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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “substantially 100% of a waste heat load”” in claims 1, 2, 3 is not claimed in the specification. There is no mention of there not being any other sources of waste heat load exhaust, and naturally waste heat would seep out of the aircraft skin, or be exhausted via radiation, thus, this functions as a negative recitation meaning there is no other heat absorption source which must be explicitly supported in the specification, which it is not.
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 1-9 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 2, and 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, substantially 100% will mean 100% of the heat taken by the cooling system.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesyna (9517843) in view of Cerny (10260419) and Suciu (10215096).
Regarding claim 1, Pesyna discloses an aircraft (310, fig 7) comprising a machine body (312, fig 7) enclosing a heat-exchanger module (col 5, lines 50-60, the generator 16 inside the body includes a heat exchanger module within it), a turbofan engine (314, fig 7) and a plurality of ancillary systems (the aircraft would have fuel, electronics, controls, etc.), the heat-exchanger module being disposed upstream of the turbofan engine, and the turbofan engine comprising, in axial flow sequence: a fan assembly; a compressor module; a turbine module; and an exhaust module (col 4, lines 40-67), wherein: (a) the machine body has a single fluid inlet aperture (361, fig 7) configured to allow an inlet air streams to enter the machine body and to pass through the heat-exchanger module to provide a cooling airflow through the heat exchanger module; (b) the heat-exchanger module is configured to transfer a waste heat load from the turbofan engine and the ancillary systems to the cooling airflow prior to entry thereof into the fan assembly (the heat exchanger is upstream of the engine and receives heat from the whole aircraft and transfers it to the air and thus would perform the claimed function); and (c) in operation of the aircraft, all active aircraft cooling is provided by the inlet air stream and the machine body is otherwise free of fluid inlet apertures and scoops for providing cooling airflows for the aircraft (fig 7, there is no other inlet for the aircraft).
Pesyna does not disclose wherein a fluid is circulated through the turbofan engine, the ancillary systems, and the heat exchanger module such that 100% of a waste heat load flows through the inlet air streams, wherein the fan assembly has a fan diameter which is less than or equal to a fluid path diameter of the heat exchange module.
Cerny teaches a gas turbine cooling system (100, fig 2), wherein a fluid is circulated in one loop (102, fig 2) through a turbofan engine (106, fig 2), ancillary systems (106, fig 2), and heat exchanger modules (108, fig 2) (col 5, line 35- col 6, line 56), which, when combined with the heat exchanger system of Pesyna, would mean 100% of a waste heat load would flow through the heat exchanger module of Pesyna into the inlet air stream.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system disclosed by Pesyna by having a single loop to circulate cooling fluid through the turbofan, ancillary systems, and heat exchanger based on the teachings of Cerny. Doing so would allow for more efficient utilization of heat exchangers (col 1, lines 45-55), as suggested by Cerny.
Suciu teaches having a heat exchanger module (102, fig 2) disposed in the inlet stream of a gas turbine upstream of the fan (12, fig 1) wherein the heat exchanger module has a fluid path diameter, wherein the fan diameter is less than than the fluid path diameter (fig 1, the diameter of the fluid path is widest at the front, and then gradually reduces in size when passing through the vanes and into the fan, meaning that the fluid path diameter for the vanes is slightly larger than the fan diameter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow path diameter disclosed by Pesyna as modified by Waitz by having the flow path be wider at the heat exchanger module than the fan diameter based on the teachings of Suciu. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a heat exchangers effectiveness is a direct result of surface area, so having a larger heat exchanger area would allow for more heat to be exchanged to the air.
Regarding claim 2, Pesyna discloses an aircraft (10, fig 1) comprising a machine body (12, fig 1) enclosing a heat-exchanger module (col 5, lines 50-60, the generator 16 inside the body includes a heat exchanger module within it), a turbofan engine (14, fig 1) and a plurality of ancillary systems (the aircraft would have fuel, electronics, controls, etc.), the heat-exchanger module being disposed upstream of the turbofan engine, and the turbofan engine comprising, in axial flow sequence: a fan assembly; a compressor module; a turbine module; and an exhaust module (col 4, lines 40-67), wherein: (a) the machine body (i) has first and second fluid inlet apertures (31, 32, fig 1) configured to allow first and second inlet air streams to enter the machine body and (ii) further encloses an intake arrangement configured to blend the first and second inlet air streams together (30, fig 1) to produce a single blended inlet air stream therefrom and to output the single blended inlet air stream to the heat-exchanger module (col 5, lines 50-60, the heat exchanger module can be cooled by the blended airflow stream 40) to provide a cooling airflow through the heat-exchanger module; (b) the heat-exchanger module is configured to transfer a waste heat load from the turbofan engine and the ancillary systems to the cooling airflow prior to entry thereof into the fan assembly (the fan assembly is downstream so it would perform the claimed function); and (c) in operation of the aircraft, all active aircraft cooling is provided by the blended inlet air stream and the machine body is otherwise free of fluid inlet apertures and scoops for providing cooling airflows for the aircraft (fig 1, there are no other inlets to the aircraft).
Pesyna does not disclose wherein a fluid is circulated through the turbofan engine, the ancillary systems, and the heat exchanger module such that 100% of a waste heat load flows through the inlet air streams, wherein the fan assembly has a fan diameter which is less than or equal to a fluid path diameter of the heat exchange module.
Cerny teaches a gas turbine cooling system (100, fig 2), wherein a fluid is circulated in one loop (102, fig 2) through a turbofan engine (106, fig 2), ancillary systems (106, fig 2), and heat exchanger modules (108, fig 2) (col 5, line 35- col 6, line 56), which, when combined with the heat exchanger system of Pesyna, would mean 100% of a waste heat load would flow through the heat exchanger module of Pesyna into the inlet air stream.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system disclosed by Pesyna by having a single loop to circulate cooling fluid through the turbofan, ancillary systems, and heat exchanger based on the teachings of Cerny. Doing so would allow for more efficient utilization of heat exchangers (col 1, lines 45-55), as suggested by Cerny.
Suciu teaches having a heat exchanger module (102, fig 2) disposed in the inlet stream of a gas turbine upstream of the fan (12, fig 1) wherein the heat exchanger module has a fluid path diameter, wherein the fluid path diameter is greater than the fan diameter (fig 1, the diameter of the fluid path is widest at the front, and then gradually reduces in size when passing through the vanes and into the fan, meaning that the fluid path diameter for the vanes is slightly larger than the fan diameter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow path diameter disclosed by Pesyna as modified by Waitz by having the flow path be wider at the heat exchanger module than the fan diameter based on the teachings of Suciu. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a heat exchangers effectiveness is a direct result of surface area, so having a larger heat exchanger area would allow for more heat to be exchanged to the air.
Regarding claim 4, Pesyna discloses wherein the machine body comprises a single fluid exhaust aperture configured to channel fluid flow from the exhaust module out of the machine body, the machine body otherwise being free of fluid exhaust apertures (326, fig 7).
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesyna in view of Cerny.
Regarding claim 3, Pesyna discloses an aircraft (10, fig 1) comprising a machine body (12, fig 1) enclosing first and second heat-exchanger modules (col 5, lines 50-60, the generator 16 inside the body includes a heat exchanger within it that can extend into the passageways 41 and 42, so calling the heat exchanger section that extends into 41 a first module and heat exchanger section 42 that extends into the second the second module meets this limitation), a turbofan engine (14, fig 1) and a plurality of ancillary systems (the aircraft would have fuel, electronics, controls, etc.), the turbofan engine comprising, in axial flow sequence: a fan assembly; a compressor module; a turbine module; and an exhaust module (col 4, lines 40-67), wherein: (a) the machine body (i) has first and second fluid inlet apertures (31, 32, fig 1) configured to allow first and second inlet air streams to enter the machine body and (ii) further encloses an intake arrangement (30, fig 1) configured to blend the first and second inlet air streams together to produce a single blended inlet air stream and to output the single blended inlet air stream to the fan assembly, the first and second heat-exchanger modules being disposed so as to lie in the first and second inlet air streams, respectively (separate first and second heat exchanger modules being the sections in the first and second air streams respectively), in operation of the aircraft, and the first and second inlet air streams providing first and second cooling airflows for the first and second heat-exchanger modules, respectively; (b) the first and second heat-exchanger modules are configured to transfer a waste heat load from the turbofan engine and the ancillary systems to the first and second inlet air streams, respectively (this is the function of the heat exchanger modules); and (c) in operation of the aircraft, all active aircraft cooling is provided by the first and second inlet air streams and the machine body is otherwise free of air intakes and scoops for providing cooling airflows for the aircraft (fig 1, there are no other inlets to the aircraft).
Pesyna does not explicitly disclose wherein a fluid is circulated through the turbofan engine, the ancillary systems, and the heat exchanger module.
Cerny teaches a gas turbine cooling system (100, fig 2), wherein a fluid is circulated in one loop (102, fig 2) through a turbofan engine (106, fig 2), ancillary systems (106, fig 2), and heat exchanger modules (108, fig 2) (col 5, line 35- col 6, line 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling system disclosed by Pesyna by having a single loop to circulate cooling fluid through the turbofan, ancillary systems, and heat exchanger based on the teachings of Cerny. Doing so would allow for more efficient utilization of heat exchangers (col 1, lines 45-55), as suggested by Cerny.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesyna as modified by Cerny and Suciu in claim 1, further in view of Bins (GB2553493A).
Regarding claim 5, Pesyna discloses wherein the machine body is free of fluid exhaust apertures other than the gas turbine exhaust flow, and wherein the turbofan is a first turbofan engine, and the machine body encloses a second turbofan engine (114a, 114b, fig 3) having a first and second exhaust portion (outlets downstream of 114a and 114b) each exhaust portion is arranged to carry the exhaust flow produced by a respective one of the first and second turbofan engines.
Pesyna does not disclose a bifurcated exhaust having first and second exhaust portions terminating in a single exhaust aperture through which exhaust flow from the exhaust module of the first turbofan engine and exhaust flow from an exhaust module of the second turbofan engine exit the machine body in operation of the aircraft.
Bins teaches an aircraft (fig 7) having a bifurcated exhaust having first and second exhaust portions (locations of arrows 1 and 2, fig 1) terminating in a single exhaust aperture (at 4, fig 1) through which exhaust flow from the exhaust module of the first turbofan engine and exhaust flow from an exhaust module of the second turbofan engine exit the machine body in operation of the aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exhaust duct disclosed by Pesyna by having a bifurcated exhaust based on the teachings of Bins. Doing so would result in a decrease of asymmetric power in case of engine shutdown (abstract), as suggested by Bins.
Claim 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesyna as modified by Cerny and Suciu in claim 1, further in view of Waitz (6004095).
Regarding claim 6, Pesyna does not disclose wherein the fan assembly comprises a plurality of fan blades defining a fan diameter (D), and the fan diameter D is within a range of 0.3m to 2.0m.
The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Here Waitz teaches a fan having a diameter of “about 22 inches” (0.5588 meters, col 18, lines 25-60). Furthermore, fan diameter has a direct effect on various engine factors including weight, fan shroud size, noise, bypass ratio, and fuel requirements (col 36, lines 18-28). Therefore, an ordinary skill worker would recognize that the fan diameter is a result-effective variable that controls engine performance. Thus, the claimed fan diameter being between 0.3 and 2 meters is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the fan diameter, was disclosed in the prior art by Waitz, 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 effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Pesyna by having the fan have a diameter between 0.3 and 2 meters, in order to achieve balance between a multitude of engine parameters (col 36, lines 18-28). It has been held “where the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Pesyna as modified by Suciu discloses wherein the heat exchanger module has a fluid path diameter, wherein the fluid path diameter is greater than the fan diameter (fig 1, the diameter of the fluid path is widest at the front, and then gradually reduces in size when passing through the vanes and into the fan, meaning that the fluid path diameter for the vanes is slightly larger than the fan diameter).
Regarding claim 8, Pesyna as modified by Waitz discloses wherein the fan assembly comprises two or more fan stages, at least one of the fan stages comprising a plurality of fan blades defining the fan diameter D.
Suciu teaches a gas turbine fan (12, fig 1) wherein the fan assembly comprises two or more fan stages (12, fig 1, there are multiple stages in the fan), at least one of the fan stages comprising a plurality of fan blades (see fan blades, fig 1) defining a fan diameter D (fan diameter can be defined using any set of fan blades chosen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fan disclosed by Pesyna as modified by Waitz by having the multiple fan stages based on the teachings of Suciu. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having multiple fan stages can increase pressure ratio and therefore effectiveness for a given cross section.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesyna as modified by Cerny and Suciu in claim 1, further in view of Baughman (9016041).
Regarding claim 9, Pesyna discloses wherein the turbofan engine further comprises an outer housing that encloses a sequential arrangement of the fan assembly, the compressor module, and the turbine module, an annular bypass duct being defined between the outer housing and the sequential arrangement of modules, and a bypass ratio (col 4, line 40- col 5, line 10) which is defined as a ratio of a mass air flow rate through the bypass duct to a mass air flow rate through the sequential arrangement of modules during operation of the aircraft.
Pesyna does not disclose wherein the bypass ratio of the turbofan engine is less than 4.0.
Baughman teaches a turbine engine with a bypass ratio of less than 1 (col 2, lines 42-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bypass duct disclosed by Pesyna by having a bypass ratio of one based on the teachings of Baughman. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that low bypass ratio engines are more responsive than high bypass, and thus would be preferred in tasks such as military aircraft that require quick changes in speed and direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/16, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 under Pesyna and Cerny have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pesyna, Cerny, and Suciu.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose wherein 100% of a waste heat load from the turbofan engine and ancillaries is delivered into the inlet airstreams of Pesyna, since the Pesyna heat exchanger is used to cool the generator. This argument is not persuasive, as Cerny is being used to teach putting the gas turbine engine and ancillaries on the same cooling loop so that the heat exchanger system can be used for both, this means that when combined, the heat exchanger of Pesyna would be hooked into the gas turbine such that all of the waste heat load would be directed through the heat exchanger into the inlet air stream
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741