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)(4) because reference character “52” has been used to designate both stabilized setpoint processing module and the downstream pressure processing module. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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 claim 1, the limitation “particularly arranged in series” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the limitation is positively recited or not. Additionally, the limitation “advantageously” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what is required by the term.
Regarding claims 2-13, the limitation the regulation device renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is the device for regulating a hydrogen supply system or the first or second regulators or something else.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “pressure setpoint processing circuit” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what structure is associated with the limitation. The specification does not provide more than mere nominal recitation of the term without explanation of the structure being claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the hydrogen pressure value” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a downstream pressure processing module” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what the structure associated with the term is. The specification only provides mere nominal recitation of the term without explanation of the structure associated therewith.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a stabilized setpoint processing module” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what structure is being required with the limitation. The limitation is recited nominally through the specification and possibly in the alternative with the downstream pressure processing module and its unclear what structure is being required.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a phase lead determination module” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what structure is being recited. Similar to the limitations above, no explanation is provided of the actual structure required.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claims 2-10, the limitation “the regulation device according to claim X” is an improper dependent claim because the claim is drawn to a subset of the device for regulating a hydrogen supply system and therefore does not include all the limitations of the claim on which it depends. Claim 11 recites a turbine engine hydrogen supply system, the regulation device presents a similar issue. Claims 12-13 recites a turbine engine including injectors including the hydrogen supply system according to claim 11 and presents similar issues by dependency. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith US 2022/0381183.
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a device for regulating a hydrogen supply system of a turbine engine, see title, fig. 2 for example, comprising a combustion chamber 108, the hydrogen supply system, see fig. 2, including, particularly in series, at least: a pressurization member 133, a metering member 158 advantageously connected to the combustion chamber, a hydrogen accumulator 156 arranged between the pressurization member and the metering member, a first regulator capable of controlling the pressurization member according to a hydrogen pressure in the hydrogen accumulator and a hydrogen pressure setpoint in the hydrogen accumulator, see para. [0029] stating that the expanded low pressure hydrogen is regulated to a pressure that is stored and collected in the accumulator to a pressure that is meterable, and a second regulator capable of controlling the metering member according to a hydrogen flow rate injected into the combustion chamber and a hydrogen flow rate setpoint to be injected into the combustion chamber, see para. [0032] stating the controller outputs a command to the meter 158 to adjust flow of gaseous hydrogen to the combustor to achieve a power output.
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses the first regulator controls the operation of the pressurization member according to a difference between the hydrogen pressure in the hydrogen accumulator and the hydrogen pressure setpoint in the hydrogen accumulator. See para. [0029] stating the pressure in the accumulator is regulated to a pressure whether it can be metered, the metering pressure being the set point pressure and the pump 133 providing LH2 to the gasification process to provide pressurized hydrogen to the accumulator; para. [0030] a compressor pressure P3 upstream and downstream of the accumulator is provided to the controller.
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses the second regulator controls the operation of the metering member according to a difference between the hydrogen flow rate injected into the combustion chamber and the hydrogen flow rate setpoint to be injected into the combustion chamber. See para. [0032] a command to the gaseous hydrogen meter 158 is controlled to adjust the flow of gaseous hydrogen to the combustor to achieve the command power output which would be the hydrogen flow rate set point, the regulator must know the difference between the two points to control the flow to the desired point.
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses a pressure setpoint processing circuit capable of determining the hydrogen pressure setpoint. See para. [0030], the controller can receive additional input from a compressor pressure upstream of the accumulator and downstream thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses the metering member carries out sonic and/or subsonic metering, according to the hydrogen pressure setpoint. The metering member 158 must be either subsonic or sonic.
Regarding claims 11-13, Smith discloses a turbine engine hydrogen supply system including a hydrogen supply system and an aircraft and turbine engine. See fig. 1 showing the aircraft 1 and the turbine engine 100.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Nagafuchi US 6,092,362.
Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses all elements including controlling the flow of fuel based on a pressure differential but does not discloses the pressure setpoint processing circuit comprises an input connected to an engine control device of the turbine engine and an output connected to a first subtracter intended to compute the difference between the hydrogen pressure value and the hydrogen pressure setpoint. Smith does teach that the controller 160 receives various signals 161-164 to control the engine.
Nagafuchi teaches a subtractor 25 that receives the output signal of a pressure gage 16 that processes the output signal of the supply pressure setting device to control the valves 6. The subtractor controls the valves to reduce a differential pressure signal to zero to provide the correct valve control. See col. 5, lines 50-end. The subtractor is capable of computing the difference between the hydrogen pressure value and the hydrogen setpoint.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide a subtractor to control the system of Smith, as taught by Nagafuchi, in order to control the valve to provide the appropriate flow. Id.
Regarding claim 6, Smith, in view of Nagafuchi, discloses the pressure setpoint processing circuit comprises a downstream pressure processing module capable of determining a hydrogen pressure downstream of the metering member. Nagafuchi teaches the signal 16 is downstream of the valve 6 to which it controls.
Regarding claim 7, Smith, in view of Nagafuchi discloses the downstream pressure processing module determines the hydrogen pressure downstream of the metering member based on the hydrogen flow rate value injected into the combustion chamber and a hydrogen pressure value in the combustion chamber. The device of Smith, in view of Nagafuchi, is capable of determining the hydrogen pressure as claimed.
Regarding claims 8-9, Smith, in view of Nagafuchi, discloses a controller that is capable of determining a stabilized hydrogen pressure setpoint in the accumulator and a compensation response time of the first regulator in the transient state and thus is interpreted as including a stabilized setpoint processing module and a phase lead determining module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PST.
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 at (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 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights