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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 9/10/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 “first and second fuel pumps” is believed to be in error for -- first fuel pump and second fuel pump --.
Claim 20: the preamble “An aircraft according to” is believed to be in error for -- The aircraft according to --.
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) 1-2, 6, 10-11, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher 20210340908 in view of Minas 20240309995 and Tanaka WO 2016047109
Regarding claim 1, Boucher teaches:
A propulsion system comprising:
(i) a propulsive hydrogen-burning (hydrogen [0037]) gas turbine engine (inter alia, Fig 1-4);
(ii) a hydrogen-fuelled auxiliary power unit (450);
(iii) a first tank arranged to store liquid hydrogen (422)
(iv) a first fuel line (inter alia, 426, 428) arranged to transport hydrogen from the first tank to a combustion apparatus of the gas turbine engine, the first fuel line including a first fuel pump (one or more pumps for working fluids and/or fuels may be employed in the flow lines, as will be appreciated by those of skill in the art. [0046]) and a first vaporiser (heat exchanger 432, 442); and
(v) a second fuel line (Intier alia, 444) arranged to transport hydrogen from the first tank to the auxiliary power unit, the second fuel line including a second fuel pump (one or more pumps for working fluids and/or fuels may be employed in the flow lines, as will be appreciated by those of skill in the art [0046])
wherein the first fuel pumps are arranged to provide the liquid hydrogen (422 is a cryogenic fuel tank [0050]) from the first tank to the first vaporisers (inter alia, 432, 446, 442, Fig. 4), and the first vaporisers are arranged to receive and vaporise the liquid hydrogen from the first fuel pumps, and provide resulting gaseous hydrogen to the combustion apparatus (422 contains cryogenic fuel [0050]; Fig. 4)
Boucher teaches the first fuel line arranged to transport hydrogen from the first tank to a combustion apparatus of the gas turbine engine, the first fuel line including a first fuel pump and a first vaporiser (as discussed above), second fuel line arranged to transport hydrogen from the first tank to the auxiliary power unit, the second fuel line including a second fuel pump (as discussed above). Boucher is silent about a second vaporizer located in the second fuel line.
However, Minas teaches hydrogen powered aircraft and a hydrogen fuel distribution system (Fig. 2c), the system proving fuel to a fuel cell stack 220, with hydrogen fuel tanks 228a-d, and pumps (230a-b) supplying fuel multiple fuel lines with separate vaporizers. Minas teaches two fuel lines with independent vaporisers being supplied by one fuel tank (image below teaches how a single tank can supply fuel to multiple fuel lines, each line having a separate vaporiser) and :
a second fuel line (multiple fuel lines seen in Fig. 2c) including a second vaporiser (at least two vaporizers seen in Fig. 2c, 232 and 232)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher with Minas' structure discussed above, adding a second vaporizer to provide fuel to the second fuel line of Boucher, in order to “ to convert LH2 fuel to GH2 fuel and/or to warm GH2 fuel to a temperature (e.g., 275K, etc.) associated with the fuel cell stack 220” [0039].
Boucher in view of Minas is silent about an ullage as claimed, and the duct connecting a fuel line to the ullage as claimed.
Tanaka teaches a hydrogen fuel supply system (abstract), and:
a duct (inter alia, 75, Fig. 4) connecting the second fuel line (83) at a position thereon between the second vaporizer (84) to the ullage of the first tank (top of tank 2; “ liquid hydrogen taken out from the bottom of the tank 2 is vaporized by the vaporizer 84 and the vaporized liquid hydrogen (hydrogen gas) is supplied to the upper part of the tank 2”, page 6) .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas with Tanaka's structure discussed above and connect a duct downstream from the vaporizer to direct gaseous fuel to the tank , in order to pressurize tank 2 as described on page 6. providing the structure where “hydrogen is supplied to a use point in a high-pressure gas state” by “increasing the pressure of liquid hydrogen while being liquid and then evaporating There is […] is advantageous in that it can reduce energy consumption (page 2). Regarding the limitation “between the second vaporizer and the auxiliary power unit”, it would have been obvious to connect the duct, as discussed above, downstream from the vaporizer as taught by Tanaka (because Tanaka uses hydrogen gas), and it would also be obvious to connect the duct upstream from the auxiliary power unit in order to access hydrogen gas that is not used as fuel in the auxiliary power unit. The ullage also gives the fuel an expansion area to prevent dangerous conditions
PNG
media_image1.png
1150
1762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Bocher further teaches:
wherein the auxiliary power unit is arranged to generate electrical power (the auxiliary power unit 450 may be a fuel cell APU [0052], and fuel cells produce electrical power)
Regarding claim 6, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Boucher teaches:
wherein the auxiliary power unit comprises a hydrogen-fuelled fuel cell stack comprising at least one fuel cell (“The auxiliary power unit 450 may be a fuel cell APU (as shown) or as a Brayton cycle system (e.g., combustion with a turbine). The fuel may then be used as a reactant in a fuel cell APU configuration or a combustion fuel for a Brayton cycle system, as will be appreciated by those of skill in the art. In the illustrative fuel cell APU configuration” [0052]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka, as discussed so far, is silent about the second tank as claimed.
However, Tanaka teaches:
further comprising a second tank (43; see Fig. 1) arranged to store compressed gaseous hydrogen (“the vaporized liquid hydrogen (that is, hydrogen gas) is sent to the buffer tank 43”, Page 3) and a third fuel line (42) arranged to convey the gaseous hydrogen between the second tank and the first fuel line (inter alia, 41, 40) at a position thereon between the first vaporiser (40) and the combustion apparatus ( “use point 3” page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka with Tanaka's teachings discussed above because “The buffer tank 43 is provided to alleviate the pressure fluctuation of the hydrogen gas supplied to the use point 3” (page 3)
Regarding claim 11, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 10. Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka, as discussed so far, is silent about a fourth fuel line as claimed.
However, Tanaka teaches:
further comprising a fourth fuel line (44) arranged to convey the gaseous hydrogen from the second tank to the auxiliary power unit (use point 3, Fig. 1, and Tanaka teaches that the use point can be a gas turbine engine on page 2, and it is know in the art that gas turbine engines can be used as auxiliary power unit)
Regarding claim 17, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Boucher further teaches:
wherein the first vaporiser comprises a heat-exchanger arranged to transmit heat from oil within an oil system of the gas turbine engine to liquid hydrogen within the first fuel line (the fuel may pass through an optional heat exchanger 446, similar to the additional heat exchangers described above (e.g., powered electronics, ECS, cooled cooling air, engine oil, etc.) [0051]).
Regarding claim 18, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Boucher further teaches:
wherein the first vaporiser comprises a heat-exchanger (432) arranged to transmit heat from an exhaust flow of the gas turbine engine to liquid hydrogen within the first fuel line (heat exchanger 432 is arranged in the core flow path C downstream of the combustor 412 [0051]; exhaust is on the right side of Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Boucher further teaches:.
An aircraft comprising the propulsion system according to claim 1 (aircraft engine [0034]).
Regarding claim 20, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 19. Boucher further teaches:
An aircraft according to claim 19 wherein the aircraft is an aeroplane (commercial and military aircraft [0002] and “high-bypass geared aircraft engine” [0034], which is used in airplanes) or a helicopter.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher 20210340908 in view of Minas 20240309995, Tanaka WO 2016047109 and Moore 20230184130
Regarding claim 3, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka, as discussed so far, is silent about and the second fuel pump being an electric fuel pump powered by the auxiliary power unit, as claimed.
However, Moore teaches and aircraft power and propulsion system, and:
wherein at least one of the first fuel pump and second fuel pump (115, [0068]) is an electric fuel pump (“electrically-powered fuel pump 115” [0068]), and the auxiliary power unit (200) is arranged to provide electrical power to the at least one electric fuel pump (one or more electric machines (not shown) driven by the APU 200 [0070-0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka with Moore's structure discussed above in order to provide a system where “one or more electric machines (not shown) driven by the APU 200 are used as an electrical power source“ ([0071]), thus providing power to operate the pumps. Furthermore, the use of electric fuel pumps is recognized as ”Obvious to try” because there is a finite number of options to provide power for fuel pumps, electrical power being one of them, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued this as a potential option.
Regarding claim 4, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka, as discussed so far, is silent about the electric starter-motor, as claimed.
However, Moore teaches:
wherein the gas turbine engine (Title) comprises an electric starter-motor (Each of the machines 111, 112 is operable as both a motor and as a generator [0059]’ “ power one or more of the electric machines 111, 112 as part of an electric start procedure” [0070]), and the auxiliary power unit is arranged to provide electrical power to the electric starter-motor (Fig. 4, [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka with Moore's structure discussed above in order to provide a system where “one or more electric machines (not shown) driven by the APU 200 are used as an electrical power source to replace or supplement the power provided by the ESS 130“ ([0071]), and provide “the spool-coupled electric machines 111, 112 in order to manage the surge margin of engine, especially during engine transients such as accelerations and decelerations” [0070], and providing a system for restarting a propulsive gas turbine engine during flight [0002].
Claim(s) 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher 20210340908 in view of Minas 20240309995, Tanaka WO 2016047109 and Smith 20230045911 (Smith’911):
Regarding claim 5, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka, as discussed so far, is silent about the electric heater powered by the auxiliary power unit, as claimed.
However, Smith’911 teaches “a hydrogen fuel system for aircraft” (abstract) and:
wherein the second vaporiser comprises an electric heater, and the auxiliary power unit is arranged to provide electrical power to the electric heater (“the heating the flow of liquid hydrogen includes exchanging heat between an upstream working fluid in thermal communication with the upstream heat source and the flow of liquid hydrogen in the evaporator. In embodiments, the method includes powering the upstream heat source with at least one of an auxiliary power unit, an electric generator, and/or an electric energy module”[0014, 0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka with Smith’911's structure discussed above because “Hydrogen is often stored cryogenically in order to maximize its energy density per unit volume, however it must first be evaporated to a gaseous state before use in combustion” [0002]. It is well established in the art that electric heat exchangers provide a controllable heat exchanger under conditions when other mediums may be cold (i.e., engine/system start).
Regarding claim 7, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Boucher teaches:
wherein the auxiliary power unit comprises (i) an auxiliary hydrogen-burning gas turbine engine (“The auxiliary power unit 450 may be a fuel cell APU (as shown) or as a Brayton cycle system (e.g., combustion with a turbine). The fuel may then be used as a reactant in a fuel cell APU configuration or a combustion fuel for a Brayton cycle system, as will be appreciated by those of skill in the art” [0052]; Fig. 4).
Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the APU as a gas turbine engine, but does not explicitly mention an electric generator as claimed, although this combination is known in the art.
However, Smith’911 teaches “a hydrogen fuel system for aircraft” (abstract) and:
(ii) an electrical generator arranged to be driven by the auxiliary hydrogen-burning gas turbine engine (“an auxiliary power unit 250, an electric generator 252” [0034, 0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka with Smith’911's structure discussed above in order to provide an “electric energy source is external to the gas turbine engine, and wherein the electric energy source includes at least one of: an auxiliary power unit (250), an electric generator (252)” [0073], as taught by Smith’911
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher 20210340908 in view of Minas 20240309995, Tanaka WO 2016047109 and Kami 20020092562 and Hobbs 20050000802
Regarding claim 8, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka is silent about tank, fuel lines and vaporizer being contained as claimed
However, Kami teaches:
wherein the first tank (40, Fig. 2) and respective portions of the fuel lines are contained within a volume which is arranged for evacuation during operation of the propulsion system (“gas filling pipe 44 is used to fill the tank 40 with gaseous fuel whilst the gas supply pipe is used to supply an engine (not shown) with gaseous fuel contained within the tank 40” [0034], teachings that fuel lines are contained within 30, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka with Kami's teachings discussed above, such that the first tank and respective portions of the first fuel line and second fuel lines extending between the first tank and the first vaporiser and second vaporiser, respectively, are contained within a volume which is arranged for evacuation during operation of the propulsion system, as taught by Kami, in order to cover the components containing fuel, such that “If gaseous fuel leaks from within the tank, the structure is operated to discharge the gaseous fuel out of the vehicle” (Abstract, the modification adds a cover to the tank and first fuel line, vaporizer, which is able to be vented to open air), eliminating leaked fuel from the system to reduce exposure to critical components and reduce risk of fire etc.
Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Kami teaches a containment system (Kami as discussed above), but Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Kami, as discussed so far, is silent about the vacuum pump as claimed.
However, Hobbs teaches a hydrogen handling system where Any leaking hydrogen, fires, or explosions may be contained and/or directed upward, protecting human life and property (abstract), and:
comprises vacuum pump (an exhaust fan may create a low pressure area or partial vacuum” [0108]) and substantially evacuate said volume (an exhaust fan may create a low pressure area or partial vacuum within enclosure 150 and may prevent gasses within enclosure 150 from leaking out through any openings in enclosure 150 [0108]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Kami with Hobbs's structure discussed above in order to “create a low pressure area or partial vacuum within enclosure 150 and may prevent gasses within enclosure 150 from leaking out through any openings in enclosure 150” [0108]. Regarding the limitations “an electric vacuum pump” and “arranged to receive electrical power from the auxiliary power unit”, the use of an electric vacuum pump has been recognized as an “obvious to try” solution, because there is a finite number of options to provide power to pumps, electrical power being one of them, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued this as a potential option.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher 20210340908 in view of Minas 20240309995, Tanaka WO 2016047109 and Kami 20020092562
Regarding claim 9, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka is silent about tank, fuel lines and vaporizer being contained as claimed.
However, Kami teaches:
wherein the first tank (40, Fig. 2) and respective portions of the fuel lines within a volume which is arranged for evacuation during operation of the propulsion system (“gas filling pipe 44 is used to fill the tank 40 with gaseous fuel whilst the gas supply pipe is used to supply an engine (not shown) with gaseous fuel contained within the tank 40” [0034], teachings that fuel lines are contained within 30, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka with Kami's teachings discussed above, such that the first tank and respective portions of the first fuel line and second fuel lines extending between the first tank and the first vaporiser and second vaporiser, respectively, are contained within a volume which is arranged for evacuation during operation of the propulsion system, as taught by Kami, in order to cover the components containing fuel, such that “If gaseous fuel leaks from within the tank, the structure is operated to discharge the gaseous fuel out of the vehicle” (Abstract, the modification adds a cover to the tank and first fuel line, vaporizer, which is able to be vented to open air), eliminating leaked fuel from the system to reduce exposure to critical components and reduce risk of fire etc.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher 20210340908 in view of Minas 20240309995, Tanaka WO 2016047109 and Miller 20230366353:
Regarding claim 12, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka, as discussed so far, is silent about apparatus to maintain an inert atmosphere as claimed.
However, Miller teaches:
further comprising apparatus (inter alia, 300) arranged to maintain an inert atmosphere (nitrogen [0052]) within a volume which includes at least one of
(a) a portion of the first fuel line (inter alia, line from 204 to 223 to 326) including the first vaporizer (223); and
(b) a portion of the second fuel (inter alia, line from 204 to 221 to 326) line including the second vaporizer (221).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka with Miller's structure discussed above in order to deliver purge gas to the system because “hydrogen is highly reactive and has wide flammability limits. When exposed to even a small amount of oxygen, hydrogen has a very low ignition energy requirement, even as little as a static spark” [0055-0057], therefore it is beneficial to provide “a hydrogen fuel purge system that may be used to actively purge the fuel lines, the fittings, the valves, the sensors, and the components that receive hydrogen in the case of a leak” [0023]
Regarding claim 13, Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Miller teaches the invention as discussed for claim 12. Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Miller, as discussed so far, is silent about a nitrogen storage tank as claimed.
However, Miller teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a nitrogen storage tank arranged to store compressed gaseous nitrogen (nitrogen gas [0051-0052]) and a duct coupling the nitrogen-storage tank to the volume (302).
Regarding claim 14, Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Miller teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13. Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Miller, as discussed so far, is silent about the second tank and the apparatus as claimed.
However, Miller teaches:
further comprising a second tank arranged to store compressed gaseous hydrogen (a secondary hydrogen fuel source 212 [0045]), and
wherein the apparatus (Image below) is arranged to selectively convey the gaseous nitrogen from the nitrogen storage tank and the gaseous hydrogen from the second tank (image below) to at least one of (i) a position on the first fuel line between the first fuel pump (position after pump 230, Fig. 5c)
Regarding the limitation “a position on the first fuel line between the first fuel pump and the first vaporizer”, there is a finite number of locations where the fluids can be conveyed, i.e., before the pump, between the bump and the vaporizer, or after the vaporizer. Therefore the combination of elements was “obvious to try”. See MPEP 2141(I).
PNG
media_image2.png
1048
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Miller teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Miller, as discussed so far, is silent about the second tank as claimed.
However, Tanaka teaches:
further comprising at least one of
(a) a third fuel line (42) arranged to convey the gaseous hydrogen between the second tank and the first fuel line (inter alia, 41, 40) at a position thereon between the first vaporiser (40) and the combustion apparatus ( “use point 3” page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Boucher in view of Minas, Tanaka and Miller with Tanaka's teachings discussed above because “The buffer tank 43 is provided to alleviate the pressure fluctuation of the hydrogen gas supplied to the use point 3” (page 3)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucher 20210340908 in view of Minas 20240309995, Tanaka WO 2016047109 and Smith 20220381183 (Smith’183)
Regarding claim 16, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka, as discussed so far, is silent about a heat-exchanger receiving bleed air as claimed.
However, Smith’183 teaches:
wherein the first vaporiser comprises a heat-exchanger (122, Fig. 1) arranged to receive compressor bleed air (“The heat exchanger 122 is fluidly connected to the primary gas path 106 between the adjacent first and second stage compressors 140, 142 such that the inter-stage duct 144 forms a compressor air conduit through the heat exchanger 122” [0027]) from the gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) and transmit heat from the compressor bleed air to liquid hydrogen within the first fuel line (line from 131 to the gas turbine, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka with Smith’183’s teachings, to transmit heat from the compressor bleed air to liquid hydrogen within the first fuel line as taught by Smith because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Smith’s use of compressor bleed air according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Boucher in view of Minas and Tanaka’s propulsion system, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case vaporizing hydrogen, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQe2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses compressor bleed air to vaporizer hydrogen)
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
454
986
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Minas was used to teach the second fuel line with a second vaporizer. The other limitations are taught by Boucher: The Auxiliary Power Unit and propulsive hydrogen-burning gas turbine engine are taught by the base reference, Boucher, and not by Minas. Boucher also teaches the Auxiliary Power Unit can be a fuel cell, as discussed in the rejection. Minas teaches a fuel line that includes a vaporizer and supplies fuel to a fuel cell.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
456
778
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Tanaka teaches the duct connecting a fuel line downstream from a vaporizer to the ullage of the fuel tank, providing pressurization to the fuel tank as discussed in the rejection, and this pressurization would be a desirable feature and an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding the location of the duct, it would obviously be located downstream from the vaporizer as discussed in the rejection, and, as also discussed, upstream from any other equipment that may use the fuel.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights