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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer (US 20200179851).
As regarding claim 1, Palmer discloses the claimed invention for an environmental control system of an aircraft, comprising: a turbine (34) configured to extract energy and heat from an airflow; and a water extractor (100) arranged downstream from and in fluid communication with an outlet of the turbine (annotated fig. 1), the water extractor including: a separation mechanism (fig. 2) for separating the airflow into a first airflow (106) and a second airflow (108), the first airflow having water entrained therein; and a water extraction vessel (about 110 of fig. 3) axially aligned and in fluid communication with the separation mechanism, the water extraction vessel including a first portion for receiving the first airflow and a second portion for receiving the second airflow, the first portion being configured to collect and remove the water from the first airflow (figs. 2-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
359
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As regarding claim 2, Palmer discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Palmer discloses the claimed invention for wherein the airflow output from the turbine has water entrained therein, and the water within the airflow is a fog (abstract).
As regarding claim 3, Palmer discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Palmer discloses the claimed invention for wherein the airflow is provided to the separation mechanism at an angle to a central axis of the separation mechanism (figs. 2-3).
As regarding claim 4, Palmer discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Palmer discloses the claimed invention for wherein the separation mechanism includes a body (130) and at least one coalescing feature is arranged within the interior of the body.
As regarding claim 5, Palmer discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Palmer discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one coalescing feature includes a groove (130) formed in an interior surface of the body.
As regarding claim 8, Palmer discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Palmer discloses the claimed invention for wherein the separation mechanism includes a downstream end and the water extraction vessel includes a guide duct having a scupper (abstract) arranged within the separation mechanism adjacent to the downstream end, wherein an axial length of the scupper is equal to an axial length of the downstream end.
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(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US 20200179851).
As regarding claim 6, Palmer discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Palmer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one coalescing feature includes a protrusion extending from an interior surface of the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the at least one coalescing feature includes a protrusion extending from an interior surface of the body in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Heumann (US 6837912; 32 of fig. 2).
As regarding claim 7, Palmer discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Palmer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one coalescing feature defines a spiral flow path through the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the at least one coalescing feature defines a spiral flow path through the body in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Regehr et al (US 4238210; hereinafter Regehr; swirl-generating vanes 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/02/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark argues that Palmer fails to disclose or teach a water extractor arranged downstream from and in fluid communication with an outlet of the turbine.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. (MPEP § 2111.03)
Therefore, in this view, the disclosed device may include additional elements or method steps – for example, a condenser and/or heat exchanger positioned upstream of the water extractor.
Second, annotated fig. 1 (above) of Palmer clearly disclose or teach a water extractor (100) arranged downstream from and in fluid communication with an outlet of the turbine (34).
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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached on (571) 270-3960. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights