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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 2/05/2026 is acknowledged.
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 12-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of “a primary component”, wherein it is unclear what “a primary component” is referring to since the exact term “a primary component” has already been recited in the claim 1 from which the claim depends. Is the term “a primary component” requiring that there are multiple “a primary component” or is the term referring back to the previously recited term? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- the primary component -- for clarity.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheung et al. US 2018/0051716 Al.
Re claim 1, Cheung et al. teach a primary component for an aircraft, the primary component comprising: a first surface; a second surface arranged opposite the first surface ( annotated fig); a heat exchanger (409) with a heat exchanger body and a plurality of ports (at least four ports for entrance and exit of two different fluids);wherein the heat exchanger defines a first fluid circuit and a second fluid circuit, wherein the first fluid circuit and the second fluid circuit are fluidically connected to a first and a second of the plurality of ports, respectively, and the first fluid circuit ) is fluidically separated from the second fluid circuit (para 61);wherein the heat exchanger body is embedded into the primary component in such a way that the heat exchanger body is arranged between the first surface and the second surface (fig 6 , noting most of the body is in-between) of the primary component, and each of the plurality of ports is fluidly accessible via the first surface or via the second surface (fig 6).
Re claim 2, Cheung et al. teach wherein the heat exchanger body comprises a first surface and a second surface arranged opposite the first surface ;wherein the first surface of the heat exchanger body and the second surface of the heat exchanger body are each at least partially adjacent to material of the primary component (fig noting material attachments of duct to heat exchanger and adjacent walls the duct is integrated into).
Re claim 4, Cheung et al. teach wherein the primary component comprises a plurality of material layers and the heat exchanger body is arranged between at least two of the plurality of material layers (fig 6).
Re claim 7, Cheung et al. teach wherein the heat exchanger body is embedded in the primary component such that a first load path propagating through the primary component extends along the first surface of the heat exchanger body , and a second load path propagating through the primary component extends along the second surface of the heat exchanger body (fig 6).
Re claim 8, Cheung et al. teach wherein the first load path extends between the first surface of the heat exchanger body and the first surface of the primary component; wherein the second load path extends between the second surface of the heat exchanger body and the second surface of the primary component (noting load paths naturally exists in any structural component) .
Re claim 11, Cheung et al. teach wherein at least one surface of the heat exchanger body is thermally coupled to a surface of the primary component (physically coupled parts are thermally coupled).
Re claim 12, Cheung et al. teach an aircraft (figs), comprising a primary component according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 13, Cheung et al. teach wherein the primary component is a structural component on a fuselage , a wing , a control surface , or an engine (figs).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 3-8, 10-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. .
Re claim 3, Cheung et al. teach wherein the material of the primary component is bonded to at least one of the first surface of the heat exchanger body or the second surface of the heat exchanger body (noting all the materials are naturally connected attached, fig).
Additionally, another embodiment teach wherein the material of the primary component is bonded to at least one of the first surface of the heat exchanger body or the second surface of the heat exchanger body to integrate with the fuselage wall (para 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the material of the primary component is bonded to at least one of the first surface of the heat exchanger body or the second surface of the heat exchanger body as taught by combining embodiments in the Cheung et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for integrating the cooling system into any different part of the aircraft.
Re claim 4, Additionally, another embodiment teach wherein the primary component comprises a plurality of material layers and the heat exchanger body is arranged between at least two of the plurality of material layers to integrate with the fuselage wall (para 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material layers as taught by combining embodiments in the Cheung et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for integrating the cooling system into any different part of the aircraft.
Re claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the primary component is a fiber composite for weight and structural strength, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the fiber composite contains at least one of glass fibers or carbon fibers for weight and structural strength, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 7, Additionally, another embodiment teach the heat exchanger body is embedded in the primary component such that a first load path propagating through the primary component extends along the first surface of the heat exchanger body , and a second load path propagating through the primary component extends along the second surface of the heat exchanger body to integrate with the fuselage wall (para 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein embedded as taught by combining embodiments in the Cheung et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for integrating the cooling system into any different part of the aircraft.
Re claim 8, Cheung et al. teach wherein the first load path extends between the first surface of the heat exchanger body and the first surface of the primary component; wherein the second load path extends between the second surface of the heat exchanger body and the second surface of the primary component (noting load paths naturally exists in any structural component) .
Re claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form wherein the heat exchanger body comprises or consists of a metal, plastic or ceramic for weight and structural strength and/or heat transfer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 11, Additionally, another embodiment teach wherein at least one surface of the heat exchanger body is thermally coupled to a surface of the primary component to integrate with the fuselage wall (para 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include thermally coupled as taught by combining embodiments in the Cheung et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for integrating the cooling system into any different part of the aircraft.
Re claim 13, Additionally, another embodiment teach wherein the primary component is a structural component on a fuselage , a wing , a control surface , or an engine (figs) to integrate with the fuselage wall (para 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include thermally coupled as taught by combining embodiments in the Cheung et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for integrating the cooling system into any different part of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. in view of Papas US 20200070995 A1.
Rec claim 9, Cheung et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach a canted edge region.
Papas teach wherein the heat exchanger body comprises a canted edge region (para 68, noting in the instant combination, the heat exchanger is integrated into the fuselage of the secondary reference, which is canted) to provide a specific fuselage type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a canted edge region as taught by Papas in the Cheung et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for an aircraft with a mechanically-distributed propulsion drivetrain and architecture.
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