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 .
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, 4, 5, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20210180752 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a fuel system (the assembly of FIG. 1) for a hydrogen fuelled aircraft propulsion system (FIG. 1 depicts a hydrogen fuel system) comprising: a tank (FIG. 1, outer container 800) configured to store hydrogen (FIG. 1, hydrogen storage pellet 100); a first inductor (FIG. 1, coil 300) provided within the tank and configured to heat hydrogen fuel within the tank (FIG. 1, the coil 300 heats the hydrogen storage pellet 100); and a second inductor (FIG. 1, an inductor of power supplier 500 (as power sources include inductors)) provided externally to the tank, and configured to induce a current in the first inductor (FIG. 1, the power supplier forces a current through the coil 300).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches that the fuel system comprises a controller configured to control heating of fuel in the tank (FIG. 1, controller 600).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that the controller is configured to provide one of AC and variable DC current to the second inductor (FIG. 1, controller 600 controls the power supplier 500 to provide varying amounts of either AC or DC current).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a method (the method performed by the assembly of FIG. 1) of operating a fuel system of an aircraft propulsion system comprising: operating a second inductor (FIG. 1, an inductor of power supplier 500 (as power sources include inductors)) located externally to a hydrogen tank (FIG. 1, outer container 800) to energise a first inductor (FIG. 1, coil 300, which is energized by the power supplier 500) provided within the tank to thereby heat hydrogen within the tank.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6-8, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, and 15 above, and further in view of Reulet (US 20220187393 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee fails to teach that at least one of the first inductor and the second inductor comprises a superconducting material.
However, Reulet teaches that at least one of the first inductor and the second inductor comprises a superconducting material (paragraph 37, “Type 2 superconductors, such as high Tc cuprates or NbN, can have a higher critical magnetic field strength and can be preferred for this reason.” The superconductors are used for an assembly of inductors).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lee by making the coil 300 a type 2 cuprate superconductor, as taught by Reulet, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with these aforementioned teachings of Reulet with the motivation of suiting the coils to the extreme environments in Lee.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Reulet teaches that the superconducting material comprises a type 2 superconductor such as cuprate, iron based, magnesium diboride, carbon-based or nickelate superconductor (paragraph 37, “Type 2 superconductors, such as high Tc cuprates or NbN, can have a higher critical magnetic field strength and can be preferred for this reason.”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches that the controller is configured to operate the first inductor and second inductor in a charging mode and a heating mode (FIG. 1, the coil 300 is used to heat the assembly, and the power supplier 500 charges the system).
Lee fails to teach that the at least one of the first inductor and the second inductor comprises a superconducting material.
However, Reulet teaches that the at least one of the first inductor and the second inductor comprises a superconducting material (paragraph 37, “Type 2 superconductors, such as high Tc cuprates or NbN, can have a higher critical magnetic field strength and can be preferred for this reason.” The superconductors are used for an assembly of inductors).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lee by making the coil 300 a type 2 cuprate superconductor, as taught by Reulet, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with these aforementioned teachings of Reulet with the motivation of suiting the coils to the extreme environments in Lee.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Reulet teaches that in the charging mode, the controller is configured to input current into the second inductor to energise the first inductor to a current density below its critical current density JC (Lee, FIG. 1, when the controller 600 makes the power supplier 500 apply a current to the coil 300 below a certain threshold, the coil does not heat but remains charged).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Reulet teaches that in the heating mode, the controller is configured to input current into the second inductor to energise the first inductor to a current density above its critical current density JC (Lee, FIG. 1, when the controller 600 makes the power supplier 500 apply a current to the coil 300 above a certain threshold, the coil produces heat).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches that the method comprises, in a charging mode (FIG. 1, the power supplier 500 charges the system), inputting current into the first inductor to energise the second coil to a current density below its critical current density JC (Lee, FIG. 1, when the controller 600 makes the power supplier 500 apply a current to the coil 300 below a certain threshold, the coil does not heat but remains charged).
Lee fails to teach the first inductor comprising a superconducting material.
However, Reulet teaches the first inductor comprising a superconducting material (paragraph 37, “Type 2 superconductors, such as high Tc cuprates or NbN, can have a higher critical magnetic field strength and can be preferred for this reason.” The superconductors are used for an assembly of inductors).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lee by making the coil 300 a type 2 cuprate superconductor, as taught by Reulet, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with these aforementioned teachings of Reulet with the motivation of suiting the coils to the extreme environments in Lee.
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches that the method comprises, in a heating mode, inputting current into the second inductor to energise the first inductor to a current density above its critical current density JC to quench the first inductor (Lee, FIG. 1, when the controller 600 makes the power supplier 500 apply a current to the coil 300 above a certain threshold, the coil produces heat); and, in a heating mode, inputting current into the second inductor to energise the first inductor to a current density above its critical current density JC to quench the first inductor (Lee, FIG. 1, when the controller 600 makes the power supplier 500 apply a current to the coil 300 above a certain threshold, the coil produces heat).
Lee fails to teach the first inductor comprising a superconducting material.
However, Reulet teaches the first inductor comprising a superconducting material (paragraph 37, “Type 2 superconductors, such as high Tc cuprates or NbN, can have a higher critical magnetic field strength and can be preferred for this reason.” The superconductors are used for an assembly of inductors).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lee by making the coil 300 a type 2 cuprate superconductor, as taught by Reulet, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with these aforementioned teachings of Reulet with the motivation of suiting the coils to the extreme environments in Lee.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Reulet as applied to claims 2, 3, 6-8, 16, and 17 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 5740024 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee and Reulet fails to teach that the fuel system comprises a plurality of first and second inductors.
However, Johnson teaches that the fuel system comprises a plurality of first and second inductors (FIG. 3, the assembly includes multiple first inductor members 32 on the interior of the tank 30 and multiple second inductor members 12 on the outside).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lee by including a number of coils and hydrogen storage tanks, as taught by Johnson, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with these aforementioned teachings of Johnson with the motivation of allowing a number of systems to be employed so that if one breaks a redundant one may take its place.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee, Reulet, and Johnson teaches that the fuel system comprises a controller configured to control heating of fuel in the tank and wherein the controller is configured to control a subset of the first and second inductors individually (Lee, FIG. 1, the controller 600 controls one pair of inductors).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, and 15 above, and further in view of Bacic (US 20240132227 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lee fails to teach that the hydrogen tank is configured to store liquid hydrogen, and wherein the hydrogen tank may configured to store liquid hydrogen at a pressure of between 1 and 4 Bar, and may be configured to store liquid hydrogen at a temperature below 35 K.
However, Bacic teaches that the hydrogen tank is configured to store liquid hydrogen, and wherein the hydrogen tank may configured to store liquid hydrogen at a pressure of between 1 and 4 Bar (paragraph 68, the liquid hydrogen may be stored at 1 Bar), and may be configured to store liquid hydrogen at a temperature below 35 K (paragraph 68, the liquid hydrogen may be stored at 23 K).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lee by storing liquid hydrogen at 1 bar and 23 K, as taught by Bacic, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with these aforementioned teachings of Bacic with the motivation of keeping the liquid in a stable but near usable state.
Regarding claim 12, Lee fails to teach that the hydrogen tank is configured to store compressed or supercritical hydrogen, and wherein the hydrogen tank may be configured to store hydrogen at a temperature below 100 K, and at a pressure up to 350 Bar.
However, Bacic teaches that that the hydrogen tank is configured to store compressed or supercritical hydrogen, and wherein the hydrogen tank may be configured to store hydrogen at a temperature below 100 K (paragraph 68, the liquid hydrogen may be stored at 23 K), and at a pressure up to 350 Bar (paragraph 68, the liquid hydrogen may be stored at 1 Bar, which is less than 350).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lee by storing liquid hydrogen at 1 bar and 23 K, as taught by Bacic, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with these aforementioned teachings of Bacic with the motivation of keeping the liquid in a stable but near usable state.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, and 15 above, and further in view of Scott (US 20230022809 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lee fails to teach a propulsor.
However, Scott teaches a propulsor (FIG. 1, the thrust assembly of engine 100).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lee by employing the hydrogen fuel for a turbine engine, as taught by Scott, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee with these aforementioned teachings of Scott with the motivation of employing the fuel for a high emission vehicle to reduce overall emissions for the device.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee and Scott teaches that the propulsion system comprises one or more of a fuel cell configured to provide electrical power the propulsor (FIG. 2, electrical power generator 152), and a gas turbine engine configured to drive the propulsor (FIG. 2, the engine 100).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights