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 § 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, 5-7, 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 [0046-0047] 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 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 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 Dahl (EP #3876380).
For Claim 10, while Hutton ‘309 in view of Nestel ‘190 teach both the PCA and GPU being on a platform cart (12) they are silent about the PCA and the GPU being arranged in a housing. However, the figures of Dahl ‘380 disclose the system 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 in view of Nestel ‘190 with the known housing of components as taught by Dahl ‘380. The motivation to do so would be to provide a protected system.
Claim(s) 11-13 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 Dahl (EP #3876380) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahl (US PgPub #2012/0023985).
For Claims 11-13, 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, figure 8 of Dahl ‘985 teach that it is known to have a PCA unit, wherein the air duct has a first stage air duct (20) and a second stage air duct (20) and a narrow section (30) with a fan. 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 air duct system in the PCA unit as taught by Hansen ‘276. The motivation to do so would be to provide the desired air temperature and pressure.
Claim(s) 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For Claim 23, there is no prior art nor reasons to modify any prior art to have a ground support equipment as defined by Claim which in which the PCA unit includes an air duct including a first stage air duct, a second stage air duct, and a narrowed section connecting the first stage air duct and the second stage air duct, each of the first stage air duct and the second stage air duct including at least one mounting point comprising a slot opening; a plurality of air conditioning modules, each of the air conditioning modules: configured to mount to a corresponding mounting point, including an evaporator that extends through the slot opening and into the air duct, and including a plate arranged to close the slot of the corresponding mounting point.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn and a new non-final is being issued.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10-13 under 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 Dahl ‘380 and Dahl ‘985.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the second argument on pages 7-8 that Nestel ‘190 does not disclose an in-stream alignment of an input stage that provides DC from AC, and then the GPU that returns the DC to AC for the aircraft, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figures 4-7 of Nestel ‘190 clearly disclose that the input stage provides DC power from an AC source (502-506) and then the GPU returns the DC to AC for the aircraft (506-512).
Conclusion
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 8/11/2026
Prosecution Insights