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.
At least claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12078399. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12078399.
At least claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12078399. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least claim 9 is anticipated by claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12078399.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the at least one air-liquid heat exchanger (e.g. heat exchanger 34), the at least one air-liquid regeneration heat exchanger (e.g. heat exchanger 48), and the air-air regeneration heat exchanger (e.g. heat exchanger 36) must be shown (e.g. in a single embodiment as claimed in at least claim 2) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at in a heat transfer relationship” should be changed to --in a heat transfer relationship--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “connected the second liquid loop” should be changed to –connected to the second liquid loop--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-8, 13-16 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 3 recites wherein an outlet of the at least one air-liquid regeneration heat exchanger “relative to a flow of another medium” but it is unclear how, if said at least one air-liquid regeneration heat exchanger and air-air regeneration heat exchanger are arranged in series (see claim 2) that said heat exchangers can also be arranged in series “relative to a flow of another medium”.
Claim 3 is interpreted such that heat exchangers are arranged in series.
Further, the recitation “another medium” is indefinite as it is not clear if said medium refers to the liquid (medium) of claim 1. Clam 3 is interpreted to refer to the liquid (medium) of claim 1.
Claims 4-8 are similarly rejected and interpreted.
Claim 4 is similarly rejected as it is unclear if the recitation “another medium” refers to the “another medium” of claim 3. Claim 4 is interpreted to refer to a diverted airflow medium.
Claims 13-16 are similarly rejected and interpreted as claims 3-8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warner (US 4430867).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Fig. 1, Warner teaches an environmental control system 10 comprising: an inlet 20 configured to receive a medium (e.g. a bleed air); a compressing device (e.g. the device comprising at least compressor 53) fluidly connected to the inlet, the compressing device including a compressor 53 operably coupled to a turbine 80, wherein an outlet of the compressor is fluidly connected to an inlet of the turbine such that the medium is provided to the compressor and the turbine in series (e.g. via line 60); at least one air-liquid heat exchanger 95 arranged in fluid communication with the outlet of the compressor and the inlet of the turbine of the compressing device (e.g. via line 110), the at least one air-liquid heat exchanger 95 also being connected to a liquid loop 100 containing a liquid; and at least one air-liquid regeneration heat exchanger 120 fluidly connected to the liquid loop 100 at a location upstream from the at least one air -liquid heat exchanger (e.g. depending on a given reference point within loop 100).
Regarding claims 17-18,
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
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.
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.
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) 2-7, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner in view of Shea (US 20190300181).
Regarding claim 2,
Warner does not teach an air-air regeneration heat exchanger, the air-air regeneration heat exchanger being positioned upstream from and fluidly coupled to the at least one air-liquid heat exchanger relative to a flow of the medium.
Shea, directed to an environmental control system, teaches an air-air regeneration heat exchanger 38, the air-air regeneration heat exchanger being positioned upstream from and fluidly coupled to the at least one heat exchanger 36 relative to a flow of the medium.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Warner by Shea with the motivation of utilizing excess cooling capacity of further cool the medium (see Shea par. 24).
Regarding claim 3,
Warner as modified above teaches wherein the air-air regeneration heat exchanger is arranged downstream from and in fluid communication with an outlet of the at least one air-liquid regeneration heat exchanger relative to a flow of another medium (e.g. the liquid of the liquid loop).
Regarding claim 4,
Warner as modified above teaches wherein the flow of another medium (e.g. a diverted air flow) is configured as a heat sink to cool the medium at a location downstream from the outlet of the compressor and upstream from the inlet of the turbine.
Regarding claim 5,
Warner as modified above teaches an outlet (e.g. at cabin), wherein a conditioned form of the medium is provided to the outlet and a portion of the conditioned form of the medium is used as the flow of another medium (e.g. at the regenerative heat exchanger, see Shea Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6,
Warner does not specifically teach wherein the portion of the conditioned form of the medium has a temperature between zero and thirty five degrees Fahrenheit at the at least one-air liquid regeneration heat exchanger.
Warner does, however, disclose that a portion of the conditioned form of the medium has some temperature at the at least one-air liquid regeneration heat exchanger.
Therefore, the temperature of a portion of the conditioned form of the medium is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the air from the compressor will be conditioned to a desired temperature. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a portion of the conditioned form of the medium has some temperature at the at least one-air liquid regeneration heat exchanger was disclosed in the prior art by Warner, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention such that the portion of the conditioned form of the medium has a temperature between zero and thirty five degrees Fahrenheit at the at least one-air liquid regeneration heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 7,
The subject matter of claim 7 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 6 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 19,
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 8-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warner in view of Shea and Zywiak (US 6615606).
Regarding claim 8,
Warner does not teach another air-liquid heat exchanger arranged downstream from and in fluid communication with an outlet of the turbine; wherein another liquid from another liquid loop is arranged at in a heat transfer relationship with the medium at the second air-liquid heat exchanger.
Zywiak, directed to an environmental control system, teaches another air-liquid heat exchanger 58 (e.g. wherein exchanger 44 is a first exchanger and exchanger 58 is a second exchanger) arranged downstream from and in fluid communication with an outlet of a turbine 24; wherein another liquid from another liquid loop 14b is arranged at in a heat transfer relationship with the medium at the second air-liquid heat exchanger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Warner by Zywiak with the motivation of further controlling the temperature of the medium at an outlet of the turbine while also enabling the liquid to control the temperature of a second component of the control system.
Regarding claim 9,
The subject matter of claim 9 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 8 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10,
Warner as modified above teaches wherein the second liquid loop is distinct from the first liquid loop (see Zywiak Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11,
The subject matter of claim 11 is directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claim 1 and has been addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12-16,
The subject matter of claims 12-16 are directed towards essentially the same subject matter as claims 2-6 and has been addressed in the rejection of claims 2-6.
Regarding claim 20,
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
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
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights