DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
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: expansion device (e.g. an expansion valve or turbine) in claim 6.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zug (US 20200070986) in view of Klimpel (US20150013355) and Denso.
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Fig. 2, Zug teaches an environmental control system (ECS) 200 of an aircraft, comprising: a vaper compression system (VCS) 210 having a VCS compressor 212 and; and an air cycle machine (ACM) 204 including a first turbine 208 and a drive shaft 218 coupled to the first turbine.
Zug does not teach a case that is sealed; a driven shaft coupled to the VCS compressor, wherein the VCS compressor and the driven shaft are sealed within the case, the first turbine and the drive shaft coupled to the first turbine, each of which is outside the case, wherein the drive shaft and the driven shaft are coupled directly to each other via a coupling,
Referring to Figs. 2-3, Klimpel, directed to an aircraft air conditioning system, teaches a case 92 that is sealed (see pars. 32, 62); a driven shaft 82b coupled to a compressor 72, wherein the compressor and the driven shaft are sealed within the case (see pars. 32, 62), a first driving machine (e.g. compressor) 18 and a drive shaft 82a coupled to the first driving machine, each of which is outside the case, wherein the drive shaft 82a and the driven shaft 82b are coupled directly to each other via a coupling 86.
Klimpel teaches that said case prevents refrigerant circulating in a refrigerant circuit of case 92 from exiting the case 92 (see par. 62). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Zug by Klimpel with the motivation of preventing refrigerant circulating in the refrigerant circuit 210 from exiting.
Zug as modified above does not teach whereby the VCS compressor and the first turbine are configured for rotating at different speeds relative to each other.
Denso, directed to a vapor compression system having a compressor, teaches wherein a first driving machine (e.g. an engine) rotates a driving shaft to further rotate a second driving machine (e.g. a compressor) and said driving machines are configured for rotating at different speeds relative to each other (e.g. via a clutch). Said configuration allows the second driving machine to be stopped or actuated as necessary (see How it Works). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Zug as modified above by Denso with the motivation of stopping or actuating a driving machine of Zug as necessary.
Regarding claim 2,
Zug as modified above teaches wherein the coupling is a magnetic coupling (see Klimpel, par. 62).
Regarding claims 3-5,
Zug as modified above does not teach wherein the coupling is an electromagnetic coupling, or a gear coupling, or wherein the coupling is a clutch coupling.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of electromagnetic couplings, gear couplings, or clutch couplings would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Zug as modified above with the motivation of obtaining the known advantages of electromagnetic couplings (e.g. reduction of friction and improved accuracy and control), gear couplings (e.g. easily increasing or decreasing speed or torque of the shafts), or clutch couplings (e.g. allowing for engagement and disengagement of the shafts).
Regarding claim 6,
Zug teaches wherein the VCS includes a condenser 216, an evaporator 214 and an expansion device 213 arranged in a cycle with the VCS compressor, and wherein the evaporator receives and cools a first airflow and directs the first airflow toward a cargo bay 201 of the aircraft (e.g. via line 226, see par. 17).
Regarding claim 7,
Zug teaches wherein the ACM further includes a cabin air compressor (CAC) (impliedly taught in par. 19); and a crossflow heat exchanger 206 (impliedly taught in par. 19) that receives cooling air from a cabin (e.g. ram air via line 264 or bay air via line 270 or pressurized air via line 240) and directs a second airflow from the CAC to the first turbine 208 (e.g. via line 222), and the first turbine extracts energy from the second airflow to drive the VCS compressor (see par. 19).
Regarding claim 12,
Zug teaches wherein the VCS further includes a conduit 246 extending from the evaporator to the cargo bay and a fan 248 is disposed in the conduit to direct air from the cargo bay toward the evaporator to thereby recirculate the first airflow.
Regarding claim 13,
Zug teaches wherein the condenser receives and heats and additional flow of cooling air (see Fig. 2), but does not teach wherein the condenser directs the additional flow of cooling air toward a de-icing system, but the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, using heated air in a de-icing system (e.g. to de-ice the aircraft) would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14,
Zug as modified above teaches wherein the case is hermetically sealed (see Klimpel, par. 62).
Claim(s) 9-11, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zug (US 20200070986) in view of Klimpel (US 20150013355) and Denso and further in view of Bruno ( US 20160312648).
Regarding claim 9,
Zug does not teach wherein the ACM further includes: a water separator that receives the second airflow from the first turbine and removes water from the second airflow; and a second turbine that is connected to the first turbine by a second turbine shaft, wherein the second turbine receives the second airflow from the water separator and the first and second turbines drive the VCS compressor, wherein the second airflow is directed from the second turbine toward the cabin of the aircraft.
Bruno, directed to an aircraft environmental control system, teaches a water separator 270 that receives a second airflow from a first turbine 247 and removes water from the second airflow; and a second turbine 243 that is connected to the first turbine by a second turbine shaft 249, wherein the second turbine receives the second airflow from the water separator and the first and second turbines drive a compressor 244, wherein the second airflow is directed from the second turbine toward a cabin 202 of the aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Zug by Bruno with the motivation of dehumidifying an airflow which may increase the comfort of users of the system.
Regarding claims 10-11,
Zug as modified above does not wherein the ACM further comprises: a first conduit between the first turbine and the heat exchanger, and a first control valve in the first conduit; a second conduit between the first turbine and the water separator, and a second control valve in the second conduit; and a third conduit between the heat exchanger and the water separator, and a third control valve in the third conduit, wherein the first turbine is bypassed by closing the first and second control valves and opening the third control valve.
Bruno teaches wherein the ACM further comprises: a first conduit between a first turbine and an inlet airflow; a second conduit between the first turbine and the water separator 270 ; and a third conduit between the inlet airflow and the water separator, and a control valve in the third conduit.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Zug by Bruno with the motivation of optionally bypassing the turbine and thereby, for example, reducing wear of the turbine.
Please note that Zug as modified above does not teach a first control valve in the first conduit, and a second control valve in the second conduit, wherein the first turbine is bypassed by closing the first and second control valves and opening the third control valve, but the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of, control valves would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Zug as modified above with the motivation of further controlling the flow through the conduits.
Regarding claims 15-16,
The subject matter of claims 15-16 are directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 1, 7-9, 13-14 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 13-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at (571) 272-6681. 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights