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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/741005 in view of Squier (US 9,555,893).
Regarding claim 1, 18/741005 discloses An environmental control system (ECS) of an aircraft, comprising (claim 1, line 1):
a case (claim 1, line 2);
a vaper compression system (VCS) having a compressor and a driven shaft coupled to the compressor, wherein the compressor and the driven shaft are sealed within the case (claim 1, lines 3-5); and
an air cycle machine (ACM) including a first turbine and a drive shaft coupled to the first turbine and which are outside the case (claim 1, lines 6-7),
wherein the drive shaft and the driven shaft are coupled to each other via a coupling (claim 1, lines 8-9).
18/741005 does not disclose that the ACM is a three-wheel air cycle machine including a second turbine connected to the first turbine via a second shaft, and a fan connected to the second turbine via a third shaft.
Squier teaches another environmental control system having a second turbine connected to the first turbine via a second shaft, and a fan connected to the second turbine via a third shaft (see at least turbine #136 connected to turbine #132 and connected to fan #150 via shaft(s) #134; see also column 3, lines 34-38: the shaft may be continuous or segmented).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of 18/741005 with a three-wheel air cycle machine including a second turbine connected to the first turbine via a second shaft, and a fan connected to the second turbine via a third shaft, as taught by Squier, to improve the system of 18/741005 by allowing for easier pressure matching of air streams, thus allowing for easier mixing and reduced fuel consumption (see at least Squier column 4, lines 14-39).
Regarding claim 2, 18/741005 further discloses wherein
the coupling is a magnetic coupling (claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, 18/741005 further discloses wherein
the coupling is an electromagnetic coupling (claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, 18/741005 further discloses wherein
the coupling is a gear coupling (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, 18/741005 further discloses wherein the coupling is a clutch coupling (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, 18/741005 further discloses wherein the VCS includes a condenser, an evaporator and an expansion device arranged in a cycle with the compressor, and wherein the evaporator receives and cools a first airflow and directs the first airflow toward a cargo bay of the aircraft (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, 18/741005 further discloses wherein the ACM includes:
a heat exchanger that receives cooling air and directs a second airflow to the first turbine, and the first turbine extracts energy from the second airflow to drive the compressor (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, 18/741005 further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is a crossflow heat exchanger (claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, 18/741005 further discloses wherein the ACM includes:
a water separator that receives the second airflow from the first turbine and removes water from the second airflow; and
the second turbine that is connected to the first turbine via a second turbine shaft, wherein the second turbine receives the second airflow from the water separator and the first and second turbines drive the compressor,
wherein the second airflow is directed from the second turbine toward a cabin of the aircraft (claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, 18/741005 further discloses comprising:
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 (claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, 18/741005 further discloses wherein the first turbine is bypassed by closing the first and second control valves and opening the third control valve (claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, 18/741005 further discloses wherein the VCS further includes a conduit extending from the evaporator to the cargo bay and another fan is disposed in the conduit to direct air from the cargo bay toward the evaporator to thereby recirculate the first airflow (claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, 18/741005 further discloses wherein the condenser receives and heats cooling air and directs the cooling air toward a de-icing system (claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, 18/741005 further discloses wherein the case is hermetically sealed (claim 14).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “vaper” appears to be in error for “vapor”. Note that this objection includes both the text of the specification and the abstract.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “vaper” appears to be in error for “vapor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e. device [generic placeholder] for expansions [functional language]) 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. In the case of expansion device, the corresponding structure is found to be valve or turbine.
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 § 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 9-11 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the second turbine that is connected to the first turbine via a second turbine shaft”. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the second turbine and second shaft of claim 1. It is believed to be the same and that this limitation should be omitted as redundant. Claims 10-11 are rejected insofar as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore include the same error(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimpel et al. (US 2015/0013355) in view of Squier (US 9,555,893).
Regarding claim 1, Klimpel et al. discloses an environmental control system (ECS) of an aircraft, comprising:
a case (see at least Figure 2, housing #92);
a vaper compression system (VCS) having a compressor (see at least Figure 2, compressor #72) and a driven shaft coupled to the compressor (see at least Figure 2, shaft #82b), wherein the compressor and the driven shaft are sealed within the case (see at least paragraph [0062]); and
a three-wheel air cycle machine (ACM) (see at least #90) including a first turbine (see at least turbine #50) and a drive shaft coupled to the first turbine (see at least shaft #82a) and which are outside the case (see at least Figure 2, turbine #50 and shaft #82a are outside housing #92),
wherein the drive shaft and the driven shaft are coupled to each other via a coupling (see at least magnetic coupling #86; paragraph [0060]).
Klimpel et al. does not disclose a second turbine connected to the first turbine via a second shaft, and a fan connected to the second turbine via a third shaft.
Squier teaches another environmental control system having a second turbine connected to the first turbine via a second shaft, and a fan connected to the second turbine via a third shaft (see at least turbine #136 connected to turbine #132 and connected to fan #150 via shaft(s) #134; see also column 3, lines 34-38: the shaft may be continuous or segmented).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Klimpel et al. with a second turbine connected to the first turbine via a second shaft, and a fan connected to the second turbine via a third shaft, as taught by Squier, to improve the system of Klimpel et al. by allowing for easier pressure matching of air streams, thus allowing for easier mixing and reduced fuel consumption (see at least Squier column 4, lines 14-39).
Regarding claim 2, Klimpel et al. further discloses wherein the coupling is a magnetic coupling (see at least paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claims 3-5, Klimpel et al. does not disclose wherein
the coupling is an electromagnetic coupling; wherein the coupling is a gear coupling; wherein
the coupling is a clutch coupling.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein
the coupling is an electromagnetic coupling; wherein the coupling is a gear coupling; wherein
the coupling is a clutch coupling would result in a difference in function of the Klimpel et al. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Klimpel et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed coupling types. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed coupling types solve any stated problem, indicating that “[0004] In addition to one or more aspects of the ECS or as an alternate, the coupling is a magnetic coupling. [0005] In addition to one or more aspects of the ECS or as an alternate, the coupling is an electromagnetic coupling. [0006] In addition to one or more aspects of the ECS or as an alternate, the coupling is a gear coupling. [0007] In addition to one or more aspects of the ECS or as an alternate, the coupling is a clutch coupling.”
and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the coupling types claimed such that they produce an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Klimpel et al. with wherein
the coupling is an electromagnetic coupling; wherein the coupling is a gear coupling; wherein
the coupling is a clutch coupling as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 6, Klimpel et al. further discloses wherein the VCS includes a condenser (see at least condenser #74), an evaporator (see at least evaporator #28) and an expansion device (see at least expansion valve #78) arranged in a cycle with the compressor (see at least compressor #72), and wherein the evaporator receives and cools a first airflow and directs the first airflow toward a cargo bay of the aircraft (see at least paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 7, Klimpel et al. further discloses wherein the ACM includes:
a heat exchanger that receives cooling air (see at least condenser #42) and directs a second airflow to the first turbine (see at least paragraph [0051]-[0052]), and the first turbine extracts energy from the second airflow to drive the compressor (see at least paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Klimpel et al. further discloses wherein the heat exchanger is a crossflow heat exchanger (see at least condenser #42 is a crossflow heat exchanger).
Regarding claim 13, Klimpel et al. further discloses wherein the condenser receives and heats cooling air (inherent to condenser #74).
Klimpel et al. is silent regarding and directs the cooling air toward a de-icing system.
Squier teaches wherein cooling air is directed toward a de-icing system (see at least column 3, lines 22-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Klimpel et al. with and directs the cooling air toward a de-icing system, as taught by Squier, to improve the system of Klimpel et al. by allowing for conditioned air to provide for de-icing, thus improving the reliability and efficiency of the de-icing system.
Regarding claim 14, Klimpel et al. further discloses wherein the case is hermetically sealed (see at least paragraph [0062]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimpel et al. in view of Squier as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bruno et al. (US 2019/0225343).
Regarding claim 9, Klimpel et al. as modified by Squier does not disclose wherein the ACM includes:
a water separator that receives the second airflow from the first turbine and removes water from the second airflow; and
the second turbine that is connected to the first turbine via a second turbine shaft, wherein the second turbine receives the second airflow from the water separator and the first and second turbines drive the compressor,
wherein the second airflow is directed from the second turbine toward a cabin of the aircraft.
Bruno et al. teaches another ACM, wherein the ACM includes:
a water separator (see at least water extractor #64) that receives the second airflow from the first turbine (see at least turbine #T1) and removes water from the second airflow (inherent to water extractor #64); and
the second turbine that is connected to the first turbine (see at least turbine #T2), wherein the second turbine receives the second airflow from the water separator (see at least turbine #T2 receives air from water extractor #64) and the first and second turbines drive the compressor (see at least paragraph [0038]),
wherein the second airflow is directed from the second turbine toward a cabin of the aircraft (see at least paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Klimper et al. in view of Squier with wherein the ACM includes:
a water separator that receives the second airflow from the first turbine and removes water from the second airflow; and
the second turbine that is connected to the first turbine via a second turbine shaft, wherein the second turbine receives the second airflow from the water separator and the first and second turbines drive the compressor,
wherein the second airflow is directed from the second turbine toward a cabin of the aircraft, as taught by Bruno et al., to improve the system of Klimpel et al. in view of Squier by providing dehumidified air to the aircraft cooling loads, thus improving comfort.
The combination of Klimpel et al., Squier, and Bruno et al. teaches via a second turbine shaft (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimpel et al., in view of Squier, and Bruno et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lavergne et al. (EP 3986788).
Regarding claim 10, Klimpel et. al. further discloses comprising:
a first conduit between the first turbine and the heat exchanger (see at least conduit from bottom of #50 to #42),
a second conduit between the first turbine and the water separator (see at least conduit from #44 to top of #50), and
a third conduit between the heat exchanger and the water separator (see at least conduit from #42 to #44).
Klimpel et al. does not disclose and a first control valve in the first conduit; and a second control valve in the second conduit; and a third control valve in the third conduit.
Lavergne et al. teaches first, second and third control valves in conduits between a first turbine and a heat exchanger, between the first turbine and a water separator, and between the heat exchanger and the water separator (see at least valves #23, #24, #25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Klimpel et al. in view of Squier and Bruno et al. with a first control valve in the first conduit; and a second control valve in the second conduit; and a third control valve in the third conduit, as taught by Lavergne et al., to improve the system of Klimpel et al. in view of Squier and Bruno et al. by allowing for system components to be isolated according to process or maintenance needs.
Regarding claim 11, Klimpel et al. in view of Squier, Bruno et al. and Lavergne et al. further discloses wherein the first turbine is bypassed by closing the first and second control valves and opening the third control valve (see at least Lavergne et al. Figure 1, it is possible to isolate turbine #18 by closing valves #23 and #25 and having valve #24 open).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimpel et al., in view of Squier, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zug (US 2020/0070986).
Regarding claim 12, Klimpel et al. does not disclose wherein the VCS further includes a conduit extending from the evaporator to the cargo bay and another fan is disposed in the conduit to direct air from the cargo bay toward the evaporator to thereby recirculate the first airflow.
Zug teaches another ECS wherein the VCS further includes a conduit extending from the evaporator to the cargo bay and another fan is disposed in the conduit to direct air from the cargo bay toward the evaporator to thereby recirculate the first airflow (see at least conduit #246 with fan #248).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Klimpel et al. in view of Squier with wherein the VCS further includes a conduit extending from the evaporator to the cargo bay and another fan is disposed in the conduit to direct air from the cargo bay toward the evaporator to thereby recirculate the first airflow, as taught by Zug, to improve the system of Klimpel et al. in view of Squier by allowing for predictable return of airflow through forced air flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763