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.
Claims 1-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swann (US 2015/0100220) in view of Smith et al. (US 2022/0333534).
Regarding claim 1, Swann discloses a fuel delivery system (Figure 6) for an aircraft engine (60), the system comprising
a fuel delivery regulator (30 and 32) configured to receive fuel from a plurality of fuel sources (20 and 22) for supply to the aircraft engine (Figure 6),
an engine operating condition sensor (80), and
a control unit (70) configured to control operation of the fuel delivery regulator, wherein
the control unit is configured to actuate the fuel delivery regulator based on a received signal from the engine operating condition sensor in order to vary the volume of fuels from the plurality of fuel sources supplied to the aircraft engine (Figure 6 shows the dashed arrows indicating signals sent from the control unit to the regulator to control the supply of fuel to the engine) during at least a portion of a cruise phase relative to a further portion of an aircraft flight (paragraph 73 discusses controlling the supply of fuel at cruise conditions and at landing, i.e. a further portion of the aircraft flight),
a first fuel source of the plurality of fuel sources comprises kerosene (Paragraph 188 describes the first fuel as kerosene).
Swann is silent on a second fuel source of the plurality of fuel sources comprises one or more of a sustainable aviation fuel, a power-to-liquid fuel, and an e-fuel.
Smith teaches a second fuel source of the plurality of fuel sources comprises one or more of a sustainable aviation fuel, a power-to-liquid fuel, and an e-fuel (paragraph 122 describes an additive, i.e. a second fuel, as sustainable aviation fuel).
"[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
The claim would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the substitution of one known element for another (in this case a sustainable aviation fuel for a low-soot producing fuel (the second fuel is described as a low-soot producing fuel in Swann paragraph 188)) would have yielded predictable results (the sustainable aviation fuel with provide fuel for combustion in the combustion system).
Regarding claim 2, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein the volume of fuels from the plurality of fuel sources is selected for supply to the aircraft engine at least in part based upon particulate matter emissions and/or gaseous emissions created by the combustion of the fuel (paragraph 73 describes adjusting the aromatic content, i.e. the relative volume of the fuels, to achieve low soot emissions, i.e. particulate matter emissions).
Regarding claim 3, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein each fuel source of the plurality of fuel sources comprises a different fuel composition, the fuel compositions each comprising a different aromatic and/or other non-paraffinic content (paragraph 27 describes the fuels each having different aromatic content).
Regarding claim 4, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein the first fuel source of the plurality of fuel sources is a default fuel (Paragraph 188 describes the first fuel as kerosene).
Regarding claim 5, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to actuate the fuel delivery regulator based on the received signal from the engine operating condition sensor (Figure 6 shows it takes in data from sensor 80 and sends a signal based on the controller’s calculation to the fuel regulator 20 and 22) in order to vary the volume of fuels from the plurality of fuel sources supplied to the aircraft engine during the portion of the cruise phase (paragraph 73 describes operating the controller at cruise conditions) relative to the further portion of the cruise phase (paragraphs 184-185 describes iteratively calculating to determining the appropriate fuel blending ratio, which will happen at each portion of the cruise phase).
Regarding claim 6, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein varying the volume of fuel supplied from the fuel sources comprises varying the flow rate and/or ratio of the fuels from the fuel sources (paragraph 37 describes varying the flow rate from the fuel sources).
Regarding claim 7, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein varying the volume of fuel supplied from the fuel sources comprises switching between the fuel sources (paragraph 37 describes varying the volume of the fuels and switching between the two fuels).
Regarding claim 8, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein the fuel delivery regulator comprises a fuel blender (40) configured to allow mixing of fuels from the plurality of fuel sources prior to delivery to the aircraft engine (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein a calculation of predicted particulate matter emissions and/or predicted gaseous emissions by the aircraft engine over one or more portions of the cruise phase is carried out based upon one or more predicted engine thrust settings (paragraph 141 describes calculating the soot suppression requirement according to the expected thrust level), the calculation being used to calculate a total climate warming impact and/or determine the volume of at least one of the plurality of fuels to be delivered to the aircraft engine over the portion of the cruise phase (paragraph 141 describes using these calculations to determine the volume of fuel required for each section of the flight, including the cruise phase).
Regarding claim 10, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein the portion of the cruise phase and the further portion of the aircraft flight are defined according to changes in one or more engine operating condition (altitude) therebetween such that the portion of the cruise phase is bounded by at least one threshold engine operating condition value (paragraph 73 describes altitude as the value that provides the threshold between the different operating conditions and cruise is necessarily bounded on either side by other operating conditions, i.e. climb and descent).
Regarding claim 11, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein a summation of predicted particulate matter emissions and/or predicted gaseous emissions by the aircraft engine over the portion of the cruise phase and the further portion of the aircraft flight are performed (paragraph 71-73 describes determining the soot emissions for the fuel blends) and a proposed or default distribution of a first fuel source of the plurality of fuel sources (paragraph 188 describes the first fuel source as kerosene) and/or a second fuel source of the plurality of fuel sources (paragraph 188 describes the second fuel source as a gas-to-liquid fuel) over the cruise phase is amended in order to reduce the summation (paragraph 73 describes adjusting the aromatic content, i.e. blend of the two fuels, to achieve low soot emissions).
Regarding claim 12, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein one of the plurality of fuels has a remaining volume or cost associated therewith (paragraph 109 describes the calculations considering the cost of each fuel and there is an inherit upper limit to the volume of the fuel defined by the volume of the tank) and the proposed distribution is amended to maximise the particulate matter emission reductions and/or the gaseous emission reductions for the portion of the cruise phase within the remaining volume and/or cost (paragraph 100 describes controlling the fuel blend to correspond to the lowest cost and considering the cost of the different fuels).
Regarding claim 13, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein the predicted particulate matter engine emission is weighted in dependence upon any or any combination of geography, time or environment relative to one or more portion of the cruise phase (paragraph 77 describes weighting based on whether the aircraft is at an altitude where contrail suppression, an environmental consideration, is necessary).
Regarding claim 14, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein a predetermined script of fuel compositions to be supplied to the aircraft engine for the portion of the cruise phase is generated in advance of the flight for implementation by the control unit during the flight (paragraph 114 describes creating a predetermined script of fuel compositions before a particular flight).
Regarding claim 15, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein a calculation of the required volumes of the plurality of fuel types for a planned flight is calculated by, or delivered to, a ground-based fuel supply system controller (paragraph 141 describes a ground-based fuel delivery system calculates the fuel composition and fuel volume requirements in advance of a proposed flight).
Regarding claim 18, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches wherein a fuel particulate matter emission index value for each fuel composition of the different fuel sources (paragraph 100 describes the soot emissions per unit of energy released for each proposed fuel blend, i.e. a soot index value for each fuel composition) is fed into a calculation of the volume of each fuel type to be delivered to the aircraft engine (paragraph 100 describes considering this soot index value in determining the which blend of the fuels, i.e. the volume of each fuel, to be delivered to the engine).
Regarding claim 20, Swann in view of Smith teach the invention as claimed and described above. Swann further teaches a method of controlling fuel delivery to the aircraft engine (Figure 6, 60) comprising:
accommodating the plurality of fuel sources (20 and 22) on the aircraft (paragraph 4) having the fuel delivery system according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above);
determining the volume of fuels from the plurality of fuel sources to be supplied to the aircraft engine (paragraph 141 describes determining the volume of fuels required for particular operating conditions) during at least the portion of the cruise phase relative to the further portion of an aircraft flight (paragraph 73 discusses controlling the supply of fuel at cruise conditions and at landing, i.e. a further portion of the aircraft flight) in dependence upon the received signal from the engine operating condition sensor for each of the portions (paragraph 32 describes controlling the volumes of the fuels based on the received signal); and
regulating delivery of a resultant fuel composition from the plurality of fuel sources to the aircraft engine (Figure 6 shows the controller 70 controls the fuel valves 30 and 32, which control the resultant mix of fuel in the fuel blender) such that the resultant fuel composition is varied between the portion of the cruise phase and the further portion of the flight (paragraphs 122-123 discusses controlling the supply of fuel at cruise conditions and at landing, i.e. a further portion of the aircraft flight).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15, 18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that Swann in view of Schwarze does not teach “a sustainable aviation fuel, a power-to-liquid fuel, and an e-fuel”. This is a moot point as Smith teaches this limitation.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 pm.
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 at (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 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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741