DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the reply filed on April 23, 2026. Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 16-25 are withdrawn.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 6, “a operation” appears in error for -- an operation --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 142, 1142. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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: In claim 1 “control device” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “configured to control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1, Applicant has failed to provide sufficient detail in the specification related to claimed “control device configured to control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen” for the system claimed. Generally, the specification merely repeats the language of the claim and does not provide any detail as to what the control device is or how it is configured to control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen. With respect to the limitation, the as-filed disclosure only states “The hydrogen is partially burned in the pre-combustion chamber 32 (for example 4% by volume of the hydrogen can be burned) and the partial combustion is controlled (by a control device not represented) in order to consume all of the oxygen provided by the air supply.” The specification does not identify what the ‘control device’ is or how it achieves partial combustion control in order to consume all of the oxygen provided by the air supply. The specification fails to identify whether the control device forms part of the structure of the combustion device itself, a fuel supply system, or an electronic controller. Furthermore, the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function of “partial combustion control in order to consume all of the oxygen provided by the air supply” is to be achieved. For the reasons above, the as-filed disclosure fails to provide a showing of possession for the system claimed.
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
As to Claim 1, the claim limitation “a control device configured to control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is disclosed for the control device nor is it clear how such as a device can be configured to “control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites a control device configured to “control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen”, which is a functional recitation that renders the claim indefinite. Upon review of the specification, there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim and it is unclear what the control device is and how it is to be used to “control” the partial combustion. The language is ambiguous and fails to set forth well-defined boundaries of the invention, then stating only a result obtained (producing the gas mixture devoid of oxygen). One of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim. Specifically, one of ordinary skill would not understand what the control device is in this context nor how it is to be used in order to control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen in a manner to achieve the result of “produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen”.
As to Claim 1, the recitations of “increase a temperature of the pressurized liquid hydrogen”, “ensure partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen” and “control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen” render the claim indefinite. The claim refers to “liquid hydrogen” and therefore the claim language on its face indicates the hydrogen is in a liquid state; however, upon review of the specification it appears in the example embodiments that the hydrogen would have been increased above the triple point and critical point of hydrogen during the above recitations and thus would have no longer been a liquid. For example, immediately prior to partial combustion in the at least one combustion device, the specification indicates the hydrogen would be at about 260 K and 30 bars, which would no longer be ‘liquid’ hydrogen. As such, the claim raises question if and when the claimed “liquid hydrogen” and “pressurized liquid hydrogen” need in fact be a liquid and the claim takes on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, an indefinite claim 1.
Claim 7 was previously objected to one the basis that: “the turbine bypass circuit” appears in error for – the circuit for bypassing the turbine --. Claim 7 has been amended such that “the turbine bypass circuit” has been changed to – a turbine bypass circuit”. The amendment raises question as to whether “a turbine bypass circuit” refers to: (i) the aforementioned “circuit for bypassing the turbine (claim 7, line 2); or (ii) another circuit. As such, the number of bypass circuits required by the claim as now amended is unclear.
As to Claim 11, it is not clear what metes and bounds “with a view to introducing it into at least one combustion device” imposes. As such, one of ordinary skill would not be able to readily ascertain the metes and bounds covered by the claim.
As to Claim 14, “the aerobic hydrogen engine” as set forth in claim 14 at line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. The “at least one fuel conditioning system according to claim 1” is later set forth in the claim and should be introduced prior to “the aerobic hydrogen engine” at line 2 if intended to provide antecedent basis for “the aerobic hydrogen engine” at line 2.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-9932124-B2
“KAMATH”
US-20230132118-A1
“GOY”
US-2956402-A
“RAE”
US-20150337763-A1
“VUILLAMY”
This action references the following non-patent documents:
AUTHOR OR EDITOR
TITLE (DATE),
PUBLISHER,
EDITION
CHAPTERS / PAGES
COPY
HEREINAFTER
SLOOP
LIQUID HYDROGEN AS A PROPULSION FUEL, 1945-1959 (1978),
NASA,
NASA SP-4404
ALL
PROVIDED
“SLOOP”
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLOOP in view of KAMATH.
PNG
media_image1.png
843
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, SLOOP teaches a fuel conditioning system (conditioning system of Figure 32) for an aerobic hydrogen engine (Figure 32) wherein the system comprises:
at least one hydrogen pump (‘PUMP’, FIG. 32) configured to increase a liquid hydrogen pressure coming from a tank (FIG. 32),
one or several heat exchanger(s) [‘HEAT EXCHANGER’, FIG. 32] configured to increase a temperature of the pressurized liquid hydrogen,
an air supply circuit [conduit shown in Figure 32 labeled “AIR” leading to “COMBUSTION CHAMBER”],
at least one combustion device [“COMBUSTION CHAMBER”] configured to ensure a partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen with air coming from the air supply circuit (Figure 32, page 129) in order to produce a fuel comprising a gas mixture including gaseous hydrogen and which is devoid of oxygen (Figure 32, page 129).
NOTE, in Figure 32 hydrogen is burned with air in “fuel-rich” manner thereby producing a fuel comprising a gas mixture including gaseous hydrogen (combustion gases) which are then provided to the afterburner as fuel (page 129). The recitation “in order to produce a fuel comprising a gas mixture including gaseous hydrogen and which is devoid of oxygen” is a functional recitation of intended use that fails to distinguish the claimed invention in terms of structure. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, because the hydrogen is burned “fuel-rich” one of ordinary skill will appreciate that upon combustion the oxidizing air will be depleted thereby leaving the ‘hydrogen-rich gases’ (which are thereby devoid of oxidizer/oxygen). One of ordinary skill would have appreciated that by the use of the term “fuel-rich” and “hydrogen-rich” the combustion products will be devoid of oxygen and that the prior art structure is necessarily capable of producing a gas mixture including gaseous hydrogen and devoid of oxygen by nature of the combustion in the combustion chamber. However, SLOOP as discussed so far fails to teach a control device configured to control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen in SLOOP.
KAMATH teaches a control device configured to control combustion of pressurized cryogenic fuel according to mission requirements (Fig. 5, 15:27 to 17:37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of SLOOP such that it includes a control device that is configured to control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen taught by SLOOP in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen as taught by SLOOP, in order to accomplish performance and/or economic operation objectives using hydrogen cryogenic fuel according to mission requirements (KAMATH 17:1-37).
Re Claim 2, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches wherein said at least one hydrogen pump is disposed upstream of the one or several heat exchangers in a direction of circulation of the hydrogen from said at least one hydrogen pump (Figure 32).
Re Claim 3, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches wherein the one or several heat exchangers is/are configured to increase the hydrogen temperature at least partly by cooling one or several fluid(s) (exhaust fluid of combustion chamber; Figure 32, page 131).
Re Claim 4, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches wherein the system comprises a hydrogen circuit downstream of said at least one hydrogen pump in a direction of circulation of the hydrogen from said at least one hydrogen pump (between pump outlet and combustion chamber inlet) and a fuel circuit downstream of said at least one combustion device (combustion chamber outlet and afterburner), the one or several heat exchangers being fluidly connected between the hydrogen circuit and the fuel circuit in order to increase the temperature of the hydrogen in the hydrogen circuit from heat of the fuel produced by said at least one combustion device in the fuel circuit (Figure 32, pages 129, 131).
Re Claim 14, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the at least one fuel conditioning system according to claim 1 as discussed above (See above claim 1). SLOOP further teaches the system having a system for supplying fuel to a combustion chamber (afterburner) of the aerobic hydrogen engine (Figure 32 engine), wherein the fuel supply system comprises: the at least one fuel conditioning system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), at least one liquid hydrogen tank (Figure 32, tank labeled “HYDROGEN”) configured to deliver liquid hydrogen to said at least one hydrogen pump of said at least one fuel conditioning system (Figure 32), and an injection device (“BURNERS”, Figure 32) configured to inject the fuel produced by said at least one combustion device of said at least one fuel conditioning system into a combustion chamber (“afterburner”) of the aerobic hydrogen engine (Figure 32, pages 129, 131).
Re Claim 15, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the fuel supply system according to claim 14 as discussed above. However, SLOOP in view of KAMATH as discussed so far (with respect to Figure 32) fails to teach the system further comprises a pump which is configured to deliver pressurized hydrogen to said at least one fuel conditioning system.
KAMATH teaches a pump which is configured to deliver pressurized cryogenic fuel from a tank to a main pump 502 (3:54 to 4:57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein it includes a pump which is configured to deliver pressurized hydrogen to said at least one fuel conditioning system, in order to avoid cavitation (4:18-51).
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLOOP in view of KAMATH.
PNG
media_image2.png
766
1106
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1, SLOOP teaches a fuel conditioning system for an aerobic hydrogen engine (FIGURE 23, pages 108-110) wherein the system comprises:
at least one hydrogen pump (“PUMP”, FIG. 23) configured to increase a liquid hydrogen pressure coming from a source (“INCOMING LIQUID H2”, FIG. 23; pages 108-109)
one or several heat exchanger(s) [“HEAT EXCHANGER”, FIG. 23) configured to increase a temperature of the pressurized liquid hydrogen (pages 108-109),
an air supply circuit (circuit between fan or compressor and primary combustor, labeled “AIR” in Fig. 23; “small amount of air was directed to the primary combustor”, page 108),
at least one combustion device [“PRIMARY COMBUSTOR”, FIG. 23] configured to ensure a partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen with air coming from the air supply circuit in order to produce a fuel comprising a gas mixture including gaseous hydrogen [“HOT FUEL-RICH COMBUSTION GAS” to be flowed to the afterburner, FIG. 23 pages 108-109] and which is devoid of oxygen (the hydrogen enters the primary combustor where it is burned hydrogen-rich with air; pages 108-109; as will be appreciated where combustion is “hydrogen-rich” or “fuel-rich”, fuel is in excess of available oxidizer for combustion). However, SLOOP as discussed so far fails to teach the source is a tank.
SLOOP further teaches at least one hydrogen pump configured to increase liquid hydrogen pressure coming from a tank (page 129; “Hydrogen from the tank is raised to a high pressure by a pump and passes through a heat exchanger where it is heated to a sufficiently high temperature to drive the first turbine”).
NOTE, in Figure 23 hydrogen is burned with air in “fuel-rich” manner thereby producing a fuel comprising a gas mixture including gaseous hydrogen (combustion gases) which are then provided to the afterburner as fuel (pages 108-109). The recitation “in order to produce a fuel comprising a gas mixture including gaseous hydrogen and which is devoid of oxygen” is a functional recitation of intended use that fails to distinguish the claimed invention in terms of structure. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, because the hydrogen is burned “fuel-rich” one of ordinary skill will appreciate that upon combustion the oxidizing air will be depleted thereby leaving the ‘hydrogen-rich gases’ (which are thereby devoid of oxidizer/oxygen). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that by the use of the term “fuel-rich” and “hydrogen-rich” the combustion products will be devoid of oxygen and that the prior art structure is necessarily capable of producing a gas mixture including gaseous hydrogen and devoid of oxygen by nature of the combustion in the combustion chamber. However, SLOOP as discussed so far fails to teach a control device configured to control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen.
KAMATH teaches a control device configured to control combustion of pressurized cryogenic fuel according to mission requirements (Fig. 5, 15:27 to 17:37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of SLOOP such that it includes a control device configured to control the partial combustion of the pressurized liquid hydrogen taught by SLOOP in order to produce the gas mixture devoid of oxygen as taught by SLOOP, in order to accomplish performance and/or economic operation objectives using hydrogen cryogenic fuel according to mission requirements (KAMATH 17:1-37).
Re Claim 2, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches wherein said at least one hydrogen pump is disposed upstream of the one or several heat exchangers in a direction of circulation of the hydrogen from said at least one hydrogen pump (SLOOP Figure 23).
Re Claim 3, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches wherein the one or several heat exchangers is/are configured to increase the hydrogen temperature at least partly by cooling one or several fluid(s) (SLOOP Figure 23).
Re Claim 4, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches wherein the system comprises a hydrogen circuit downstream of said at least one hydrogen pump in a direction of circulation of the hydrogen from said at least one hydrogen pump and a fuel circuit downstream of said at least one combustion device, the one or several heat exchangers being fluidly connected between the the hydrogen circuit and the fuel circuit in order to increase the temperature of the hydrogen in the hydrogen circuit from the heat of the fuel produced by said at least one combustion device in the fuel circuit (SLOOP Figure 23).
Re Claim 5, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the of system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches wherein the system comprises, downstream of said at least one hydrogen pump in a direction of circulation of the hydrogen from said at least one hydrogen pump, a turbine configured to ensure partial expansion of the pressurized hydrogen [“TURBINE”, Figure 23]. However, SLOOP as discussed so far fails to the teach the turbine configured to ensure partial expansion of the pressurized hydrogen in order to provide to said at least one hydrogen pump, in mechanical form via a transmission shaft connecting the turbine to said at least one hydrogen pump, at least part of a power necessary for an operation of said at least one hydrogen pump.
SLOOP further teaches a turbine configured to ensure partial expansion of the pressurized hydrogen in order to provide to said at least one hydrogen pump, in mechanical form via a transmission shaft [transmission shaft and reduction gear arrangement in Figure 40] connecting the turbine to said at least one hydrogen pump, at least part of a power necessary for an operation of said at least one hydrogen pump (Figure 40; pages 152-155). See also Figure 38. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the turbine configured to ensure partial expansion of the pressurized hydrogen such that it is configured in order to provide to said at least one hydrogen pump, in mechanical form via a transmission shaft connecting the turbine to said at least one hydrogen pump, at least part of a power necessary for an operation of said at least one hydrogen pump, since it has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, using a power takeoff driven by a turbine spool) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (driving a pump with a transmission shaft) with no change in their respective functions (providing liquid hydrogen), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (a liquid hydrogen supply), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A.
Re Claim 8, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 5. SLOOP further teaches wherein as modified in claim 5 said at least one hydrogen pump and the turbine together form a turbopump (the turbine spool drives the pump thereby qualifying as a turbopump; see Figure 40). See also turbopump of Figure 38, which would have obvious for the same reasons discussed above in Claim 5.
Re Claim 9 SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches wherein the system comprises a flow separator (branching point of high pressure H2; see Image below) disposed upstream of said at least one combustion device in a direction of circulation of the hydrogen from said at least one hydrogen pump and which is configured to separate the hydrogen into a first flow provided to said at least one combustion device and a second flow which joins the fuel produced by said at least one combustion device downstream of the latter (joins prior to afterburner).
PNG
media_image3.png
766
1106
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLOOP in view of KAMATH as applied above (in the Figure 23 embodiment of SLOOP applied with respect to Claims 1-5 and 8-9) and further in view of VUILLAMY.
Re Claim 10, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 1 as noted in the prior section, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein said at least one hydrogen pump is an electrically-powered pump and the system comprises at least one electric motor configured to provide to the electrically-powered pump all of a power necessary for an operation of the electrically-powered pump.
VUILLAMY teaches least one hydrogen pump is an electrically-powered pump to provide to the electrically-powered pump all of a power necessary for an operation of the electrically-powered pump (¶¶0010, 0016). KAMATH further teaches a pump is an electrically-powered pump and the system comprises at least one electric motor configured to provide to the electrically-powered pump all of a power necessary for an operation of the electrically-powered pump (3:54 to 4:57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide said at least one hydrogen pump is an electrically-powered pump and the system comprises at least one electric motor configured to provide to the electrically-powered pump all of a power necessary for an operation of the electrically-powered pump, since it has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, a hydrogen pump) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (powering the pump with an electric motor) with no change in their respective functions (driving the pump to pressure hydrogen), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (a hydrogen supply), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLOOP in view of KAMATH as applied above (in the Figure 23 embodiment of SLOOP applied with respect to Claims 1-5 and 8-9) and further in view of RAE.
Re Claim 11, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches the system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches wherein the air supply circuit is configured to transport air taken from the aerobic hydrogen engine to said at least one combustion device (SLOOP FIGURE 23), but as discussed so far SLOOP in view of KAMATH fails to teach the system comprises a pressure booster configured to ensure a rise in the pressure of this air with a view to introducing it into said at least one combustion device.
RAE teaches a pressure booster configured to ensure a rise in the pressure of air with a view to introducing it into said at least one combustion device (Fig. 2, 5:38-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pressure booster configured to ensure a rise in the pressure of this air with a view to introducing it into said at least one combustion device, to regulate the pressure of the air received such that it corresponds with a required pressure (RAE 5:38-60).
Claims 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLOOP in view of KAMATH as applied above (in the Figure 23 embodiment of SLOOP applied with respect to Claims 1-5 and 8-9) and further in view of GOY.
Re Claims 12-13, SLOOP in view of KAMATH teaches a system according to claim 1. SLOOP further teaches the system comprising a hydrogen circuit downstream of said at least one hydrogen pump in a direction of circulation of the hydrogen from said at least one hydrogen pump (pump to combustion chamber in Figure 23) and a fuel circuit downstream of said at least one combustion device (combustion chamber to afterburner in Figure 23), the one or several heat exchangers being fluidly connected between the hydrogen circuit and the fuel circuit in order to increase the temperature of the hydrogen in the hydrogen circuit from the heat of the fuel produced by said at least one combustion device in the fuel circuit the one or several heat exchangers which are fluidly connected between the fuel circuit, downstream of said at least one combustion device, and the hydrogen circuit, downstream of said at least one hydrogen pump (pages 108-109, Figure 23). However, SLOOP fails to teach the system comprises a compression device configured to increase a pressure of the fuel produced by said at least one combustion device the compression device is being disposed in the fuel circuit downstream of the one or several heat exchangers.
SLOOP teaches that the fuel circuit meets with another circuit of high pressure gaseous hydrogen immediately prior to the afterburner and downstream of the heat exchanger for supplying fuel to the afterburner (see “JUNCTION” in Image below). GOY teaches a compression device 112, 212 configured to increase a pressure of fuel disposed in a fuel circuit received from an augmentor fuel supply (consonant with the “JUNCTION” in SLOOP) and the subsequently supplied to an afterburner (¶¶0014-0022). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a compression device configured to increase a pressure of the fuel produced by said at least one combustion device the compression device is being disposed in the fuel circuit at the junction where the afterburner fuel supplies combine (downstream of the one or several heat exchangers), in order to supply fuel at a desired pressure to the afterburner using a pump that is capable of operation only when desired (GOY ¶¶0004, 0020-0022). By providing the pump after the junction, the combined fuel flow to the afterburner may be affected.
PNG
media_image4.png
766
1106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) except where repeated above. However, Applicant’s amendment necessitated multiple new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 as set forth fully above.
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings raised new issues set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks to the prior art rejections are not persuasive. The amendment to include the control device raises issues under 35 U.S.C. 112. Further, to the extent the amendment it is understood, it appears it would have been obvious in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 6:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and is OFF Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
July 6, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights