DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on June 21, 2024. 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 Claims 16-25 are withdrawn.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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 09 June 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 at line 5, “the temperature” appears in error for – a temperature --.
In Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13 each recitation of “the direction of circulation” appears in error for – a direction of circulation --.
In Claim 4, “the heat of the fuel” appears in error for – heat of the fuel --.
In Claims 5, 6, 10 “each recitation of “the power necessary for the operation” appears in error for – a power necessary for operation --.
In Claim 7, “the turbine bypass circuit” appears in error for – the circuit for bypassing the turbine --.
In Claim 9, “the latter” appears in error for – said at least one combustion device --.
In Claim 12, “the pressure of the fuel” appears in error for -- a pressure of the fuel --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 liquid hydrogen pressure” at lines 3-4 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. No liquid hydrogen is previously set forth and it is unclear what is being required by the recitation.
As to Claim 1, “the pressurized hydrogen” at 6 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear if “the pressurized hydrogen” refers to the aforementioned liquid hydrogen and as such raises question as to whether the pressurized hydrogen is required to be “liquid hydrogen”.
As to Claim 1, “the hydrogen” at line 9 is unclear if it refers to: (i) liquid hydrogen (corresponding to the aforementioned liquid hydrogen pressure of lines 3-4; or (ii) the pressurized hydrogen aforementioned at line 6, which is unclear if it must be liquid as discussed above.
As to Claims 4-5, 9, and 13, “it comprises” is ambiguous as to what aforementioned element “it” refers to.
As to Claims 4 and 13, the recitations of “the two circuits” render the claims indefinite because in each case three circuits are already set forth in the claim, namely an air supply circuit, a hydrogen circuit and a fuel circuit.
As to Claim 7, “the passage”, “the flow of fuel” each lack sufficient antecedent basis and render the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 11, it is unclear if “an aerobic hydrogen engine” refers to the aforementioned aerobic hydrogen engine set forth in claim 1 or another engine.
As to Claim 11, the metes and bounds of the functional recitation “configured to ensure a rise in the pressure of this air with a view to introducing it into said at least one combustion device” are not clear. It is not clear how a pressure relief ensures a “rise” in pressure nor 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, it is unclear if “an aerobic hydrogen engine” at line 2 refers to the aforementioned aerobic hydrogen engine set forth in claim 1 or another engine.
As to Claim 14, it is unclear if “an aerobic hydrogen engine” at line 8 refers to the aforementioned aerobic hydrogen engine set forth in claim 1; the aerobic hydrogen engine set forth in claim 14 and line 2.
As to Claim 14, it is unclear if “at least one liquid hydrogen tank” at line 4 refers to the aforementioned tank set forth in Claim 1 or another tank.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, an indefinite claim.
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 § 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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SLOOP.
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 the liquid hydrogen pressure coming from a tank (FIG. 32),
one or several heat exchanger(s) [‘HEAT EXCHANGER’, FIG. 32] configured to increase the temperature of the pressurized 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 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.
Re Claim 2, SLOOP teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one hydrogen pump is disposed upstream of the heat exchanger(s) in the direction of circulation of the hydrogen from said at least one hydrogen pump (Figure 32).
Re Claim 3, SLOOP teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the heat exchanger(s) 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 teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein it comprises a hydrogen circuit downstream of said at least one hydrogen pump in the 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 heat exchanger(s) being fluidly connected between the two circuits 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 (Figure 32, pages 129, 131).
Re Claim 14, SLOOP teaches the at least one fuel conditioning system according to claim 1 as discussed above (See above claim 1) and a system for supplying fuel to a combustion chamber (afterburner) of an aerobic hydrogen engine (Figure 32 engine), wherein the fuel supply system comprises: 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).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SLOOP in view of KAMATH.
Re Claim 15, SLOOP teaches the fuel supply system according to claim 14 as discussed above. However, SLOOP 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.
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 the 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 the temperature of the pressurized 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 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 the 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.
Re Claim 2, SLOOP teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein said at least one hydrogen pump is disposed upstream of the heat exchanger(s) in the direction of circulation of the hydrogen from said at least one hydrogen pump (SLOOP Figure 23).
Re Claim 3, SLOOP teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the heat exchanger(s) 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 teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein it comprises a hydrogen circuit downstream of said at least one hydrogen pump in the 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 heat exchanger(s) being fluidly connected between the two circuits 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 teaches the of system according to claim 1, wherein it comprises, downstream of said at least one hydrogen pump in the 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 the power necessary for the 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 the power necessary for the 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 the power necessary for the 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 teaches the system according to claim 5, 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 teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein it comprises a flow separator (branching point of high pressure H2; see Image below) disposed upstream of said at least one combustion device in the 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 as applied above (in the Figure 23 embodiment applied with respect to Claims 1-5 and 8-9) and further in view of VUILLAMY and KAMATH.
Re Claim 10, SLOOP teaches the system according to claim 1 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 the power necessary for the 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 the power necessary for the operation of the elbectrically-powered pump (¶¶0010, 0016). KAMATH 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 the power necessary for the 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 the power necessary for the 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 as applied above (in the Figure 23 embodiment applied with respect to Claims 1-5 and 8-9) and further in view of RAE.
Re Claim 11, SLOOP teaches the system according to claim 1 wherein the air supply circuit is configured to transport air taken from an aerobic hydrogen engine to said at least one combustion device (SLOOP FIGURE 23), but as discussed so far fails to teach SLOOP comprises a pressure relief device 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 relief device 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 relief device 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 as applied above (in the Figure 23 embodiment applied with respect to Claims 1-5 and 8-9) and further in view of GOY.
Re Claims 12-13, SLOOP teaches a system according to claim 1, comprising a hydrogen circuit downstream of said at least one hydrogen pump in the 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 heat exchanger(s) being fluidly connected between the two circuits 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 heat exchanger(s) 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 the 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 heat exchanger(s).
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 the 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 the 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 heat exchanger(s)), 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
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 on 8:30a to 4:30p Monday through 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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached on (571) 272-7118. 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 26, 2025
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights