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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 53. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “17” has been used to designate both first pump and points at part of the third fluid circuit (see Figure 3). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both electric motor and thermal management system. 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. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the first fluid cooling circuit is a non-flammable fluid cooling circuit”. This is unclear, since it appears that Applicant is requiring the circuit itself be non-flammable. Instead, it appears that Applicant intends for the first fluid cooling circuit to circulate a non-flammable coolant/fluid.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the second fluid cooling circuit is a dielectric fluid cooling circuit.”. This is unclear, since it appears that Applicant is requiring the circuit itself be a dielectric. Instead, it appears that Applicant intends for the second fluid cooling circuit to circulate a dielectric coolant/fluid.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the second heat exchanger is positioned closer to the electric motor than the first heat exchanger”. It appears that a word is missing, either “than to the first heat exchanger” or “than the first heat exchanger is”. It is believed the latter was the intended limitation.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6-7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-5, 8-10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Meallie et al. (US 11,273,925: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, O’Meallie et al. shows an aerospace electric propulsion thermal management system (10) for an aircraft (100), wherein the system comprises:
an electric motor (12) configured for propulsion of the aircraft [see at least #104];
at least one motor control unit (14) adapted to control the electric motor [see at least #106];
a first fluid cooling circuit (16) arranged to circulate a first fluid (18a-c) [see at least loop with coolant #102] and comprising at least one first cooling channel (20) in the at least one motor control unit [see at least cold plates #114];
a first heat exchanger (22) connected to the first fluid cooling circuit for providing cooling to the first fluid cooling circuit [see at least condenser #120];
a ram air inlet (24) arranged to provide cooling to the first heat exchanger by ram air cooling [see at least duct #112/ air#108];
a second fluid cooling circuit (26) arranged to circulate a second fluid (28a-b) [see at least circuit with coolant #156] and comprising at least one second cooling channel (30) in the electric motor [see at least column 3, lines 30-33]; and
a second heat exchanger (32) [see at least evaporator #116],
wherein the first fluid cooling circuit is arranged to provide cooling or heating to the second fluid cooling circuit via the second heat exchanger [see at least column 3, lines 24-33].
Regarding claim 2, O’Meallie et al. further shows wherein the first heat exchanger is arranged upstream of the at least one first cooling channel, and wherein the second heat exchanger is arranged downstream of the at least one first cooling channel [see at least when starting from condenser #120, condenser #120 can be seen to be upstream of the channel(s) #114 and the evaporator #116 can be seen to be downstream of the channel(s) #114].
Regarding claim 3, O’Meallie et al. further shows wherein the first fluid cooling circuit is a non-flammable fluid cooling circuit [see at least column 5, lines 50-57].
Regarding claim 4, O’Meallie et al. further shows wherein the second fluid cooling circuit is a dielectric fluid cooling circuit [see at least column 3, lines 30-33].
Regarding claim 5, O’Meallie et al. further shows wherein the second heat exchanger is positioned closer to the electric motor than the first heat exchanger [see at least column 3, lines 24-33: exchanger #116 is closer to #104 than #120 is].
Regarding claim 8, O’Meallie et al. further shows wherein the at least one second channel is provided inside or adjacent to a stator winding (34) of the electric motor [see at least column 2, lines 20-21: #104 may be a generator, which will include a stator winding; see also at least column 3, lines 24-33: the fluid #156 passes through #104, which is indicative that the fluid passes inside or adjacent to the stator winding].
Regarding claim 9, O’Meallie et al. further shows wherein the at least one motor control unit is a plurality of motor control units (14a-c) fluidly connected in parallel in the first fluid cooling circuit [see at least column 2, line 61 through column 3, line 13; cold plates #114 in parallel].
Regarding claim 10, O’Meallie et al. further shows further comprises at least one orifice plate (36) arranged in the first fluid cooling circuit before the plurality of motor control units, wherein the at least one orifice plate is configured such that a flow of the first fluid in the first cooling channel (20a-c) in each motor control unit (14a-c) is equal [see at least column 2, line 61 through column 3, line 13; manifold #130].
Regarding claim 13, O’Meallie et al. further shows wherein a portion (44) of the first fluid cooling circuit downstream of the second heat exchanger and upstream of the first heat exchanger extends at least partly around said ram air inlet to provide heating to said ram air inlet [see at least section #140 of #102, which is downstream of evaporator #116 and upstream of condenser #120, which can provide heating to duct #112 and thus to the ram air inlet].
Regarding claim 14, O’Meallie et al. further shows wherein the first fluid cooling circuit further comprises a bypass (46) of the first heat exchanger, which bypass is configured to be
used when the electric motor is off to prevent that the temperature of the first fluid (28a-b) and/or the second fluid (30) falls below a predetermined minimum temperature [see at least column 6, lines 34-44: the valve #150/#152 is capable of providing such a bypass via flow only through path #142 that is capable of functioning as claimed; see also valve #122; column 4, line 61 through column 5, line 16].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Meallie et al. (US 11,273,925: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 18, O’Meallie et al. shows an aircraft (100) [see at least aircraft #110] comprising at least one aerospace electric propulsion thermal management system (10) according to claim 1 [see at least rejection of claim 1, above].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Meallie et al. (US 11,273,925: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 19, O’Meallie et al. shows a method of cooling the electric motor and the at least one motor control unit in an aerospace electric propulsion thermal management system according to claim 1 [see at least rejection of claim 1, above], wherein
the method comprises:
cooling the first heat exchanger by ram air cooling to cool first fluid in the first fluid cooling circuit [see at least condenser #120, which is cooled by the ram air #108];
providing the cooled first fluid (18a) through said at least one first cooling channel for cooling the at least one motor control unit, whereby the first fluid becomes less cold [see at least cooling plates #114; which heats the fluid discharged from the condenser];
providing the less cold first fluid (18b) through the second heat exchanger to cool second fluid in the second fluid cooling circuit [see at least column 3, lines 24-33]; and
providing the cooled second fluid (28a) through said at least one second cooling channel for cooling the electric motor [see at least column 3, lines 24-33].
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Meallie et al. (US 11,273,925: cited by Applicant).
O’Meallie teaches all the elements of claim 1, upon which claims 6-7 depend (see rejection(s), above).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, O’Meallie et al. is silent regarding wherein the second fluid cooling circuit has a length that is not more than 70%, preferably not more than 50%, of the length of the first fluid cooling circuit; or wherein the second fluid cooling circuit is sized to contain less than 10 liters, preferably less than 1 liter, of the second fluid.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that providing wherein the second fluid cooling circuit has a length that is not more than 70%, preferably not more than 50%, of the length of the first fluid cooling circuit; or wherein the second fluid cooling circuit is sized to contain less than 10 liters, preferably less than 1 liter, of the second fluid would result in a difference in function of the O’Meallie et al. system. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the system of O’Meallie 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 size/capacity. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed size/capacity solves any stated problem, indicating that “Furthermore, the second fluid
cooling circuit 26 may have a length that is not more than 70%, preferably not more than
50%, of the length of the first fluid cooling circuit 16. Furthermore, the second fluid cooling
circuit 26 may be sized to contain less than 10 liters, preferably less than 1 liter, of the
second fluid 28a-b”, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the size/capacity 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 O’Meallie et al. with wherein the second fluid cooling circuit has a length that is not more than 70%, preferably not more than 50%, of the length of the first fluid cooling circuit; wherein the second fluid cooling circuit is sized to contain less than 10 liters, preferably less than 1 liter, of the second fluid as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art (see also In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.).
Claim(s) 11, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Meallie et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moxon (US 2019/0128570).
Regarding claim 11, O’Meallie et al. does not disclose further comprising a nacelle (38) accommodating the electric motor, the at least one motor control unit, at least part of the first fluid cooling circuit, the first heat exchanger, the ram air inlet, the second fluid cooling circuit, and the second heat exchanger.
Moxon teaches another aerospace propulsion cooling system comprising a nacelle (38) accommodating the electric motor, the at least one motor control unit, at least part of the first fluid cooling circuit, the first heat exchanger, the ram air inlet, the second fluid cooling circuit, and the second heat exchanger [see at least nacelle #4; paragraph [0033]; [0034]].
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 O’Meallie et al. with further comprising a nacelle (38) accommodating the electric motor, the at least one motor control unit, at least part of the first fluid cooling circuit, the first heat exchanger, the ram air inlet, the second fluid cooling circuit, and the second heat exchanger, as taught by Moxon, to improve the system of O’Meallie et al. by allowing for airflow from the propeller slipstream to be employed in the cooling process [see at least Moxon paragraph [0033]].
Regarding claim 15, O’Meallie et al. does not disclose further comprising:
a turbine engine (48); a third fluid circuit (50) arranged to circulate a third fluid and comprising at least one channel (52) in the turbine engine; and a third heat exchanger (54), wherein the first fluid cooling circuit is arranged to provide heating to the third fluid circuit via the third heat exchanger.
Moxon teaches another aerospace propulsion cooling system comprising: a turbine engine (48) [see at least gas turbine #127]; a third fluid circuit (50) arranged to circulate a third fluid and comprising at least one channel (52) in the turbine engine [see at least paragraph [0046]]; and a third heat exchanger (54) [see at least heat exchanger #119], wherein the first fluid cooling circuit is arranged to provide heating to the third fluid circuit via the third heat exchanger [see at least paragraphs [0046]-[0047]].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system of O’Meallie et al. with further comprising:
a turbine engine (48); a third fluid circuit (50) arranged to circulate a third fluid and comprising at least one channel (52) in the turbine engine; and a third heat exchanger (54), wherein the first fluid cooling circuit is arranged to provide heating to the third fluid circuit via the third heat exchanger, as taught by Moxon, to improve the system of O’Meallie et al. by providing an additional source of power to the aircraft [see at least Moxon paragraph [0042]].
Regarding claim 16, O’Meallie et al. as modified by Moxon further discloses wherein the first fluid cooling circuit is arranged to provide heating to the third fluid circuit via the third heat exchanger when the turbine engine is off [see at least paragraph [0046]: heat exchanger #119 provides heating to the third fluid regardless of turbine operation or not].
Regarding claim 17, O’Meallie et al. as modified by Moxon further discloses further comprising a turboprop nacelle accommodating the third fluid circuit, at least part of the turbine engine, and the third heat exchanger, wherein said first fluid cooling circuit extends to said turboprop nacelle [see at least nacelle(s) #104, which per discussion in paragraph [0033] include the cooling system components, and thus the nacelle of the embodiment of Figures 3 and 4 can be understood to include at least part of the fuel/cooling lines of the turbine].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Meallie et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matulich (US 3,711,044).
Regarding claim 12, O’Meallie et al. does not disclose further comprising a ram air inlet door (40), wherein the ram air inlet is arranged to provide cooling to the first heat exchanger by ram air cooling when the ram air inlet door is open.
However, it was old and well-known in the art to provide a ram air inlet door to provide cooling to a heat exchanger by ram air cooling when the ram air inlet door is open, as evidenced by Matulich (see at least column 2, lines 26-38).
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 O’Meallie et al. with further comprising a ram air inlet door (40), wherein the ram air inlet is arranged to provide cooling to the first heat exchanger by ram air cooling when the ram air inlet door is open, since, as evidenced by Matulich, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of selectively providing or not providing airflow/cooling via ram air.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Meallie et al. (US 11,273,925: cited by Applicant) in view of Pal (US 2017/0081040: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 20, O’Meallie et al. discloses a computer program product comprising computer program code to perform, when executed on a computer (58) of an aerospace electric propulsion thermal management system (10) according to claim 1 (see at least rejection of claim 1, above), the steps of:
controlling at least one first pump (17) of the first fluid cooling circuit (16) to circulate the first fluid for cooling the at least one motor control unit (14); and
controlling at least one of:
- a ram air inlet door (40) to regulate cooling to the first heat exchanger (22); and
- at least one bypass valve (46b) of a bypass (46) of the first heat exchanger (22) [see at least column 4, line 61 through column 5, line 16].
O’Meallie et al. does not disclose controlling at least one second pump (27) of the second fluid cooling circuit (26) to circulate the second fluid for cooling the electric motor (12).
However, controlling at least one second pump (27) of the second fluid cooling circuit (26) to circulate the second fluid for cooling the electric motor (12) was old and well-known in the art, as evidenced by Pal [see at least paragraph [0035]].
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 O’Meallie et al. with controlling at least one second pump (27) of the second fluid cooling circuit (26) to circulate the second fluid for cooling the electric motor (12), since, as evidenced by Pal, such provision was old and well-known in the art and would provide the predictable benefit of providing active circulation of the oil medium #156 of O’Meallie et al. through the motor #104.
Conclusion
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