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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required:
In claim 13: the recitation of “providing first inlet” (in line 3) should instead be amended to –providing a first inlet— to provide proper antecedence for the inlet.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Sauterleute et al. (EP 1386837 A1), herein Sauterleute.
As per claim 1, Sauterleute discloses an environmental control system of a vehicle (see at least fig. 2), the environmental control system comprising:
a first inlet (upstream FCV) for receiving a first medium (“bleed air”) and a second inlet (upstream C1) for receiving a second medium (“ram air/ambient air”);
an outlet (downstream SV), wherein the outlet is only fluidly connected to the second inlet (see fig. 2);
a ram air circuit (see “ram air” arrow that passes through MHX and PHX) including at least one ram heat exchanger (MHX or PHX) fluidly connected to at least one of the first inlet (upstream FCV) and the second inlet (upstream C1; see fig. 2);
a thermodynamic device (C1, T1, T2, etc.) including a compressor (C1) and a plurality of turbines (T1, T2) operably coupled by a shaft (as shown in fig. 2), the thermodynamic device being fluidly coupled to both the first inlet (upstream FCV) and the second inlet (upstream C1); and
wherein a first cooling medium (“ram air” upstream MHX) is provided to the ram air circuit during a first mode of operation (e.g., an operation of at first set of components; see fig. 2), and a second cooling medium (e.g., compressed air from C1) is provided to the ram air circuit (via MHX) during a second mode of operation (e.g., an operation of a second set of components; see fig. 2).
As per claim 2, Sauterleute discloses wherein the first cooling medium is ram air (as shown in fig. 2).
As per claim 3, Sauterleute discloses wherein during the first mode of operation both the first cooling medium (“ram air”) and the second cooling medium (compressed air from C1) is provided to the ram air circuit (see at least fig. 2).
As per claim 6, Sauterleute discloses an expansion device separate from the thermodynamic device (see at least ¶ 57), the expansion device being operably coupled to the thermodynamic device and to the outlet (evident from at least ¶ 57 and fig. 2).
As per claim 8, Sauterleute discloses wherein a first flow path extends between the first inlet (upstream FCV) and the at least one ram heat exchanger (PHX) and a second flow path extends (via ATV) between the first inlet (upstream FCV) and a turbine (T1) of the plurality of turbines (T1, T2) of the thermodynamic device (see fig. 2), the first flow path and the second flow path being arranged in parallel (as shown in fig. 2).
As per claim 9, Sauterleute discloses a valve (ATV) disposed along the second flow path (see at least fig. 2), the valve (ATV) being operable to control a flow to the turbine (T1; see at least ¶ 71).
As per claim 10, Sauterleute discloses wherein the second medium is fresh air (i.e., ambient air as shown in fig. 2).
As per claim 11, Sauterleute discloses wherein the compressor (C1) is driven only by energy extracted from the first medium (see at least ¶ 49).
As per claim 12, Sauterleute discloses wherein the first medium is bleed air (see at least fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all1 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 13-19 are allowed.
The prior art, when taken as a whole, does not appear to reasonably disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed subject matter as recited in at least claims 4-5, 7 and 13. There does not appear to be a prior art disclosure of record that would reasonably suggest the claimed flow medium configurations (claims 4-5) or the inclusion of an expansion valve that is fluidly coupled to the compressor (claim 7). Regarding claim 13, the prior art of Sauterleute at best appears to suggest a method of operating an environmental control system (shown in fig. 2), the method comprising: providing a first inlet (upstream FCV) for receiving a first medium (“bleed air”), a second inlet (upstream C1) for receiving a second medium (“ram air/ambient air”), and an outlet (downstream SV), wherein the outlet is only fluidly connected to the second inlet (see fig. 2); providing a ram air circuit (see “ram air” arrow that passes through MHX and PHX) including at least one ram heat exchanger (MHX or PHX) fluidly connected to at least one of the first inlet (of FCV) and the second inlet (of C1). However, the prior art of record does not provide evidence for the cooling of the first or second mediums via the ram heat exchanger as specifically claimed in both operation modes. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights