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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 19468097 filed 2/3/2026. Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “a respective injector manifold” (ll. 3-4) is believed to be in error for - - a respective injector manifold of the first injector manifold and the second injector manifold - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, the recitation “An engine system for an aircraft having a tank in which dihydrogen is stored” (l. 1) is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the tank is part of the engine system, and thus positively recited, or part of the aircraft which is not positively recited in the claim.
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, the recitation “a transfer conduit forming a loop, a first end of the transfer conduit arranged in the first heat exchanger and a second end of the transfer conduit arranged in the second heat exchanger” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the term “loop” conveys in view of the recitations of the locations of the ends of the transfer conduit. The claim requires the two ends of the transfer conduit to be at separate physical locations (in respective heat exchangers) which is contrary to the notion that the conduit “loops” (i.e. the ends are located at a common position such that fluid repeatedly circulates around the loop formed by the transfer conduit).
Dependent Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberge 20200088098.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Roberge teaches an engine system (Fig. 1) for an aircraft (para. [0001]) having a tank (40) in which dihydrogen is stored (para. [0020]), the engine system comprising:
an engine (12) with a combustion chamber (24) and a turbine unit (26) arranged downstream of the combustion chamber;
a first injector manifold arranged in the combustion chamber (fuel injectors in 24 provided with fuel from line J; para. [0025]);
a second injector manifold arranged downstream of the turbine unit (fuel injectors in augmentor 29 provided with fuel from line on which valve D is positioned);
an auxiliary conduit arranged to transport dihydrogen from the tank to the first injector manifold and the second injector manifold (conduit I extending from 40 and successively through 16 and 30 to each of 24 and 29); and
a thermal loop comprising:
a first heat exchanger arranged on the auxiliary conduit upstream of the first injector manifold and the second injector manifold (16 on conduit I and positioned upstream of 24 & 29 with respect to fuel flow through conduit I),
a second heat exchanger arranged so that the second injector manifold is oriented toward the second heat exchanger (30 positioned so that fuel injectors at 29 are oriented toward 30), and
a plurality of conduits fluidically connected between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger so as to heat dihydrogen circulating in the auxiliary conduit before the dihydrogen arrives at the first injector manifold and the second injector manifold (conduit I can be interpreted as a plurality of conduits, such as conduit extending from 40 to 16, conduit extending from 16 to 30, conduit extending from 30 to 24 and conduit extending from connection to I at 32 to 29 via valve D).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Roberge further teaches the plurality of conduits comprises a transfer conduit forming a loop (conduit extending from 16 to 30, note that the term “loop” is construed to not require a return from the first end back to the first end given that the claim requires the ends to be positioned at separate locations, thus it is not a “closed” loop), a first end of the transfer conduit arranged in the first heat exchanger (first end of conduit at 16) and a second end of the transfer conduit arranged in the second heat exchanger (second end of conduit at 30), wherein the transfer conduit is filled with a moving heat transfer fluid (during operation, the transfer conduit is filled with flowing fuel, which is a moving heat transfer fluid).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Roberge further teaches the second heat exchanger is arranged downstream of the second injector manifold (30 downstream from injectors at 29).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Roberge further teaches for both the first injector manifold and the second injector manifold, the engine system comprises a control valve mounted on the auxiliary conduit between the first heat exchanger and a respective injector manifold (valve C for first manifold and valve E for second manifold), and wherein the engine system further comprises a control unit (42) arranged to control an opening and a closing of the control valves independently of each other (C and E controlled by 42 to be opened and closed independently of each other; paras. [0021] & [0023]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Roberge further teaches an aircraft (para. [0001]) comprising:
a tank (40) in which dihydrogen is stored (para. [0020]); and
the engine system as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the auxiliary conduit is fluidically connected to the tank (conduit I is connected to tank 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 & 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the plurality of conduits includes the auxiliary conduit which successively passes through the first heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and then the first heat exchanger in order to reach the first injector manifold and the second injector manifold. The closest prior art, Roberge as discussed above, passes fuel through the auxiliary conduit (conduit I) through the first heat exchanger (16) and then the second heat exchanger (30). Roberge, however, fails to teach the auxiliary conduit successively passes, after having passed through the first and second heat exchangers, through the first heat exchanger once again to reach the first and second injector manifolds.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the second heat exchanger is arranged upstream of the second injector manifold. The closest prior art, Roberge as discussed above, teaches an augmentor (second injector manifold 29) and an exhaust heat exchanger (second heat exchanger 30) downstream from the augmentor. Even if one were to relocate Roberge’s exhaust heat exchanger to be positioned upstream from the augmentor, this would not arrive at the claimed invention because claim 1 requires that the second injector manifold be oriented towards the second heat exchanger. In order to modify Roberge to arrive at the claimed invention, Roberge’s augmentor injectors (29) would need to be oriented in the opposite direction from what is shown in Roberge (i.e. augmentor injectors injecting fuel in an upstream direction into the turbine exhaust), in combination with the relocation of the exhaust heat exchanger to be upstream from the augmentor injectors, which is not taught or reasonably suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. 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, 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
