein the porous wick is at least one of a fabric, a metal, or a polymer (i.e., para. 0033: wick may be constructed of a cotton material (which is considered a “fabric”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly use a cotton wick within the modified system of Moran et al. for the purpose of effectively drawing water (para. 0033; etc.).
As per claim 11, an aircraft, comprising: a galley 22; a cooled compartment 50 within the galley; a cooling system 40 configured within the galley, the cooling system comprising: a hot side (condenser 112) coupled to an exterior of the cooled compartment, wherein the hot side comprises a hot-side inlet (airflow inlet shown in Figs. 2-5); and a cold side (evaporator 114) coupled to an interior of the cooled compartment and configured to, in response chilled galley air entering the a cold side inlet on the cold side from the volume of the cooled compartment (via duct 44 from compartment 50), condense moist air into liquid water on the cold side thereby forming condensate liquid (airflow across galley cooling evaporator 114 generates condensate as shown in Figs. 2-5); and an atomization system 140 (Fig. 3; paras. 0036-0037; etc.) configured to, responsive to receiving the condensate liquid (received from condensate re-ingestor 136) atomize the condensate liquid into an atomized mist that is projected into ambient air (expelled into exhaust flow). Note, however, that the limitation “atomization system” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being directed to reference numeral 402 as shown in Fig. 4B of Applicant’s disclosure, as indicated above, and which includes a wick and vibrating disk arrangement. Moran does not teach the atomization system comprising these features. However, Bortoletto et al. teach the basic concept of a wick 202 and vibrating disk 212 type atomizer (para. 0034; Fig. 5; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply the atomization system of Bortoletto et al. to the system of Moran et al. as simply an alternative known arrangement for effectively atomizing liquid from a reservoir.
As per claim 12, Moran et al. do not disclose wherein the atomization system further comprises: a vibrating disk, wherein the vibrating disk is configured to vibrate at a frequency to atomize the condensate liquid. Bortoletto et al. teach an atomizer comprising a vibrating disk, wherein the vibrating disk is configured to vibrate at a frequency to atomize water (para. 0034; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide /vibrating disk-type atomizer to the system of Moran et al. as a generally known effective technique for atomizing water into a mist. Moran et al. also do not disclose wherein the frequency of the vibrating disk is between 50 Kilohertz and 200 Kilohertz. Bortoletto et al. teach wherein the frequency of the vibrating disk is between 50 Kilohertz and 200 Kilohertz (para. 0034 teaches a frequency of about 110 kilohertz. . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly operate the disk at this frequency within the system of Moran et al. as already applied since Bortoletto et al. teach it as being an effective frequency for atomization (para. 0034; etc.).
As per claim 13, Moran et al. do not disclose wherein the atomization system further comprises: a porous wick, wherein the porous wick is configured to deliver the condensate liquid to the vibrating disk. Bortoletto et al. further teach: a porous wick, wherein the porous wick 208 is configured to deliver the condensate liquid to the vibrating disk (para. 0034; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a wick/vibrating disk-type atomizer to the system of Moran et al. for the same purpose of effectively drawing water from the reservoir to the disk in order to be atomized. Moran et al. also do not disclose wherein the porous wick has a shape and wherein the shape is at least one of a sheet shape or a cylinder shape. Bortoletto et al. teach the wick 202 having a sheet-like shape (Figs. 1, 4; etc.). Such shapes are considered simple mechanical expedients that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply within the system of Moran et al. for the purpose of effectively collecting and wicking the water along its length from the reservoir to the atomizer. Neither Moran et al. nor Bortoletto et al. teach wherein the porous wick is formed via at least one of 3D printing or additive manufacturing. However, this limitation is directed to method of manufacturing rather than the actual structural features of the wick itself. Since the wick of Bortoletto et al. is considered to be capable of being manufactured in such a manner, it is deemed to read on this limitation. The use of the wick of Bortoletto et al. within the system of Moran et al. is obvious for the reasons already discussed above regarding claim 3, etc. Moran et al. also do not disclose wherein the porous wick is at least one of a fabric, a metal, or a polymer. Bortoletto et al. teach wherein the porous wick is at least one of a fabric, a metal, or a polymer (i.e., para. 0033: wick may be constructed of a cotton material (which is considered a “fabric”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly use a cotton wick within the modified system of Moran et al. for the purpose of effectively drawing water (para. 0033; etc.).
As per claim 14, Moran et al. wherein the atomization system further comprises: a reservoir 142, wherein the condensate liquid is fed to the reservoir (Figs. 2-5; etc.). Moran et al. do not teach wherein a portion of the porous wick is positioned within a reservoir such that the porous wick absorbs the condensate liquid and feeds the liquid to the vibrating disk. Bortoletto et al. teach wherein a portion of the porous wick is positioned within a reservoir such that the porous wick absorbs the condensate liquid and feeds the liquid to the vibrating disk. Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide a wick/vibrating disk-type atomizer to the system of Moran et al. for the same purpose of effectively drawing water from the reservoir to the disk in order to be atomized (paras. 0032-0034; Fig. 5; etc.).
As per claim 16, Moran et al. disclose a cooling system 40, the cooling system comprising: a hot side (condenser 112) coupled to an exterior of the cooled compartment,, wherein the hot side comprises a hot-side inlet (airflow inlet shown in Figs. 2-5); and a cold side (evaporator 114) coupled to an interior of the cooled compartment and configured to, in response chilled galley air entering the a cold side inlet on the cold side from the volume of the cooled compartment (via duct 44 from compartment 50), condense moist air into liquid water on the cold side thereby forming condensate liquid (airflow across galley cooling evaporator 114 generates condensate as shown in Figs. 2-5); and an atomization system 140 (Fig. 3; paras. 0036-0037; etc.) configured to, responsive to receiving the condensate liquid (received from condensate re-ingestor 136) atomize the condensate liquid into an atomized mist that is projected into ambient air (expelled into exhaust flow). Note, however, that the limitation “atomization system” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being directed to reference numeral 402 as shown in Fig. 4B of Applicant’s disclosure, as indicated above, and which includes a wick and vibrating disk arrangement. Moran does not teach the atomization system comprising these features. However, Bortoletto et al. teach the basic concept of a wick 202 and vibrating disk 212 type atomizer (para. 0034; Fig. 5; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply the atomization system of Bortoletto et al. to the system of Moran et al. as simply an alternative known arrangement for effectively atomizing liquid from a reservoir.
As per claims 17-19, see similar claims 12-14, respectively, above.
Claim(s) 5-6, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran et al. (US 2017/0297716 A1) in view of Bortoletto et al. (US 2011/0236544 A1), and further in view of Berenter (US 4748821).
As per claims 5, 15, and 20, Moran et al. do not teach wherein the atomization system further comprises: a sensor; and an atomizer controller, wherein, responsive to receiving an indication of moisture within the porous wick via the sensor, the atomizer controller is configured to send a command to the vibrating disk to vibrate at the frequency. Berenter teaches the concept of atomizing condensate based on a sensor detecting the amount of moisture (i.e., the level of condensate – col. 1, lines 9-22; col. 2, line 63 – col. 3, line 11; etc.). Bortoletto et al. already teach the atomizer utilizing a wick/vibrating disk arrangement as already discussed above regarding claims 2-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply the sensor based atomization controls of Berenter to the combined system of Moran et al. in view of Bortoletto et al. for the same purpose of removing condensate from the system when a high level of condensate moisture is detected.
As per claim 6, Moran et al. do not disclose wherein the sensor is either embedded within the porous wick or coupled to the porous wick. However, coupling the sensor of Berenter to the wick within the system of Moran et al. in view of Bortoletto et al. is considered a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose holding the sensor in place within the condensate reservoir.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1, 11, and 16, arguing simply that the combination of Moran et al. in view of Bartoletto et al. do not teach the claims as now recited. However, it is determined that those references continue to teach the recited subject matter as set forth in the updated rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth above.
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 MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights