DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 4-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 241, 415 in view of Bosak (US 2021/0172375).
Claim 1-2, 5-19 of the U.S. Patent No. 12, 241, 415 discloses all limitations of Claims 1-2 and 4-19 of the pending Application except determining at least one fuel characteristic of the fuel to be combusted by the combustor, and, controlling the heat exchanger system by controlling the modulation valve according to the at least one fuel characteristic to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch, and
the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel;level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity.
However, Bosak teaches a method of operating (the disclosure of the apparatus discloses its method of operating) a gas turbine engine ( “gas turbine”, [0011]) having an oil loop system (see annotated figure ‘375), and a heat exchange system (see annotated figure ‘375) comprising: an air-oil heat exchanger (24; Fig. 12) through which oil (see annotated figure ‘375) in the oil loop system flows; and a fuel-oil heat exchanger (22; Fig. 12) through which the oil in the oil loop system and the fuel flow (see annotated figure ‘375) such that heat is transferred between the oil and the fuel (see annotated figure ‘375), and wherein the oil loop system branches such that a proportion of the oil (see annotated figure ‘375) can flow along each branch and the air-oil and fuel-oil heat exchangers are arranged in a parallel configuration (see annotated figure ‘375) on different branches (see annotated figure ‘375) of the oil loop system; and a modulation valve (42; Fig. 12) arranged to allow the proportion of the oil sent via each branch to be varied, the method comprising determining at least one fuel characteristic (“maximum allowable temperature before coking” [0015-16, 41]) of the fuel to be combusted by the combustor, and controlling the modulation valve according to the at least one fuel characteristic ([0015-16, 41]) to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch such that, under cruise conditions, a heat transfer ratio of: rate of heat transfer from oil to air (kJkg-1)/rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel (kJkg-1) is in a predetermined range (see Figs. 2-5 ).
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 Claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 241, 415 to have determining at least one fuel characteristic of the fuel to be combusted by the combustor, and controlling the modulation valve according to the at least one fuel characteristic to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch such that. Such modification would avoid to generate coke in fuel.
However, TeVeide teaches that the level of coking and the maximum temperature before coking (breakdown, Figs. 3-4) of jet fuel depends on a fuel characteristics, wherein the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; (P. 10 Table 1) and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity (P. 10 Table 1).
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 method of modified Claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 241, 415 in view of Bosak to have wherein the characteristic of the fuel is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity, as taught by TeVeide. Such modification would enable to maximize the temperature added to the fuel with generating coking.
Claims 1-2, 3, and 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12, 241, 415 in view of Bosak (US 2021/0172375).
Claim 2, 3, and 9 of the Co-pending Application 19/028508 discloses all limitations of Claims 1-2, 3 and 7 of the pending Application (including a heat transfer ratio of: rate of heat transfer from oil to air (kJkg-1)/rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel (kJkg-1) is in a predetermined range that is necessarily present) except the predetermined range being 0 to 0.67 (for Claim 1), or 0 to 0.60 (for Claim 2), and
the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel;level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity.
However, Boasak further teaches varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption
Therefore, the heat transfer ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the control of the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a certain range of the heat transfer ratio is present and that varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption were disclosed in the prior art by Bosak, 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 at the time of the invention to provide the claimed ratio, i.e. 0 to 0.67 for Claim 1, 0 to 0.60 for Claim 2, in order to achieve adequate oil temperature, fuel temperature, and fuel consumption . It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed 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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
However, TeVeide teaches that the level of coking and the maximum temperature before coking (breakdown, Figs. 3-4) of jet fuel depends on a fuel characteristics, wherein the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; (P. 10 Table 1) and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity (P. 10 Table 1).
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 method of modified Claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 241, 415 in view of Bosak to have wherein the characteristic of the fuel is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity, as taught by TeVeide. Such modification would enable to maximize the temperature added to the fuel with generating coking.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 9-11, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhard (US 2020/0284195) in view of Bosak (US 2021/0172375), and further in view of TeVeide (Heat transfer and thermal stability of alternative aircraft fuels, Vol. 1, Naval Air Propulsion Center, 1984).
Regarding Claims 1-2: Gebhard discloses a method of operating (the disclosure of the apparatus discloses its method of operation) a gas turbine engine (10; Figs. 1-2), the gas turbine engine comprising: an engine core (20; Figs. 1-2) comprising a turbine (30; Figs. 1-2), a compressor (26; Figs. 1-2), a combustor (28; Figs. 1-2) arranged to combust a fuel (“fuel”; [0002]), and a core shaft (“shaft”, [0030]) connecting the turbine to the compressor (see Fig. 1); a fan (18; Fig. 1) located upstream of the engine core; a gearbox (22; Figs. 1-2) that receives an input (see annotated figure ‘195) from the core shaft and outputs drive (see annotated figure ‘195) to the fan so as to drive the fan at a lower rotational speed than the core shaft ([0032-33]); an oil loop system arranged to supply oil to the gearbox (10; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gebhard is silent regarding a heat exchange system comprising: an air-oil heat exchanger through which the oil in the oil loop system flows; and a fuel-oil heat exchanger through which the oil in the oil loop system and the fuel flow such that heat is transferred between the oil and the fuel, and wherein the oil loop system branches such that a proportion of the oil can flow along each branch and the air-oil and fuel-oil heat exchangers are arranged in a parallel configuration on different branches of the oil loop system; and a modulation valve arranged to allow the proportion of the oil sent via each branch to be varied, the method comprising determining at least one fuel characteristic of the fuel to be combusted by the combustor, and controlling the modulation valve according to the at least one fuel characteristic to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch such that, under cruise conditions, a heat transfer ratio of: rate of heat transfer from oil to air (kJkg-1)/rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel (kJkg-1) is in an predetermined range.
However, Bosak teaches a method of operating (the disclosure of the apparatus discloses its method of operating) a gas turbine engine ( “gas turbine”, [0011]) having an oil loop system (see annotated figure ‘375), and a heat exchange system (see annotated figure ‘375) comprising: an air-oil heat exchanger (24; Fig. 12) through which oil (see annotated figure ‘375) in the oil loop system flows; and a fuel-oil heat exchanger (22; Fig. 12) through which the oil in the oil loop system and the fuel flow (see annotated figure ‘375) such that heat is transferred between the oil and the fuel (see annotated figure ‘375), and wherein the oil loop system branches such that a proportion of the oil (see annotated figure ‘375) can flow along each branch and the air-oil and fuel-oil heat exchangers are arranged in a parallel configuration (see annotated figure ‘375) on different branches (see annotated figure ‘375) of the oil loop system; and a modulation valve (42; Fig. 12) arranged to allow the proportion of the oil sent via each branch to be varied, the method comprising determining at least one fuel characteristic (“maximum allowable temperature before coking” [0015-16, 41]) of the fuel to be combusted by the combustor, and controlling the modulation valve according to the at least one fuel characteristic ([0015-16, 41]) to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch such that, under cruise conditions, a heat transfer ratio of: rate of heat transfer from oil to air (kJkg-1)/rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel (kJkg-1) is in a predetermined range (see Figs. 2-5 ).
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 oil circuit of Gebhard to add the heat exchange system of Bosak and have a heat exchange system comprising: an air-oil heat exchanger through which the oil in the oil loop system flows; and a fuel-oil heat exchanger through which the oil in the oil loop system and the fuel flow such that heat is transferred between the oil and the fuel, and wherein the oil loop system branches such that a proportion of the oil can flow along each branch and the air-oil and fuel-oil heat exchangers are arranged in a parallel configuration on different branches of the oil loop system; and a modulation valve arranged to allow the proportion of the oil sent via each branch to be varied, the method comprising determining at least one fuel characteristic of the fuel to be combusted by the combustor, and controlling the modulation valve according to the at least one fuel characteristic to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch such that, under cruise conditions, a heat transfer ratio of: rate of heat transfer from oil to air (kJkg-1)/rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel (kJkg-1) is in a predetermined range, as taught by Bosak. Such modification would enable to cool oil, heat fuel, and decrease fuel consumption, as recognized by Bosak (see Figs. 2-5).
PNG
media_image2.png
629
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gebhard modified by Bosak as stated above does not explicitly recite the predetermined range being 0 to 0.67 (for Claim 1), or 0 to 0.60 (for Claim 2).
However, Boasak further teaches varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption
Therefore, the heat transfer ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the control of the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a certain range of the heat transfer ratio is present and that varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption were disclosed in the prior art by Bosak, 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 at the time of the invention to provide the claimed ratio, i.e. 0 to 0.67 for Claim 1, 0 to 0.60 for Claim 2, in order to achieve adequate oil temperature, fuel temperature, and fuel consumption . It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed 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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Gebhard in view of Bosak is silent regarding wherein the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel;level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; (P. 10 Table 1) and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity.
However, TeVeide teaches that the level of coking and the maximum temperature before coking (breakdown, Figs. 3-4) of jet fuel depends on a fuel characteristics, wherein the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; (P. 10 Table 1) and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity (P. 10 Table 1).
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 method of Gebhard in view of Bosak to have wherein the characteristic of the fuel is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity, as taught by TeVeide. Such modification would enable to maximize the temperature added to the fuel with generating coking.
Regarding Claim 3: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bosak further teaches wherein the characteristic of the fuel is at least one of: i. percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; ii. heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; iii. aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; iv. multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; v. percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; vi. presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; vii. hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; viii. hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; ix. level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; x. naphthalene content of the fuel; xi. sulphur content of the fuel; xii. cycloparaffin content of the fuel; xiii. oxygen content of the fuel; xiv. thermal stability of the fuel; xv. level of coking of the fuel ([0041]); xvi. an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; and xvii. at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity.
Regarding Claim 4: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bosak further teaches wherein the controlling the heat exchange system so as to adjust the heat transfer ratio comprises decreasing the amount of oil sent via the at least one air-oil heat exchanger when the heat transfer ratio is too high (see Figs. 2-3 wherein the too high temperature corresponds to any points on the curves).
Regarding Claim 9: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bosak further teaches the heat exchange system is not arranged to provide thermal lift (the fuel temperature does not exist oil temperature), and wherein the heat exchange system is controlled such that the heat transfer ratio is in a predetermined range (see Figs. 2-5).
Gebhard modified by Bosak as stated above does not explicitly recite the predetermined range being 0.38 to 0.67.
However, Boasak further teaches varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption.
Therefore, the heat transfer ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the control of the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a certain range of the heat transfer ratio is present and that varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption were disclosed in the prior art by Bosak, 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 at the time of the invention to provide the claimed ratio, i.e. 0.38 to 0.67 in order to achieve adequate oil temperature, fuel temperature, and fuel consumption . It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed 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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claims 10-11: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bosak further teaches wherein the method comprises controlling the heat exchange system under cruise conditions such that the heat transfer ratio is in a predetermined ranged provided that the fuel temperature on entry to the combustor is at least a predetermined temperature (see Figs. 2-5).
Gebhard modified by Bosak as stated above does not explicitly recite the predetermined range being 0 to 0. 2 or 0 to 0.1 (for Claim 11) and the predetermined temperature being 160 C (for Claim 10) or 180 C (for Claim 11).
However, Boasak further teaches varying the heat transfer ratio in order and the fuel temperature to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (see Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, the heat transfer ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the control of the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a certain range of the heat transfer ratio is present and that varying the heat transfer ratio and fuel temperature in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption were disclosed in the prior art by Bosak, 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 at the time of the invention to provide the claimed ratio, i.e. 0 to 0.2 for Claim 10, 0 to 0.1 for Claim 11, and claimed temperature, i.e. 160 C (for Claim 10) 180 C (for Claim 11), in order to achieve adequate oil temperature, fuel temperature, and fuel consumption . It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed 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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claims 14: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bosak further teaches wherein controlling the heat exchange system such that the rate of heat transfer from oil to air is maintained in a predetermined range of fuel at cruise conditions, with no more than a percentage value of the heat transferred away from the oil at cruise being transferred to the air. (see Figs. 2-5).
Gebhard modified by Bosak as stated above does not explicitly recite the predetermined range being 0 to 120 KJ/Kg and the percentage being 20 %
However, Boasak further teaches varying the heat transfer rate and the percentage of the heat transfered from oil to air to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (see Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, the heat transfer rate and percentage of heat transferred is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the control of the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a certain range of the heat rate and percentage of heat transferred is present and that varying the heat transfer rate and percentage of heat transferred in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption were disclosed in the prior art by Bosak, 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 at the time of the invention to provide the claimed ratio i.e. 0 to 120 KJ/kg and 20 %, in order to achieve adequate oil temperature, fuel temperature, and fuel consumption . It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed 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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claims 15: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bosak further teaches wherein controlling the heat exchange system such that the rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel is maintained in a predetermined range of fuel at cruise conditions, with no more than a percentage value of the heat transferred away from the oil at cruise being transferred to the fuel. (see Figs. 2-5).
Gebhard modified by Bosak as stated above does not explicitly recite the predetermined range being 80 to 170 KJ/Kg and the percentage being 80 %.
However, Boasak further teaches varying the heat transfer rate and the percentage of the heat transferred from oil to fuel (see Figs. 2-5) to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption.
Therefore, the heat transfer rate and percentage of heat transferred is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the control of the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a certain range of the heat rate and percentage of heat transferred is present and that varying the heat transfer rate and percentage of heat transferred in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption were disclosed in the prior art by Bosak, 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 at the time of the invention to provide the claimed ratio i.e. 85 to 170 KJ/kg and 80 %, in order to achieve adequate oil temperature, fuel temperature, and fuel consumption . It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed 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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 16: Gebhard discloses a gas turbine engine (10; Figs. 1-2) for an aircraft (“aircraft”, [0002]), the gas turbine engine comprising: an engine core (20; Figs. 1-2) comprising a turbine (30; Figs. 1-2), a compressor (26; Figs. 1-2), a combustor (28; Figs. 1-2) arranged to combust a fuel (“fuel”; [0002]), and a core shaft (“shaft”, [0030]) connecting the turbine to the compressor (see Fig. 1); a fan (18; Fig. 1) located upstream of the engine core; a gearbox (22; Figs. 1-2) that receives an input (see annotated figure ‘195) from the core shaft and outputs drive (see annotated figure ‘195) to the fan so as to drive the fan at a lower rotational speed than the core shaft ([0032-33]); an oil loop system arranged to supply oil to the gearbox (10; Fig. 2) and a controller (68) configured to control the oil system ([0045]).
Gebhard is silent regarding a heat exchange system comprising: an air-oil heat exchanger through which the oil in the oil loop system flows; and a fuel-oil heat exchanger through which the oil in the oil loop system and the fuel flow such that heat is transferred between the oil and the fuel, and wherein the oil loop system branches such that a proportion of the oil can flow along each branch and the air-oil and fuel-oil heat exchangers are arranged in a parallel configuration on different branches of the oil loop system; and a modulation valve arranged to allow the proportion of the oil sent via each branch to be varied, the controller configured to determine at least one fuel characteristic of the fuel to be combusted by the combustor, and control the modulation valve according to the at least one fuel characteristic to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch such that, under cruise conditions, a heat transfer ratio of: rate of heat transfer from oil to air (kJkg-1)/rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel (kJkg-1) is in an predetermined range.
However, Bosak teaches a method of operating (the disclosure of the apparatus discloses its method of operating) a gas turbine engine ( “gas turbine”, [0011]) having an oil loop system (see annotated figure ‘375), and a heat exchange system (see annotated figure ‘375) comprising: an air-oil heat exchanger (24; Fig. 12) through which oil (see annotated figure ‘375) in the oil loop system flows; and a fuel-oil heat exchanger (22; Fig. 12) through which the oil in the oil loop system and the fuel flow (see annotated figure ‘375) such that heat is transferred between the oil and the fuel (see annotated figure ‘375), and wherein the oil loop system branches such that a proportion of the oil (see annotated figure ‘375) can flow along each branch and the air-oil and fuel-oil heat exchangers are arranged in a parallel configuration (see annotated figure ‘375) on different branches (see annotated figure ‘375) of the oil loop system; and a modulation valve (42; Fig. 12) arranged to allow the proportion of the oil sent via each branch to be varied, a controller (“controller” [0052]) configured to determine at least one fuel characteristic (“maximum allowable temperature before coking” [0015-16, 41]) of the fuel to be combusted by the combustor, and control the modulation valve according to the at least one fuel characteristic ([0015-16, 41]) to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch such that, under cruise conditions, a heat transfer ratio of: rate of heat transfer from oil to air (kJkg-1)/rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel (kJkg-1) is in a predetermined range (see Figs. 2-5).
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 oil circuit and controller of Gebhard to add the heat exchange system of Bosak and have a heat exchange system comprising: an air-oil heat exchanger through which the oil in the oil loop system flows; and a fuel-oil heat exchanger through which the oil in the oil loop system and the fuel flow such that heat is transferred between the oil and the fuel, and wherein the oil loop system branches such that a proportion of the oil can flow along each branch and the air-oil and fuel-oil heat exchangers are arranged in a parallel configuration on different branches of the oil loop system; and a modulation valve arranged to allow the proportion of the oil sent via each branch to be varied, the controller configured to determine at least one fuel characteristic of the fuel to be combusted by the combustor, and control the modulation valve according to the at least one fuel characteristic to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch such that, under cruise conditions, a heat transfer ratio of: rate of heat transfer from oil to air (kJkg-1)/rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel (kJkg-1) is in a predetermined range, as taught by Bosak. Such modification would enable to cool oil, heat fuel, and decrease fuel consumption, as recognized by Bosak (see Figs. 2-5).
Gebhard modified by Bosak as stated above does not explicitly recite the predetermined range being 0 to 0.67.
However, Boasak further teaches varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption
Therefore, the heat transfer ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the control of the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a certain range of the heat transgfer ratio is present and that varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption were disclosed in the prior art by Bosak, 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 at the time of the invention to provide the claimed ratio, i.e. 0 to 0.67, in order to achieve adequate oil temperature, fuel temperature, and fuel consumption . It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed 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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Gebhard in view of Bosak is silent regarding wherein the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel;level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; (P. 10 Table 1) and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity.
However, TeVeide teaches that the level of coking and the maximum temperature before coking (breakdown, Figs. 3-4) of jet fuel depends on a fuel characteristics, wherein the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; (P. 10 Table 1) and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity (P. 10 Table 1).
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 method of Gebhard in view of Bosak to have wherein the characteristic of the fuel is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity, as taught by TeVeide. Such modification would enable to maximize the temperature added to the fuel with generating coking.
Regarding Claim 17: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 16, as stated above, and Gebhard further discloses the turbine is a first turbine (32; Fig. 1), the compressor is a first compressor (see annotated figure ‘195), and the core shaft is a first core shaft (see annotated figure ‘195); the engine core further comprises a second turbine (34; Fig. 1), a second compressor (see annotated figure ‘195), and a second core shaft (see annotated figure ‘195) connecting the second turbine to the second compressor; and the second turbine, second compressor, and second core shaft are arranged to rotate at a higher rotational speed than the first core shaft (the high pressure turbine receives gases at higher pressure than the low pressure turbine and therefore the high pressure spool turn at higher speed).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns (US 2015/0361887) in view of Bosak (US 2021/0172375) and further in view of TeVeide (Heat transfer and thermal stability of alternative aircraft fuels, Vol. 1, Naval Air Propulsion Center, 1984).
Regarding Claim 19: Stearns discloses a gas turbine engine (20; Fig. 1) for an aircraft (“aircraft”, [0034]) comprising:an engine core (elements along C; Fig. 1) comprising a turbine (28; Fig. 1), a compressor (24; Fig. 1), and a core shaft (30; Fig. 1) connecting the turbine to the compressor (see Fig. 1); a fan (42; Fig. 1) located upstream of the engine core (see arrow C; Fig. 1); and a gearbox (48; Fig. 1) that receives an input (part of the haft connected to 48) from the core shaft and outputs drive to the fan so as to drive the fan at a lower rotational speed than the core shaft ([0032]); a first oil loop system (see annotated figure ‘887) configured to supply oil (“oil” [0040]) to the gearbox (152, [0042]; Fig. 20); a generator (160; Fig. 2); a second oil loop system (see annotated figure ‘887) configured to provide oil to the generator (see Fig. 2); a heat exchange system (see annotated figure ‘887) comprising: an air-oil heat exchanger (68; Fig. 2) through which the oil in the oil loop system flows (Fig. 2); a fuel-oil heat exchanger (144; Fig. 2) through which the oil in the oil loop system and the fuel flow (see annotated figure ‘887) such that heat is transferred between the oil and the fuel ([0037]), and wherein the first oil loop system branches (see annotated figure ‘887) such that a proportion (see annotated figure ‘887) of the oil can flow along each branch and the air-oil and fuel-oil heat exchangers are arranged in a parallel (see annotated figure ‘887) configuration on different branches (see annotated figure ‘887) of the oil loop system; an oil-oil heat exchanger (164; Fig. 2) configured to transfer heat between the first oil loop system and the second oil loop system ([0038]), and a modulation valve (76; Fig. 2) configured to vary the proportion of the oil sent via each branch; and a controller ([0040] “control”)configured to control the heat exchange system ([0040]) such that, under cruise conditions ([0035]), a heat transfer ratio of: rate of heat transfer from oil to air (kJkg-1)/rate of heat transfer from oil to fuel (kJkg-1) is in a predetermined range (a cruise condition there is a heat transfer with a predetermined range).
PNG
media_image3.png
717
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Stearns is silent regarding does not explicitly recite the predetermined range being 0 to 0.67.
However, Boasak further teaches varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption
Therefore, the heat transfer ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the control of the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a certain range of the heat transgfer ratio is present and that varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption were disclosed in the prior art by Bosak, 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 at the time of the invention to provide the claimed ratio, i.e. 0 to 0.67, in order to achieve adequate oil temperature, fuel temperature, and fuel consumption . It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed 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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Gebhard in view of Bosak is silent regarding wherein the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel;level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; (P. 10 Table 1) and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity.
However, TeVeide teaches that the level of coking and the maximum temperature before coking (breakdown, Figs. 3-4) of jet fuel depends on a fuel characteristics, wherein the fuel characteristic is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; (P. 10 Table 1) and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity (P. 10 Table 1).
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 method of Gebhard in view of Bosak to have wherein the characteristic of the fuel is at least one of: percentage of sustainable aviation fuel in the fuel; heteroatomic species concentration of the fuel; aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; multi-aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel; percentage of nitrogen-containing species in the fuel; presence or percentage of a tracer species or trace element in the fuel; hydrogen to carbon ratio of the fuel; hydrocarbon distribution of the fuel; level of non-volatile particulate matter emissions on combustion; naphthalene content of the fuel; sulphur content of the fuel; cycloparaffin content of the fuel; thermal stability of the fuel; an indication that the fuel is a fossil fuel; and at least one of density, viscosity, calorific value, and heat capacity, as taught by TeVeide. Such modification would enable to maximize the temperature added to the fuel with generating coking.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhard (US 2020/0284195) in view of Bosak (US 2021/0172375) and TeVeide (Heat transfer and thermal stability of alternative aircraft fuels, Vol. 1, Naval Air Propulsion Center, 1984), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walz (US 2022/0403779).
Regarding Claim 5: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding wherein the heat exchange system comprises at least one bypass pipe arranged to allow oil to bypass a heat exchanger, and modulating the amount of oil sent via the bypass pipe.
However, Walz teaches a gas turbine engine (10; fig. 1) and method of operation (the disclosure of the engine discloses its method of operation) having a heat exchange system (see Fig. 2) comprises at least one bypass pipe (35; Fig. 2) arranged to allow oil to bypass a heat exchanger (see Fig. 2), and wherein the controlling the heat exchange system with modulating the amount of oil sent via the bypass pipe (see valve 36; Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified heat exchange system of Bosak to have the heat exchange system comprises at least one bypass pipe arranged to allow oil to bypass a heat exchanger, and modulating the amount of oil sent via the bypass pipe, as taught by Walz. Such a modification would enable further provide heat control exchange.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhard (US 2020/0284195) in view of Bosak (US 2021/0172375) and TeVeide (Heat transfer and thermal stability of alternative aircraft fuels, Vol. 1, Naval Air Propulsion Center, 1984), as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Cass (US 6,189,313).
Regarding Claim 6: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding at least one recirculation pipe arranged to allow a fluid to pass through a heat exchanger multiple times, and modulating the amount of the fluid sent via the recirculation pipe.
However, Cass teaches an aircraft engine (40; Fig. 1) and method of operation (the disclosure of the engine discloses its method of operation) having a heat exchange system (see Fig. 1) comprises at least one recirculation pipe (28, 32, 38; Fig. 1 )arranged to allow a fluid (22; Fig. 1) to pass through a heat exchanger (20; fig. 1) multiple times, and modulating the amount of the fluid sent via the recirculation pipe (see 26 and valves on recirculation pipes that control the amount of fuel recirculating).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified heat exchange system of Bosak to have at least one recirculation pipe arranged to allow a fluid to pass through a heat exchanger multiple times, and modulating the amount of the fluid sent via the recirculation pipe, as taught by Cass. Such a modification would enable further provide heat control exchange.
Regarding Claim 18: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 17, as stated above, but is silent regarding wherein the heat exchange system further comprises branching fuel return pathways and at least one valve controlling a split of fuel flow, the branching pathways being arranged to return fuel from the heat exchange system to at least two different places along a main fuel path from where fuel enters the gas turbine engine to the combustor.
However, Cass teaches an aircraft engine (40; Fig. 1) having a heat exchange system (see Fig. 1) comprises branching fuel return pathways (28, 32, 38; Fig. 1) and at least one valve controlling a split of fuel flow (26; Fig. 1), the branching pathways being arranged to return fuel from the heat exchange system to at least two different places (30 and 28; Fig. 1) along a main fuel path (34; Fig. 1) from where fuel enters the gas turbine engine to a combustor (36; Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified heat exchange system of Bosak to have wherein the heat exchange system further comprises branching fuel return pathways and at least one valve controlling a split of fuel flow, the branching pathways being arranged to return fuel from the heat exchange system to at least two different places along a main fuel path from where fuel enters the gas turbine engine to the combustor. Such a modification would enable to further provide heat control exchange as well as supply of fuel to other system, e.g. actuators.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhard (US 2020/0284195) in view of Bosak (US 2021/0172375) and TeVeide (Heat transfer and thermal stability of alternative aircraft fuels, Vol. 1, Naval Air Propulsion Center, 1984), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bemment (US 11,643,979).
Regarding Claims 12-13: Gebhard in view of Bosak and TeVeide teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bosak further teaches wherein, under cruise conditions, the method comprises controlling the heat exchange system such that the heat transfer ratio is in a predetermined range (see Figs. 2-5) provided that the fuel is at least a certain percentage sustainable aviation fuel (at least 0% of sustainable fuel are present).
Gebhard modified by Bosak as stated above does not explicitly recite the predetermined range being 0 to 0.2 (for Claim 12), 0 to 0.10 (for Claim 13).
However, Boasak further teaches varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption
Therefore, the heat transfer ratio is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is the control of the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption (Figs. 2-5).
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a certain range of the heat transfer ratio is present and that varying the heat transfer ratio in order to control the temperature of oil, temperature of fuel and fuel consumption were disclosed in the prior art by Bosak, 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 at the time of the invention to provide the claimed ratio, i.e. 0 to 0.20 for Claim 12, 0 to 0.10 for Claim 13, in order to achieve adequate oil temperature, fuel temperature, and fuel consumption . It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed 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); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Gebhard modified by Bosak as stated above is silent regarding the percentage of sustainable fuel being at least 70 % (for Claim 13) and 80 % (for Claim 14).
However, Bemment teaches using at least 70 % (for Claim 12) and 80 % (for Claim 13) (Col. 9 L. 25-30) in a turbine engine (10; Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas turbine engine of Gebhard and Bosak to have the percentage of sustainable fuel being at least 70 % (for Claim 12) and 80 % (for Claim 13), as taught by Bemment. Such a modification would enable the gas turbine to more environmentally friendly.
Allowable subject matter
Regarding Claims 7-8: Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten, to correct the above double patent rejections, the above objections, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent 8-9, “wherein the heat exchange system further comprises a refrigeration cycle apparatus, and the controlling the heat exchange system comprises using the refrigeration cycle apparatus to provide thermal lift by transferring further heat from the oil to the fuel such that the fuel temperature is raised above the oil temperature”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741