DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 July 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westrich et al. (US 2023/0261237) in view of Lear (US 2024/0200494) and Chen et al. (CN 112 478 182).
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 14, and claims 4, 5, 7, 10-12, and 17:
Westrich clearly discloses the arrangement of tanks, solid oxide fuel cell ([0015]), and evaporator coil in Figs 1, 2, and 4B, and the aircraft having a body and wings containing the fuel cell and “second” (per the specification) tank in [0036] and Fig 4B, the coil in proximity to the fuel cell generator to receive heat therefrom (Figs 2 and 3).
Westrich discloses an aircraft propulsion system using fuel cells, but does not disclose a planar fuel cell design.
Lear teaches an aircraft propulsion system having fuel cells of planar, tubular, or other fuel cell designs ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Westrich to use planar fuel cells as taught by Lear for the predictable advantage of providing an easy to manufacture fuel cell (planar arrangements being easier to manufacturing than tubular), and since these are recognized in the art as one of various equivalent designs for predictably providing fuel cells to power aircraft propulsion systems.
Westrich does not specifically disclose the tank as cylindrical with a rounded end or mounted externally to the wing.
Chen teaches a wing fuel pod having a cylindrical (200) tank with a rounded end (100) and a tail cone (300), the pod made of carbon fiber to produce a “light” structure which can be “thrown away”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Westrich to use a carbon fiber tank with a tail cone as taught by Chen for the predictable advantage of providing “lightweight” jettisonable tanks which are streamlined to reduce drag, and since it has been held that changing shapes and rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 2 and 15:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 14 is relied upon.
Westrich discloses input and outputs for the “second” tank, but does not specifically disclose a manifold coupled to the tank.
The examiner takes Official Notice that manifolds are well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Westrich to use a manifold as the examiner takes Official Notice that manifolds are well-known in the art, for the predictable advantage of providing a tank with a single inlet/outlet, thus reducing weaknesses in the tank (tanks holding compressed or liquid fuels may be made stronger against internal pressure when they have fewer openings).
The applicant’s failure to successfully traverse the Official Notice renders such notice Admitted Prior Art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Regarding claims 19 and 20:
The discussion above regarding claim 14 is relied upon.
Westrich discloses the evaporator coil for increasing the fuel temperature (Fig 1; [0033]-[0036]).
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westrich et al. (‘237) in view of Lear (‘494) and Chen et al. (‘182) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Lyons et al. (US 11 634 229).
The discussion above regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 is relied upon.
Westrich discloses a regulator (118), but does not disclose the regulator operable to reduce the pressure discharged from the tank.
Lyons teaches a fuel tank discharge regulator to lower fuel pressure to reduce the likelihood of damage (col 5, lines 42-58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Westrich to use a regulator decreasing pressure as taught by Lyons for the predictable advantage of preventing the higher pressure from damaging the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Further, it is noted that “A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal.” MPEP 2144.03.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached on 571-270-3614. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619