DETAILED ACTION
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 4, 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
change claim 1 line 13 accordingly: “each intermediate portion of the plurality of intermediate portions located”
change claim 1 line 20 accordingly: “about a longitudinal axis of the exhaust nozzle” in order to provide antecedent basis for the longitudinal axis in line 22 (see applicant par. 41).
change claim 4 line 2 accordingly: “wherein the plurality of intermediate portions”
change claim 5 line 3 accordingly: “the dihydrogen circulates”
change claim 10 lines 3-4 accordingly: “the first portion of the supply duct through”
change claim 10 lines 4-5 accordingly: “the second portion of the supply duct through”
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 1 and 4-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the exhaust chamber" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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) 1, 4, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2020/0088099 A1 (Roberge) as evidenced by US Patent 5,392,595 (Glickstein), in view of Pub. No.: US 2023/0228455 A1 (Alessandrini) as evidenced by US Patent 3,740,949 (Wolf).
Regarding claim 1, Roberge discloses (see fig. 1) a propulsion assembly for an aircraft, comprising: a propulsion system comprising a fairing 34 (a fairing can be a combined engine casing and exhaust casing; see casing 154 in fig. 2 of US 2024/0067354 A1 that corresponds with applicant fairing 172 in fig. 2), a rotary assembly (18,22,24,36,32; one of ordinary skill understands that turbine section 36,32 drives fan 18 and compressor section 22,24 via a rotating shaft; see par. 12, see discussion of shaft in par. 2, top) having a combustion chamber 26 and housed in the fairing (one of ordinary skill would understand when viewing fig. 1 that the nozzle wall 34 would extend forward to form a forward portion of the fairing; this is evidenced by Glickenstein; for example Glickenstein discloses, see fig. 1, a gas turbine 12 and further discloses a combustion chamber 28 housed in a fairing (fairing at “200” that extends from forward of the fan 20 to the outlet providing the gas turbine exhaust 42); and a nozzle wall surrounding exhaust arrow 42 being a rear portion of the fairing), an exhaust nozzle 34 arranged downstream (see fig. 1) of the combustion chamber 26 and delimited by a rear portion 34 of the fairing 34, referred to as nozzle wall 34, and configured to ensure discharge (structure 34 is an exhaust case; see par. 12, middle) of combustion gases FE originating from combustion of dihydrogen (see pars. 4 and 10; liquid and gaseous hydrogen fuel are states of dihydrogen, or H2; liquid hydrogen is stored in tank 48 and vaporized by heat exchange with high temperature exhaust from turbine section 28, via heat exchangers 36) in the combustion chamber 26, a dihydrogen tank 48, and a supply duct (at B, at C, at D, at E), which connects (see fig. 1) the dihydrogen tank 48 to the combustion chamber 26, the supply duct comprising: a first portion (at B and at C) extending between the tank 48 and the nozzle wall 34, a second portion (at D and at E) extending between the nozzle wall 34 and combustion chamber 26: and an intermediate portion (36 and shaded portions in annotated figure below; heat exchanger 36), the intermediate portion (36 and shaded portions in annotated figure below) located within the exhaust chamber (heat exchanger 36 is around the nozzle wall exposed to exhaust gasses FE; see par. 22, top: “heat exchanger 36 can be … distributed around the exhaust case [34], as shown in FIG. 1”) and passing through (see arrow at upper annotated “intermediate portion” in annotated figure below) the nozzle wall 34, wherein a first end (see annotated figure below) of the intermediate portion passes through the nozzle wall 34 to connect with the first portion (at B and at C) of the supply duct, wherein a second end (see annotated figure below) of the intermediate portion passes though the nozzle wall (one of ordinary skill understands nozzle wall 34 extends forward to form a forward portion of the fairing as evidenced by Glickenstein discussed above; thus the second end would pass through the nozzle wall) to connect to the second portion (at D and at E) of the supply duct, wherein the intermediate portion is angularly arranged (heat exchanger 36 is distributed “around” the exhaust nozzle 34 and thus extends up to an angle of 360°) about a longitudinal axis (see annotated figure below) of the exhaust nozzle 34 along a periphery (inner wall of exhaust nozzle 34; see annotated figure below) of the exhaust nozzle 34 within the exhaust nozzle 34. Roberge does not disclose a plurality of intermediate portions (i.e. Roberge is silent a number of intermediate portions of the “tube” of structure 36; see par. 22, top); and the plurality of intermediate portions are further arranged in succession in a direction of the longitudinal axis (see annotated figure below) of the exhaust nozzle 34.
PNG
media_image1.png
563
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (intermediate portion, first end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (intermediate portion, second end)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (longitudinal axis)]
Alessandrini teaches (see figs. 1-2) an air liquid heat exchanger (Roberge points out that heat exchanger 56 in fig. 1 can be a “suitable heat air-to-liquid heat exchanger”; see 31) wherein exhaust air (i.e. fumes) from burner 10 heats water in tubes 7 (wherein each tube is embedded in a respective fin structure1 8; such fin structures are used to extract heat from radially traveling exhaust in the Y direction, see fig. 2 and par. 90); one of ordinary skill understands such exhaust/water heat exchangers are interchangeable with exhaust/fuel heat exchangers, see pertinent prior art infra, and thus Alessandrini is applicable to Roberge) and further teaches a plurality of intermediate portions (tubes 7 each with an inlet 7a and an outlet 7b); and the plurality of intermediate portions are further arranged in succession in a direction of a longitudinal axis X (see fig. 2) of the exhaust wall 3 (wherein a first end 7a of each intermediate portion 7 passes through the exhaust wall 3 to connect with a first portion of a supply duct (a supply of “water to be heated”; see par. 61, middle), wherein a second end 7b of each intermediate portion 7 passes though the exhaust wall 3 to connect to a second portion of a supply duct (the supply of heated water to a swimming pool; see par. 61, middle and par. 1; one of ordinary skill understands that the first end 7a and second end 7b pass through the exhaust wall 3 when viewing fig. 2; for example ends 7a,b are fixed to plate 13 such plate 13 resting on top of wall 3 as shown in fig. 2, see par. 57). It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the heat exchanger 1 of Alessandrini for the heat exchanger 56 of Roberge for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of heating the fuel of Roberge in view of Alessandrini with exhaust. This type of heat exchanger uses manifolds (one manifold 12 is shown in fig. 2 however the manifolds discussed in par. 61, i.e. a first manifold for the unheated fluid and a second manifold for the heated fluid, provide more flexibility in the mounting and arc length of the heat exchanger). Thus one intermediate portion tube can be replaced or removed for repair without replacing the whole heat exchanger assembly and the manifolds may be inspected without the ordinary worker entering the jet pipe of the engine of Roberge in view of Alessandrini.
It is noted that heat exchangers inside gas turbine exhaust nozzles do not typically need the fin structure 8 of Alessandrini in order to accomplish heating of fuel with the exhaust. For example see heat exchanger tube 164 that heats dihydrogen fuel (see col. 1, ll. 55-60) with the exhaust of the gas turbine engine in Wolf fig. 2. There is similar evidence regarding the heat exchanger 50 tubes that heat fuel with the exhaust of gas turbine engine in Glickstein fig. 1 regarding dihydrogen (see col. 3, ll. 45-50). It is further noted that “Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired” (MPEP 2144.04 II.A.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Roberge in view of Alessandrini with the heat exchanger of Roberge in view of Alessandrini with the fin structure 8 omitted. Such fin structure is used for radial flowing exhaust and the exhaust of Roberge in view of Alessandrini is axially flowing and one of ordinary skill understands that such fin structures are not necessary and if implemented can increase manufacturing complexity, increase cost and cause drag. Thus the instant fin structure would not be desired.
PNG
media_image3.png
613
955
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (spacing)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (longitudinal axis)]
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Roberge in view of Alessandrini teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches wherein the plurality of intermediate portions in succession are spaced apart from one another. After the fin structure 8 is omitted the intermediate portions would be spaced from each other for example the first 7a and second 7b ends of each tube 7 are spaced from each other along longitudinal axis X in fig. 2. This is evidenced by Glickenstein showing tube portions 54 spaced from each other along longitudinal axis (axis aligned with arrow 43) (see “spacing” in annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 9, Roberge in view of Alessandrini teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches an aircraft (see Roberge par. 1) comprising: at least one propulsion assembly (see Roberge fig. 1) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Roberge in view of Alessandrini teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The teachings of Alessandrini applied in the claim 1 analysis above include wherein the first end 7a of each intermediate portion 7 is fluidically connected to a first portion of a supply duct (water from swimming pool to be heated; see par. 61) through the exhaust wall 3 by an upstream manifold (see par. 61: “return manifold”) located outside (see manifold 12 located outside exhaust wall 3 in figs. 1-2 as an example of the location of the manifolds in par. 61) the exhaust wall 3, and the second end 7b of each intermediate portion 7 is fluidically connected to a second portion of the supply duct (heated water going to swimming pool; see par. 61) through the exhaust wall 3 by a downstream manifold (see par. 61: “delivery manifold”) located outside (see manifold 12 located outside exhaust wall 3 in figs. 1-2 as an example of the location of the manifolds in par. 61) the exhaust wall 3.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge as evidenced by Glickstein, in view of Alessandrini as evidenced by Wolf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No.: US 2015/0007594 A1 (Laufer).
Regarding claims 5-6, Roberge in view of Alessandrini teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Roberge the supply duct with a wall delimiting an inner volume in which the dihydrogen circulates (for example duct at C in Roberge fig. 1 inherently has an inner volume and circulates dihydrogen from tank 48). Roberge does not disclose the supply duct is a double-walled duct with an outer wall delimiting an outer volume; wherein the outer volume is evacuated.
Laufer teaches (see fig. 6C and 6D for example) a double walled 60A,60B duct with an outer wall 60B delimiting an outer volume P4; wherein the outer volume is evacuated. Laufer teaches the outer volume P4 is evacuated (leaked heated fluid from volume P3 is evacuated or vented to atmosphere so it does not combine with heating fluid in volume P2; see pars. 56, 167 and 168; this correspond with the idea of venting leaked fuel, from the inner volume of Roberge in view Alessandrini, to atmosphere so that the leaked fuel does not combine with exhaust, in the exhaust nozzle, corresponding with volume P2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Roberge in view of Alessandrini with the supply duct is a double-walled duct with an outer wall delimiting an outer volume; wherein the outer volume is evacuated in order to reduce the likelihood of fuel leakage combing with exhaust gas that can create a flammability. Laufer is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor (see applicant pars. 44-47), and thus is analogous art. Laufer is also in the field of heat exchange wherein such field could be considered the field of endeavor regarding applicant invention and thus would be considered analogous art in this respect also.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge as evidenced by Glickstein, in view of Alessandrini, as evidenced by Wolf, and Laufer as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US Patent 0,813,918 (Schmitz).
Regarding claim 7, Roberge in view of Alessandrini and Laufer teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Roberge does not disclose the supply duct comprises spacers fastened between the inner wall and the outer wall.
Schmitz teaches (see fig. 4 for example) a duct comprises spacers b fastened between an inner wall a and an outer wall d.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Roberge in view of Alessandrini and Laufer with the supply duct comprises spacers fastened between the inner wall and the outer wall as taught by Schmitz in order to facilitate increased strength (see Schmitz col. 1, ll. 25-30). Schmitz is analogous art for similar reasons as explained regarding Laufer above. The spacers accommodate the outer volume used to encompass leaks of fuel from the inner volume of the combination.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberge as evidenced by Glickstein, in view of Alessandrini as evidenced by Wolf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No.: US 2011/0297357 A1 (Myers).
Regarding claim 8, Roberge in view of Alessandrini teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Roberge does not disclose an outer surface of the supply duct is equipped with fins.
Myers teaches a gas turbine (see par. 1) and further teaches (see figs. 2 and 3) an outer surface of a supply duct is equipped with fins (outer surface of fuel supply duct 42 is equipped with fins 44 on the outer surface, such fins being used to heat the fuel in fuel heater 18, see pars. 19 and 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Roberge in view of Alessandrini with an outer surface of the supply duct is equipped with fins as taught by Myers in order to facilitate improved heat exchange (see Myers par. 2, bottom).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
one of ordinary skill understands such exhaust/water heat exchangers are interchangeable with exhaust/fuel heat exchangers: US 20250003368 (see exhaust gas heat exchanger 28 that can heat either water or hydrogen fuel; see fig. 2 and par. 33).
manifold outside nozzle wall: US 7,281,499;
cooing fins that correlate with an axial exhaust flow are optional such fins causing drag: US 20250003368 (fig. 8 and par. 42), US 7963097 (fig. 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 One of ordinary skill understands (see pertinent prior art infra) that it would be the normal course of events to configure the fin structure taught by Alessandrini to correlate with an axial exhaust flow when making the instant combination (for example the ordinary worker is knowledgeable to such fins correlating with an axial flow). However such fins on tube type heat exchangers are not needed as they cause drag as explained in the paragraph herein regarding omission of the fin structure of Roberge in view Alessandrini.
Prosecution Insights