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 .
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 5 and 12 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the system comprises at least a sensor, capable of measuring a pressure of the pressurized fluid, at the level of the pneumatic de-icing device” which is indefinite because it is unclear what is intended to be recited. The use of two commas here implies that the sensor is “at the level of the pneumatic de-icing device”, but Examiner does not know what that means or how it would limit the structure or placement of the sensor. Is the intent for the sensor to be “capable of measuring a pressure of the pressurized fluid” when it arrives at the de-icing device, that is, the level of pressure at the de-icing device? Amendment is respectfully required. Examiner also notes that, for clarity, “at least a sensor” should be amended to “at least one sensor”.
Claim 12 recites “at least one filling step” which is indefinite because the claim from which it depends, claim 10, recites “a filling step” so it is unclear if these are separate filling steps. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite a first filling step and second filling step to differentiate between the two steps.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Boissy (WO 2015110974 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Boissy teaches a de-icing system (10) capable of de-icing a surface of an aircraft (Abstract), comprising a fluid circuit (Fig. 1) that comprises at least: a pressurized tank (28), at least one pneumatic de-icing device (zone (30) with cells (32)), at least one first switching means (valve (24)), and at least one second switching means (valve (22)), wherein the fluid circuit comprises at least one pressurized fluid distribution device (pressure line (29) and/or valve system (21)) configured to bring about: a delivery of pressurized fluid to the pneumatic de-icing device, via the pressurized tank and the first switching means (Para. [0011], [0060]-[0062]), and/or the removal of the pressurized fluid from the pneumatic de-icing device, via the first switching means and the second switching means (Para. [0011], [0060]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 2
Boissy teaches the de-icing system according to claim 1, wherein the pressurized fluid distribution device is configured to cause the pneumatic de-icing device to be vacuumed via the first switching means and the second switching means (Para. [0057], [0060]).
Regarding Claim 3
Boissy teaches the de-icing system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises a control unit configured to control pressurization of the pressurized tank, inflation, deflation and/or vacuuming of the pneumatic de-icing device (unit (44), Para. [0071]).
Regarding Claim 5
Boissy teaches the de-icing system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises at least a sensor (133), capable of measuring a pressure of the pressurized fluid, at the level of the pneumatic de-icing device (see related §112(b) rejection, pressure sensor shown in Fig. 1, Para. [0072]).
Regarding Claim 7
Boissy teaches the de-icing system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises at least one drainage means, in particular a drainage valve (Para. [0068]-[0070]).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Bolam (GB 2355243 A).
Regarding Claim 1
Bolam teaches a de-icing system capable of de-icing a surface of an aircraft (Abstract), comprising a fluid circuit (Fig. 1) that comprises at least: a pressurized tank (reservoir (2)), at least one pneumatic de-icing device (Abstract “de-icer boots”), at least one first switching means (control valve (5)), and at least one second switching means (non-return valve (3)), wherein the fluid circuit comprises at least one pressurized fluid distribution device (compressor unit (1), pneumatic connectors (13), and/or electronic system controller unit (7)) configured to bring about: a delivery of pressurized fluid to the pneumatic de-icing device, via the pressurized tank and the first switching means (Page 5-6 “In the event that the directional control valve (5) is energised by the electronic system controller (7), compressed air from the reservoir (2) is allowed to flow into the 6 de-icer boot circuit (6) and cause the de-icer boots to inflate”).
Regarding Claim 3
Bolam teaches the de-icing system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises a control unit configured to control pressurization of the pressurized tank, inflation, deflation and/or vacuuming of the pneumatic de-icing device (electronic system controller unit (7)).
Regarding Claim 4
Bolam teaches the de-icing system according to claim1, wherein the pressurized fluid distribution device is a compressor, in particular an electric compressor (electrically powered air compressor unit (1)).
Regarding Claim 8
Bolam teaches the de-icing system according to claim1, wherein the system comprises a pressure limiter arranged, in the fluid circuit, at an outlet from the pressurized tank (Page 6 “In order to overcome the effects of air leakage from the system, a vacuum regulator valve (12) is provided. The vacuum regulator valve is set to automatically open and allow ambient air into the system in the event that the partial vacuum in the de-icer boot circuit falls below the negative gauge pressure switch setting whilst insufficient air is in the system for the pressure in the reservoir to become high enough to actuate the positive gauge pressure switch (4)”).
