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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the first electric motor is fluidly connected to the second inlet such that at least a portion of the second medium is provided to the first electric motor to cool the first electric motor”; “wherein the first electric motor is fluidly connected to the second electric motor in series relative to the flow of the second medium”; “the method further comprising cooling the another electric motor via the flow of second medium”; and “wherein cooling the another electric motor via the flow of second medium occurs after cooling the electric motor with the flow of second medium” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ho et al. (US 2022/0348335: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 14, Ho et al. shows a method of operating an environmental control system of a vehicle, the method comprising:
compressing a first medium at an air supply system to form a compressed first medium (see at least medium #A2 compressed in compressor #42a), the air supply system including a thermodynamic device fluidly coupled to an air conditioning system (see at least device #40a of environmental control system #20), the thermodynamic device including a shaft (see at least shaft #46a), a compressor (see at least compressor #42a), and an electric motor (see at least motor #52), the compressor being operably coupled to the electric motor by the shaft (see at least motor #52 and compressor #42a both on shaft #46a);
cooling the electric motor via a flow of second medium provided from the air conditioning system (see at least motor #52 cooled by medium #A1 supplied from the cabin #24); and
delivering both the compressed first medium and the flow of second medium to a ram air circuit of the air conditioning system from the air supply system (see at least both compressed #A2 and #A1 are supplied to ram air circuit #32), wherein the ram air circuit includes at least one ram heat exchanger (see at least exchanger(s) #36/#38) and the flow of second medium is delivered to the ram air circuit downstream from the at least one ram heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0054]: medium #A1 is discharged from the ram circuit #32 downstream of both heat exchangers #36/#38).
Regarding claim 15, Ho et al. further shows wherein the at least one ram heat exchanger includes a plurality of ram heat exchangers (see at least heat exchangers #36a/b, #38a/b), and the flow of second medium is delivered to the ram air circuit downstream from each of the plurality of ram heat exchangers (see at least paragraph [0054]: medium #A1 is discharged from the ram circuit #32 downstream of both heat exchangers #36/#38).
Regarding claim 16, Ho et al. further shows further comprising cooling the compressed first medium within the at least one ram heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0054]: compressed #A2 is cooled).
Regarding claim 17, Ho et la. further shows wherein cooling the compressed first medium within the at least one ram heat exchanger includes drawing a flow of ram air through the rain air circuit via a fan (see at least fan #50; paragraph [0043]).
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.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US 2022/0348335: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Ho et al. discloses an environmental control system of a vehicle, the environmental control system comprising:
an air conditioning system having:
a first inlet configured to receive a first medium (see at least downstream of compressor #42a receiving compressed #A2) and a second inlet configured to receive a second medium (see at least inlet #22 receiving #A1);
a first thermodynamic device (see at least device #40b) including a first shaft (see at least shaft #46b), a first compressor (see at least compressor #42b), and a first turbine (see at least turbine #44b), the first compressor, and first turbine being operably coupled by the first shaft (see at least compressor #42b and turbine #44b are both on shaft #46b);
an air supply system including a second thermodynamic device fluidly coupled to the air conditioning system (see at least device #40a), the second thermodynamic device including a second shaft (see at least shaft #46a), a second compressor (see at least compressor #42a), and a second electric motor (see at least motor #52), the second compressor being operably coupled to the second electric motor by the second shaft (see at least both compressor #42a and motor #52 and shaft #46a);
wherein the second thermodynamic device is fluidly coupled to and is arranged upstream from the first inlet relative to a flow of the first medium (see at least compressor #42a is upstream of the inlet to provide compressed medium #A2 to the inlet);
wherein the second thermodynamic device is fluidly coupled to and is arranged downstream from the second inlet relative to a flow of the second medium (see at least device #40a is downstream of inlet #22 relative to the flow of #A1); and
wherein the second electric motor is fluidly coupled to and is cooled by the second medium provided at the second inlet (see flow of #A1 from #22 through motor #52).
Ho et al. does not explicitly disclose a first electric motor, the first electric motor operably coupled by the first shaft.
Ho et al., however, teaches that a first electric motor operatively coupled to the first shaft with the first compressor is an art-recognized alternative (see at least paragraph [0042]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ho et al. with a first electric motor, the first electric motor operably coupled by the first shaft since providing a first electric motor operatively coupled to the first shaft with the first compressor and the first turbine is an art-recognized alternative (see “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. "This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor." 209 USPQ at 759.) An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).”.
Regarding claim 2, Ho et al. further discloses wherein the flow of the second medium is configured to make a plurality of passes over the second electric motor (see at least paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Ho et al. further discloses wherein the second thermodynamic device further comprises a second turbine operably coupled to the second compressor and the second electric motor by the second shaft (see at least turbine #44a which is on shaft #46 with compressor #42a).
Regarding claim 4, Ho et al. further discloses wherein the second turbine is arranged downstream from the second electric motor relative to the flow of the second medium (see at least turbine #44a receiving medium #A1 from electric motor #52).
Ho et al. does not disclose wherein the second turbine is arranged directly downstream from the second electric motor relative to the flow of the second medium, instead teaching the extracting downstream of heat exchanger #60.
However, it has been held that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system/method of Ho et al. with wherein the second turbine is arranged directly downstream from the second electric motor relative to the flow of the second medium, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (see Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient): such provision would provide the predictable benefit of simplifying the system/method.
Regarding claim 5, Ho et al. further discloses wherein the air conditioning system includes a ram air circuit (see at least ram air circuit #32) having at least one ram heat exchanger (see at least heat exchanger(s) #36/#38) and an outlet of the second turbine is fluidly connected to the ram air circuit at a location downstream from the at least one ram heat exchanger (see at least paragraph [0054]: medium #A1 is discharged from the ram circuit #32 downstream of both heat exchangers #36/#38).
Regarding claim 6, Ho et al. further discloses wherein the second compressor has a second compressor outlet (see at least compressor #42a, outlet is inherent to compressor), the second compressor outlet being fluidly connected to and arranged in series with the at least one ram heat exchanger (see at least heat exchanger #36a which is serially connected to compressor #42a).
Regarding claim 7, Ho et al. further discloses further comprising a high- pressure water separator positioned directly downstream from the at least one ram heat exchanger (see at least water extractor #54 which is directly downstream from heat exchanger(s) #36/#38).
Regarding claim 8, Ho et al. further discloses wherein in a first mode, the second compressor is driven solely by the second electric motor (see at least paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Ho et al. further discloses wherein in a second mode, the second compressor is driven by the second electric motor and by energy extracted from the second medium at the second turbine (see at least paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Ho et al. does not disclose wherein the first electric motor is fluidly connected to the second inlet such that at least a portion of the second medium is provided to the first electric motor to cool the first electric motor; wherein the first electric motor is fluidly connected to the second electric motor in series relative to the flow of the second medium.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the first electric motor is fluidly connected to the second inlet such that at least a portion of the second medium is provided to the first electric motor to cool the first electric motor; wherein the first electric motor is fluidly connected to the second electric motor in series relative to the flow of the second medium would result in a difference in function of the Ho et al. system as modified to have the first motor on the first shaft. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of Ho et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating that “[i]n an embodiment, the second medium A2 may also be used to cool the motor 48 of the thermodynamic device 40 of the ACS 20. In such embodiments, the flow of the second medium A2 may be divided into a first portion provided to the motor 48 of the thermodynamic device 40 and a second portion provided to the thermodynamic device 51 of the air supply system 50. In other embodiments, the second medium A2 may be used to cool the motors 48, 54 in series. For example, the expanded second medium A2" output from the turbine 60 and having already cooled the motor 54 may be configured to make one or more passes over the motor 48 to remove heat therefrom before being exhausted into the ram air circuit 30. Alternatively, the second medium A2 may be used to cool the motor 48 and then may be delivered to the downstream motor 54 of the thermodynamic device 51” (see paragraph [0047]: Examiner notes that cooling the first electric motor is not illustrated in Applicant’s drawings), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of Ho et al. with wherein the first electric motor is fluidly connected to the second inlet such that at least a portion of the second medium is provided to the first electric motor to cool the first electric motor; wherein the first electric motor is fluidly connected to the second electric motor in series relative to the flow of the second medium as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 12, Ho et al. further discloses wherein the environmental control system is part of an aircraft and the first medium is fresh air (see at least paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Ho et al. further discloses wherein the second medium is cabin air (see at least paragraph [0036]).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US 2022/0348335: cited by Applicant).
Ho et al. discloses all the elements of claim 14, upon which claims 18-20 depend (see rejection(s) above).
Regarding claim 18, Ho et al. further discloses further comprising extracting energy from the flow of second medium at the thermodynamic device to form an expanded second medium, wherein the extracting energy occurs downstream from cooling the electric motor (see at least turbine #44a receiving medium #A1 from electric motor #52).
Ho et al. does not disclose that the extracting occurs directly downstream from cooling the electric motor, instead teaching the extracting downstream of heat exchanger #60.
However, it has been held that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system/method of Ho et al. with the extracting occurs directly downstream from cooling the electric motor, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (see Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient): such provision would provide the predictable benefit of simplifying the system/method.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Ho et al. further discloses wherein the air conditioning system includes another thermodynamic device (see at least device #40b) including another compressor (see at least compressor #42b), another electric motor, and a turbine (see at least turbine #44b) operably coupled by another shaft (see at least shaft #46b).
Ho et al. does not disclose wherein the air conditioning system includes another electric motor, operably coupled by the another shaft.
Ho et al., however, teaches that another electric motor operatively coupled to the another shaft with the another compressor is an art-recognized alternative (see at least paragraph [0042]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system/method of Ho et al. with wherein the air conditioning system includes another electric motor, operably coupled by the another shaft, since providing a first electric motor operatively coupled to the first shaft with the first compressor and the first turbine is an art-recognized alternative (see “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. "This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor." 209 USPQ at 759.) An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).”.
Ho et al. does not disclose the method further comprising cooling the another electric motor via the flow of second medium; wherein cooling the another electric motor via the flow of second medium occurs after cooling the electric motor with the flow of second medium.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing the method further comprising cooling the another electric motor via the flow of second medium; wherein cooling the another electric motor via the flow of second medium occurs after cooling the electric motor with the flow of second medium would result in a difference in function of the Ho et al. system/method as modified to have the additional motor on the additional shaft. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system/method of Ho et al., would have reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears that the system would function as intended being given the claimed arrangement. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed arrangement solves any stated problem, indicating that “[i]n an embodiment, the second medium A2 may also be used to cool the motor 48 of the thermodynamic device 40 of the ACS 20. In such embodiments, the flow of the second medium A2 may be divided into a first portion provided to the motor 48 of the thermodynamic device 40 and a second portion provided to the thermodynamic device 51 of the air supply system 50. In other embodiments, the second medium A2 may be used to cool the motors 48, 54 in series. For example, the expanded second medium A2" output from the turbine 60 and having already cooled the motor 54 may be configured to make one or more passes over the motor 48 to remove heat therefrom before being exhausted into the ram air circuit 30. Alternatively, the second medium A2 may be used to cool the motor 48 and then may be delivered to the downstream motor 54 of the thermodynamic device 51” (see paragraph [0047]: Examiner notes that cooling the first electric motor is not illustrated in Applicant’s drawings), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the arrangement as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system/method of Ho et al. with the method further comprising cooling the another electric motor via the flow of second medium; wherein cooling the another electric motor via the flow of second medium occurs after cooling the electric motor with the flow of second medium as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure as showing ram air heat exchangers directly downstream of turbine discharge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights