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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 08/28/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-18 and 20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/28/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The MPEP states in part that (a) Papers that are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding.
(1) All papers, other than drawings, that are submitted on paper or by facsimile transmission, and are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, must be on sheets of paper that are the same size, not permanently bound together, and:
(i) Flexible, strong, smooth, non-shiny, durable, and white;
(ii) Either 21.0 cm by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 by 11 inches), with each sheet including a top margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch). MPEP 608.01
The application papers are objected to because the amendments to the claims has track changes lines in the left margin.
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 1-5, 7-18 and 20 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, the recitation of “…the second turbine is fluidly connected to the first inlet, the first turbine and the second turbine being fluidly connected to the first inlet in parallel,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
In this instance, the disclosure and/or the drawings does not able one skilled in the art to ascertain the alleged “parallel” arrangement. See MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - the second turbine is fluidly connected to the first inlet, the first turbine and the second turbine being fluidly connected to the first inlet - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 17, the recitation of “…a compressor, a first turbine, and a second turbine, the first turbine and the second turbine being fluidly connected to a first inlet associated with the first medium in parallel,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
In this instance, the disclosure and/or the drawings does not able one skilled in the art to ascertain the alleged “parallel” arrangement. See MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - a compressor, a first turbine, and a second turbine, the first turbine and the second turbine being fluidly connected to a first inlet associated with the first medium - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 9, the recitation of “…wherein in the first mode, only the second medium is provided to an outlet of the environmental control system,” renders the claim unclear.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In this instance, the specification at 0012 gives only a cursory mention of the limitation and does not give detail to would aid in understanding any structural nuisances needed to meet the recited limitations. The drawings are also deficient in aiding one of ordinary skill in the art the requisite understanding.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1- 5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruno et al. (US2019/0389587).
Regarding Claim 1, Bruno teaches an environmental control system of a vehicle [fig 1] comprising:
a first inlet [at 22] for providing a first medium [0031];
a second inlet [at 24] for providing a second medium, the second medium being different than the first medium [0032];
a thermodynamic device including a compressor [42] a first turbine [44] and a second turbine [46], operably coupled by a shaft [50], wherein the first turbine is fluidly connected to both the first inlet and the second inlet [0037; fig 1]; and
the first turbine being fluidly coupled to the first inlet, the first turbine and the second turbine being fluidly connected to the first inlet [0037; 0041-0045; fig 1];
wherein the environmental control system is operable in a plurality of modes, and in a first mode of the plurality of modes, the thermodynamic device is driven solely by energy extracted from the first medium [0041-0044; fig 1].
Regarding Claim 2, Bruno teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bruno teaches wherein the compressor is fluidly connected to and arranged downstream from the second inlet [0044; see 24 and 42 at fig 1].
Regarding Claim 3, Bruno teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bruno teaches wherein the first medium is bleed air [0005].
Regarding Claim 4, Bruno teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bruno teaches wherein the second medium is fresh air [0007].
Regarding Claim 5, Bruno teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bruno teaches wherein the thermodynamic device further comprises a fan [48] operably coupled to the shaft [50] and in the first mode, the compressor and the fan are driven by the energy extracted from the first medium [0041-0045; fig 1].
Regarding Claim 7, Bruno teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bruno teaches wherein the first turbine [44] is arranged downstream from the compressor [42] relative to a flow of the second medium [0037; 0041-0045; fig 1].
Regarding Claim 8, Bruno teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bruno teaches a first valve [V3] operable to direct a flow of the first medium from an outlet of the first inlet toward either the first turbine or the second turbine [0039]; and a second valve [V2] operable to direct a flow of the second medium into a bypass conduit positioned to bypass the first turbine [0039].
Regarding Claim 9, the absence of an art‐based rejection for claim 8 is not an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather, is an indicium of the indefiniteness of the claims. Without a clear understanding of what the claims are intended to encompass, the examiner cannot apply prior art to the claims without undue speculation.
Regarding Claim 10, Bruno teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Bruno teaches a ram air circuit [30] having a ram air duct [see fig 1] and at least one heat exchanger [34, 36] arranged within the ram air duct [0034; fig 1].
Regarding Claim 11, Bruno teaches the invention of claim 10 above and Bruno teaches wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes a first heat exchanger [34] and a second heat exchanger [36], the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger being arranged in series relative to a flow of ram air within the ram air duct [0034; see fig 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno et al. (US2019/0389587) in view of Zywiak (US2005/0061911).
Regarding Claim 12, Bruno teaches the invention of claim 10 above but does not teach wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger, the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger being arranged in parallel relative to a flow of ram air within the ram air duct.
However, Zywiak teaches a heat exchanger configuration for an air conditioning pack of an aircraft [0002] having wherein at least one heat exchanger includes a first heat exchanger [26] and a second heat exchanger [24], the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger being arranged in parallel relative to a flow of ram air within a ram air duct [15; 0015; 0016] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a heat exchanger configuration that is efficient and saves space [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bruno to have wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes a first heat exchanger and a second heat exchanger, the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger being arranged in parallel relative to a flow of ram air within the ram air duct in view of the teachings of Zywiak where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a heat exchanger configuration that is efficient and saves space.
Claim(s) 13 – 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno et al. (US2019/0389587) in view of Ho et al. (US2021/0001992).
Regarding Claim 13, Bruno teaches an environmental control system of a vehicle [fig 1] comprising:
a first inlet [at 22] for providing a first medium [0031]; a second inlet [at 24] for providing a second medium, the second medium being different than the first medium [0032];
a thermodynamic device including a compressor [42] a first turbine [44] and a second turbine [46], operably coupled by a shaft [50], wherein the first turbine is fluidly connected to both the first inlet and the second inlet [0037; fig 1]; and
the first turbine being fluidly coupled to the first inlet, the first turbine and the second turbine being fluidly connected to the first inlet [0037; 0041-0045; fig 1];
and wherein the environmental control system is operable in a first mode and a second mode, and in the first mode, the thermodynamic device is driven solely by energy extracted at the first turbine [0037; 0041-0045; fig 1].
Bruno does not teach where in the second mode, the thermodynamic device is driven solely by energy extracted at the second turbine.
However, Ho teaches an environmental control system [0001] having where in a second mode, a thermodynamic device [compressor 42, first turbine 44, second turbine 46; 0041] is driven solely by energy extracted at a second turbine [46; 0054] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide where by bypassing the first turbine providing air to a load at a higher temperature and thereby improving the system [0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bruno to have where in the second mode, the thermodynamic device is driven solely by energy extracted at the second turbine in view of the teachings of Ho where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide where by bypassing the first turbine providing air to a load at a higher temperature and thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 14, Bruno, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 13 above and Bruno teaches wherein the first medium is bleed air and the second medium is fresh air [0005; 0007].
Regarding Claim 15, Bruno, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 13 above and Bruno teaches wherein in the first mode, the thermodynamic device is driven by the energy extracted from the first medium and the second medium at the first turbine [0037; 0041-0045; fig 1].
Regarding Claim 16, Bruno, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 13 above and Ho teaches wherein in the second mode, the thermodynamic device is driven by the energy extracted from the first medium at the second turbine [0054].
Regarding Claim 17, Bruno teaches a method of operating an environmental control system of an aircraft [0001; 0029; fig 1] comprising:
providing a first medium and a second medium to a thermodynamic device including a compressor, a first turbine, and a second turbine, the first turbine and the second turbine being fluidly connected to a first inlet associated with the first medium [0037; 0041-0045];
in a first mode of operation: extracting work from the first medium at the at least one turbine [0037; 0041-0045]; and compressing the second medium at the compressor [0037; 0041-0045].
Bruno does not teach wherein in at least one mode of operation; the compressor is driven only by work extracted from the first medium at the at least one turbine.
However, Ho teaches an environmental control system [0001] having where in a mode of operation, in a thermodynamic device [compressor 42, first turbine 44, second turbine 46; 0041] the compressor is driven only by work extracted at one turbine [46; 0054] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide where by bypassing the first turbine providing air to a load at a higher temperature and thereby improving the system [0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bruno to have wherein in at least one mode of operation; the compressor is driven only by work extracted from the first medium at the at least one turbine in view of the teachings of Ho where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide where by bypassing the first turbine providing air to a load at a higher temperature and thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 18, Bruno, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17 above and Ho teaches where in a second mode of operation, extracting work from the first medium and the second medium at the at least one turbine [0054].
Regarding Claim 20, Bruno, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 17 above and Bruno teaches wherein the first medium is bleed air and the second medium is fresh air [0005; 0007].
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues with respect to claims 1 and 13 that Bruno et al. (US2019/0389587) does not teach “…wherein the first turbine is fluidly connected to both the first inlet and the second inlet and the second turbine is fluidly connected to the first inlet, the first turbine and the second turbine being fluidly connected to the first inlet in parallel.” Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant is directed to the 112 rejections above with respect to the limitation where the components are connected in parallel. Additionally, a close comparison of the prior art and the claimed invention do not yield any discernable differences with respect to the connections of the claimed turbines and compressors.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
On pages 7-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues with respect to claims 17 that Bruno et al. (US2019/0389587) does not teach “…thermodynamic device including a compressor, a first turbine, and a second turbine, the first turbine and the second turbine being fluidly connected to a first inlet associated with the first medium in parallel.” Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant is directed to the 112 rejections above with respect to the limitation where the components are connected in parallel. Additionally, a close comparison of the prior art and the claimed invention do not yield any discernable differences with respect to the connections of the claimed turbines and compressors.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
For at least the reasons above, claims 1, 13 and 17 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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, Jerry Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