Regarding Claim 10
Bolam teaches a method of using at least one system for de-icing a surface of an aircraft according to claim 1 (Abstract), wherein the method comprises at least: a filling step, during which a pressurized tank is filled with pressurized fluid (Abstract “supplying air to an air storage reservoir 2”); an inflation step, during which at least one pneumatic de-icing device is inflated from the pressurized fluid contained in the pressurized tank (Page 5-6 “In the event that the directional control valve (5) is energised by the electronic system controller (7), compressed air from the reservoir (2) is allowed to flow into the 6 de-icer boot circuit (6) and cause the de-icer boots to inflate”); and a deflation step, during which the pneumatic de-icing device is deflated (Page 5 “Preferably a de-icing system of the invention is configured in such a manner that the air supplied to the de-icer boots is contained within a closed circuit and on deflation of the de-icer boot the air is returned to the inlet port of the compressor for re-compression and storage within a reservoir”).
Regarding Claim 11
Bolam teaches the method of use according to claim 10, wherein the method comprises at least one vacuum step, during which the pneumatic de-icing device is subjected to a vacuum (Page 1 “Between inflations, a partial vacuum is applied to the de-icer boots”, Page 3 “in a pneumatic de-icing system of the invention the partial vacuum required to maintain the de-icer boots in the deflated condition can be generated by connecting the de-icer boots directly to the inlet port of the electrical compressor unit. There is also the added advantage of removing the requirement for a constant supply of air to maintain the vacuum”).
Regarding Claim 12
Bolam teaches the method of use according to claim 10, wherein the method comprises at least one filling step, during which the pressurized tank is filled with the pressurized fluid from the pneumatic de-icing device (Page 4 “a de-icing system of the invention is configured in such a manner that the air supplied to the de-icer boots is contained within a closed circuit and on deflation of the de-icer boot the air is returned to the inlet port of the compressor for re-compression and storage within a reservoir. In this configuration the air in the system is re-circulated and re-used to inflate the de-icer boots”).
Regarding Claim 13
Bolam teaches the method of use according to claim 10, wherein the inflation step and the deflation step are repeated successively (Page 4 “a de-icing system of the invention is configured in such a manner that the air supplied to the de-icer boots is contained within a closed circuit and on deflation of the de-icer boot the air is returned to the inlet port of the compressor for re-compression and storage within a reservoir. In this configuration the air in the system is re-circulated and re-used to inflate the de-icer boots”).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolam (GB 2355243 A), in view of Fahrner et al. (US 20160169411 A1), hereinafter Fahrner.
Regarding Claim 6
Bolam teaches the de-icing system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises a non-return valve arranged in the fluid circuit at the outlet of the pressurized fluid distribution device (non-return valve (3)), but is silent on:
a heated non-return valve
Fahrner teaches:
a heated valve (Abstract, pneumatic valve (10))
Although Barom teaches a non-return valve, it is not disclosed to be heated. 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 de-icing system of Bolam with the heated valve of Fahrner with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of preventing potential freeze-up or non-functioning of a valve (Fahrner: Para. [0010]), especially in an application that involves ice and freezing temperatures.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boissy (WO 2015110974 A1), in view of Stolte et al. (WO 2009127652 A2), hereinafter Stolte.
Regarding Claim 9
Bolam teaches the de-icing system according to claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the second switching means comprises a port configured to allow an external fluid to be injected into the fluid circuit, in particular pressurized air from a cabin of the aircraft.
Stolte teaches:
wherein the second switching means comprises a port configured to allow an external fluid to be injected into the fluid circuit, in particular pressurized air from a cabin of the aircraft (Page 5 Para. 2 “In the need to use a large amount of air for deicing at a low temperature level, it is also conceivable to introduce all or at least a majority of the resulting cabin exhaust air in the wings 16 and distribute there by valve arrangements not shown”).
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 de-icing system of Boissy with the teachings of Stolte with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing an additional means to supply heated, pressurized air to the de-icing devices, thereby providing redundancy to the system, for example.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210309375 A1 – “Continuous Stacked Dual Wrap Tube End Closure for Anti-Icing Systems”
US 20190039742 A1 – “Managing Response to Icing Threat”
US 20170275005 A1 – “Anti-Icing System of Aircraft, Aircraft Including Anti-Icing System, Program for Controlling Anti-Icing System, And Method for Controlling Anti-Icing System”
US 20170036775 A1 – “Aircraft Heating Assembly with Liquid Cooled Internal Combustion Engine And Heating Element Using Waste Heat”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights