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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “conduct” is used extensively in the specification, and appears to mean either “duct” or “conduit,” as evidenced by the corresponding elements in the Figures. Examiner suggests correcting the term throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted the term “power unit” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112 (f), as the claim recites sufficient structure to perform the recited function, namely the engine and associated fluid connections.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1/5, the recitations of “fuel conduct” and “discharge conduct” are unclear. The usage of the term “conduct” is inconsistent with the term’s plain meaning (the manner in which something behaves) and the term is not defined in the disclosure contrary to its plain meaning. As noted above, as evidenced by the corresponding elements in the Figures, it appears to intended term is either “duct” or “conduit.” The term “pressure conduct” in claim 8 is similarly rejected.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for their dependency from the claim(s) above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge (US20200088098A1) in view of McCurdy Gibson (US20220145801A1) and Langebach (WO2019080967A1).
Regarding claim 1, Roberge teaches a conditioning system (see Fig. 3, reproduced below) for an aircraft, the conditioning system comprising: a power unit (engine 12, and fuel lines I, J), a fuel conduct (see conduit with valve E) and a heat recovery circuit (see circuit from heat exchanger 62 to exhaust gas heat exchanger 30) & ¶[0030]), the power unit comprising: a fuel inlet (see inlet to conduit with valve E) configured to supply liquid fuel to the fuel conduct (liquid fuel - ¶[0030]), an engine (engine 12) connected to the fuel conduct, and a power unit outlet (outlet of 12 at 30) configured to exhaust gases out of the engine; the heat recovery circuit comprising: a working fluid (inert working fluid - ¶[0030]), and a heat exchanger (30) connected to the power unit outlet and configured to transfer heat from the exhaust gases of the engine to the working fluid, wherein the heat recovery circuit (see circuit from heat exchanger 62 to exhaust gas heat exchanger 30) & ¶[0030]) is configured to transfer heat from the working fluid heated by the exhaust gases (via exhaust gas heat exchanger 30) to the liquid fuel within the fuel evaporation and heating section (see section in 62 in which fuel is heated and evaporated) in the power unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Roberge - Fig. 3
Roberge does not teach wherein the heat recovery circuit further comprises a pressure accumulator connected to a section of the fuel conduct, at least upstream of a fuel evaporation and heating section in the power unit, through a discharge conduct configured to discharge working fluid from the pressure accumulator and comprising a valve configured to control the working fluid input to the section of fuel conduct.
McCurdy Gibson teaches (see Fig. 7, reproduced below) wherein the heat recovery circuit further comprises a inert gas purge source (purge assembly 218, nitrogen, helium - ¶[0088]) connected to a section of the fuel conduct (212), at least upstream of a fuel evaporation and heating section (vaporizers 222/226) in the power unit (engine 204), through a discharge conduct (see line to 218) configured to discharge working fluid from the inert gas purge source.
PNG
media_image2.png
532
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McCurdy Gibson - Fig. 7
Langebach teaches (see Fig. 1, reproduced below) wherein the heat recovery circuit (circuit 3) further comprises a pressure accumulator (tank 8) connected to an inert gas user (Page 4), through a discharge conduct (discharge flow path 11) configured to discharge working fluid from the pressure accumulator and comprising a valve (valve 9) configured to control the working fluid input to inset gas user.
PNG
media_image3.png
454
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Langebach - Fig. 1
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberge in light of the teachings of McCurdy Gibson and Langebach, to include wherein the hydrogen fuel deliver line is connected to a purge source as taught by McCurdy Gibson in order to safely shut down the engine and prevent hydrogen leaks (¶0043]), and use the inert heating circuit with a pressure accumulator as taught by Langebach as the source of inert gas, in order to improve efficiency by using the existing inert gas heating circuit with additional storage (Page 4).
Regarding claim 2, Roberge as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Roberge as modified further teaches the pressure accumulator is further connected to the section of the fuel conduct (as modified above), at least upstream of a fuel evaporation and heating section in the power unit (as modified above), through a pressure connection (valve 13 of Langebach) configured to transfer pressure, or fluid, or both between the section of the fuel conduct and the pressure accumulator (tank 8 of Langebach).
Regarding claim 3, Roberge as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Roberge as modified further teaches both the discharge conduct (11 of Langebach) and the pressure connection (13 of Langebach) are connected to the section of the fuel conduct upstream of the fuel inlet of the power unit.
Regarding claim 14, Roberge as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Roberge further teaches the fluid of the fuel conduct is hydrogen (hydrogen - ¶[0020]), or the working fluid of the heat recovery circuit comprises helium (¶[0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Roberge as modified further teaches an aircraft (¶[0001-0002]) comprising: the conditioning system according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge (US20200088098A1) in view of McCurdy Gibson (US20220145801A1) and Langebach (WO2019080967A1), and Meshkin Fam (US20230015930A1).
Regarding claim 4, Roberge as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, and Roberge as modified does not teach the pressure accumulator is selected from a group consisting of: bellows, bladder, and diaphragm.
Meshkin Fam teaches the pressure accumulator is a bladder (¶[0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberge to include the bladder of Meshkin Fam, in order to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge (US20200088098A1) in view of McCurdy Gibson (US20220145801A1) and Langebach (WO2019080967A1), and Calderon Gomez (US20220185495A1).
Regarding claims 10-11, Roberge as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Roberge as modified does not teach the section of the fuel conduct comprises a main channel surrounded by a double wall volume, and wherein the fuel flows through the main channel in operational mode, the discharge conduct is connected to the main channel, to the double wall volume, or both.
Calderon Gomez teaches (see Fig. 3) the section of the fuel conduct (16 & 17) comprises a main channel (16) surrounded by a double wall volume (17), and wherein the fuel flows through the main channel in operational mode, the discharge conduct (19) is connected to the main channel, to the double wall volume, or both.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberge to include the double walled fuel line of Calderon Gomez, in order to inert any leaked hydrogen in addition to inerting the fuel line (¶[0088-0089]).
Regarding claims 12, Roberge as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, and Roberge as modified does not teach the section of the fuel conduct comprises a main channel surrounded by a double wall volume, and wherein the pressure connection is connected to the main channel.
Calderon Gomez teaches the section of the fuel conduct comprises a main channel (16) surrounded by a double wall volume (17), and wherein the pressure connection (23) is connected to the main channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberge to include the double walled fuel line of Calderon Gomez, in order to inert any leaked hydrogen in addition to inerting the fuel line (¶[0088-0089]).
Regarding claims 13, Roberge as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Roberge as modified does not teach the discharge conduct comprises an outlet port that connects the pressure accumulator with an inside of a compartment where the power unit is located, and wherein the outlet port comprises a valve configured to control the working fluid input to the inside of the compartment.
Calderon Gomez teaches the discharge conduct comprises an outlet port (22, Fig.
2-3) that connects the pressure accumulator with an inside of a compartment (engine compartment 34) where the power unit is located, and wherein the outlet port comprises a valve (valve - ¶[0035]) configured to control the working fluid input to the inside of the compartment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Roberge to include the outlet port to the engine compartment as taught by Calderon Gomez, in order to reduce the risk of unwanted combustion, improving safety (¶[0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 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.
Specifically, absent impermissible hindsight, the pressure accumulator being a spring and bellows type with the first inlet configured to supply the housing with a working fluid from the heat recovery circuit; and a second inlet configured to supply a fluid to the bellows, is not taught or suggested by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the indefinite claim language surrounding the term “fluid conduct,” Applicant suggests that the term is a verb, and verbs are commonly used as nouns in English. This is not found persuasive. Applicant further argues that Applicant may act as their own lexicographer, but also that the term “conduct” is not used outside its normal meaning.
Applicant is correct in identifying that verbs are often used as nouns (nouning), but this does not mean that any verb can be used as a noun, or that the resulting term’s meaning would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan. For example, one might “succeed” in an endeavor, but would not understand the result to be “a succeed,” as a term already exists as “a success” (or fly/flight, ascend/ascent, solve/solution).
In this case, the term “conduct” as a noun already has a definition, notably not addressed by Applicant. Namely, Merriam Webster defines conduct (noun) as 1: a mode or standard of personal behavior especially as based on moral principles, 2: the act, manner, or process of carrying on, and 3: obsolete escort or guide. None of these accepted definitions support Applicant’s argument, but rather introduce further ambiguity into the claim. Examiner further notes the term has not been redefined by Applicant, and thus remains indefinite. The specification objections are maintained for the same reasons.
Applicant argues claim 1 requires a pressure accumulator connected to a section of a fuel conduct, upstream of a fuel evaporation and heating section configured to discharge working fluid from the pressure accumulator to the section of fuel conduct, where heat is transferred from the working fluid heated by the exhaust gases to the liquid fuel within the fuel evaporation and heating section in the power unit, is not taught by the cited combination.
Examiner contends, as detailed above, all of the limitations are taught by Roberge in view of McCurdy Gibson and Langebach. Specifically, Roberge teaches the heat recovery circuit, for heating a fuel via heat recovered from exhaust gas, McCurdy Gibson teaches inerting a fuel line upstream of a fuel heating section, and Langebach teaches a heat recovery circuit with a pressure accumulator which provides a dual purpose of providing a source of inerting gas. Examiner maintains that one having ordinary skill in the art, given the teachings of Roberge, McCurdy Gibson, and Langebach, would combine the references in order to both safely shut down the engine and prevent hydrogen leaks (¶0043] – McCurdy Gibson), and use the inert heating circuit with a pressure accumulator as taught by Langebach as the source of inert gas, in order to improve efficiency by using the existing inert gas heating circuit with additional storage (Page 4).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For at least the reasons stated above, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights