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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nestel (US PgPub #2019/0071190).
For Claim 1, the figures of Nestel ‘190 disclose a ground support equipment (10) for servicing an aircraft on the ground, the ground support equipment comprising: a preconditioned air, PCA, unit (20) configured to provide pre-conditioned air to an aircraft on the ground, a ground power unit, GPU (122), configured to provide power to the aircraft on the ground, and an input state
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 14, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutton (US PgPub #2003/0151309) in view of Nestel (US PgPub #2019/0071190).
For Claim 1, the figures of Hutton ‘309 disclose a ground support equipment (100) for servicing an aircraft on the ground, the ground support equipment comprising: a preconditioned air, PCA, unit (104) configured to provide pre-conditioned air to an aircraft on the ground, a ground power unit, GPU (106), configured to provide power to the aircraft on the ground, and an input state (112) connectable to a power source (102) to provide power to the PCA unit and the GPU; wherein the input state is operatively connected to the PCA unit and the GPU.
While Hutton ‘309 discloses controlling the power output to the PCA unit and the GPU it is silent about converting DC voltage to AC voltage with a rectifier and the GPU having an inverter to transform DC voltage to AC voltage for the aircraft. However, the figures and paragraph [005] of Nestel ‘190 teach that it is well known to have a power source being an AC voltage power source and then using a rectifier and a transformer configured to transform the AC voltage to a predetermined voltage level, wherein the GPU comprises an inverter circuit for transforming the DC voltage to a predetermined output AC voltage for powering the aircraft. Therefor it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the power control system of Nestel ‘190. The motivation to do so would be to provide the desired AC voltage to the aircraft.
For Claim 2, the figures of Hutton ‘309 disclose that the input stage is connectable to the power source via a single cable.
For Claim 5, while Hutton ‘309 in view of Nestel ‘190 teaches using a rectifier, they are silent about the rectifier being an uncontrolled magnetic coupled rectifier or a switched rectifier. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to use different rectifiers per design choice. As such it would be obvious to use a magnetic coupled rectifier or a switched rectifier. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 in view of Nestel ‘190 with a known type of rectifier. The motivation to do so would be to provide a desired voltage.
For Claim 6, while Hutton ‘309 is not specific on the strength of the power, paragraph [0046] of Nestel ‘190 teaches the AC power is between 60-90kW. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the wattage of Nestel ‘190. The motivation to do so would be to provide the desired power for an aircraft.
For Claim 7, while Hutton ‘309 teaches a controller (110), it is not specific about it controlling cooling of the system. However, paragraph [0019] of Nestel ‘190 teaches that it is well known to provide a cooling system to maintain a desired temperature of the system. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the cooling system of Nestel ‘190. The motivation to do so would be to keep the equipment at a desired temperature.
For Claim 8, Hutton ‘309 teaches connecting the GPU to the aircraft which inherently would be with a cable.
For Claim 9, the figures and abstract of Hutton ‘309 disclose the equipment mounted to a boarding bridge.
For Claim 14, while Hutton ‘309 is silent about a PCA housing and a GPU housing, figure 1 of Nestel ‘190 teaches a PCA housing with the PCA unit (20) therein, and a GPU housing with at least a part of the GPU (122) therein, and the GPU housing is separate to the PCA housing.
For Claim 18, while Hutton ‘309 is silent about providing DC voltage, the figures of Nestel ‘190 teach providing AC or DC as desired. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the ability to provide AC or DC voltage as desired as taught by Nestel ‘190. The motivation to do so would be to provide either type of power to an aircraft as needed.
For Claims 19-22, while Hutton ‘309 is silent about a plurality of variable frequency drives with an inverter stage and switches for a plurality of air conditioning modules of the PCA unit. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have a plurality of variable frequency drives with an inverter stage and switches for a plurality of air conditioning modules. The motivation to do so would be to be able to control the speed and torque of an AC motor by varying the frequency and voltage of its power supply.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutton (US PgPub #2003/0151309) in view of Nestel (US PgPub #2019/0071190) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clermont (FR #3069852).
For Claim 10, while Hutton ‘309 is silent about the PCA and the GPU being arranged in a housing, figures 4-5 of Clermont ‘852 teaches that the PCA unit and the GPU are arranged in a housing. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the housing of Clermont ‘852. The motivation to do so would be to the system contained in one housing.
For Claim 11, while Hutton ‘309 is silent about the PCA unit having an air duct for conveying air through the PCA unit, wherein the air duct has a first stage air duct and a narrowed section. However, figures 4-5 of Clermont ‘852 teaches that the PCA unit (3) comprises an air duct for conveying air through the PCA unit, wherein the air duct has a first stage air duct and a narrowed section.
Claim(s) 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutton (US PgPub #2003/0151309) in view of Nestel (US PgPub #2019/0071190) and Clermont (FR #3069852) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claim 12, while Hutton ‘309 is silent about a second stage air duct joined to the first stage air duct at a narrowed section and some components of the GPU housed between the narrow section and the housing, the AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to have various stages of an air duct with narrow sections so as to provide a desired air flow as well and having other components in the opened areas of the narrow section so as to use space that is available for other components to reduce the overall size of the system. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the narrowing connection system that allows for space for other components to be stored. The motivation to do so would be to provide a more compact system.
For Claim 13, while Hutton ‘309 discloses a blower fan, it is silent about it being in the narrowed section. However, the AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to place fans in a narrow section so as to pull air from a first section to a second section. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the fan in the narrowed section. The motivation to do so would be to control the air flow as desired.
For Claim 15, while Hutton ‘309 is silent about the inverter of the GPU being disposed in the GPU housing. The AAPA teaches that it is well known that it is well known in the art to place an inverter inside the housing. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the inverter placed in the housing. The motivation to do so would be to maintain the system in one housing.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutton (US PgPub #2003/0151309) in view of Nestel (US PgPub #2019/0071190) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nielson (WO #2021/178161).
For Claim 16, while Hutton ‘309 is silent about using rechargeable batteries, page 7, lines 29-30 of Nielson ‘161 disclose a rechargeable battery configured to provide the power source to the input stage. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the power source of Nielson ‘161. The motivation to do so would be to provide a power source that can be replaced.
For Claim 17, while Hutton ‘309 in view of Nestel ‘190 teach an output power of 60-90kW, it is silent about it being at most 45kW. However, page 7, line 26 of Nielson ‘161 disclose that that the pre-determined output AC power of the GPU is less than 45kW (20kW). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hutton ‘309 with the output power of Nielson ‘191. The motivation to do so would be to provide a lower wattage for safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hutton ‘309 in view of Nestel ‘190 in view of the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 3/7/2026