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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 14 May 2026 has been considered. It is acknowledged that claims 1, 4, 9-13, and 15 have been amended, and claim 3 has been cancelled by Applicant. In view of the newly added amendments, the U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 9 and 15 have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4-16 are under full consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The respective arguments are addressed below:
Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose the newly added limitations regarding the flow impingement valve, specifically arguing that Knis, which was used to reject the previously claimed flow impingement valve, does not describe that the non-return valve contains the newly added limitation of including one or more flow impingement blockers configured to create a series of loops. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and points applicant to paragraphs [0032] and [0033] where the impact plate is introduced, which is analogous to the claimed blockers, and then to paragraph [0040] which describes the blockers influencing turbulence caused by eddy currents. The instant specification has not given the term “loops” any special definition, and accordingly it is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant has not provided any evidence supporting their argument that Knis does not disclose this feature.
In response to Applicant’s argument that combining Peacos with modified Jomain relies on impermissible hindsight construction, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant also argued that incorporating Peacos into the system of Jomain as modified by Doherty, Hedges, and Knis would fundamentally change the operational principle of the combined system. Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that this argument is merely attorney speculation that is not supported by evidence.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jomain (US-20200079522-A1) in view of Doherty et al. (US-20210178320-A1), hereinafter Doherty, Peacos, III et al. (US-9855544-B2), hereinafter “Peacos”, Hedges et al. (US-20150219554-A1), hereinafter “Headges”, and Knis et al. (US-20120222759-A1), hereinafter “Knis”.
Regarding Claim 1, Jomain discloses an inerting fuel tank system (fuel tank inerting arrangement 203; see [0097]), comprising: a plurality of valves (one or more valves; see [0038]); a plurality of sensors (temperature sensor, flow sensor; see [0096] and [0102], respectively) including: and oxygen sensor (sensing the oxygen content of the gas; see [0017]), an ozone removal device (ozone remover 503; see [0099]), wherein air flows into the ozone removal device (air passes downstream… and then through an ozone remover; see [0099]), wherein a specific valve of the plurality of valves is configured to control the flow of the air into the ozone removal device (air passes downstream through a valve 516 and then through an ozone remover; see [0099]), wherein the ozone removal device is configured to remove ozone from the air (ozone remover 503 which removes ozone from the air; see [0099]); a heat exchanger (heat exchanger 505; see [0099]), wherein the air flows from the ozone removal device to the heat exchanger (downstream of the ozone remover 503 is a shut-off valve 504… Downstream of the shut-off valve 504 is a heat exchanger 505; see [0099]); a filter (ULPA filter 509; see [0099]), wherein the air flows from the heat exchanger to the filter (see Fig. 4 Parts 505 and 509); an air separator module (air separation module 510; see [0099]), wherein the air flows from the filter to the air separator module (filtered by an ULPA filter 509… and then passed to an air separation module 510; see [0099]); a fuel tank (central fuel tank; see [0099]); at least one check valve (flow control valve 512; see [0099]), wherein the at least one check valve is located between the air separator module and the fuel tank (air separation module 510 removes at least some of the oxygen from the gas, with oxygen-depleted air being fed via a flow control valve 512 to an outlet 514 for delivering oxygen-depleted air to a central fuel tank; see [0099]); wherein the air separator module is configured to remove oxygen from the air (air separation module 510 removes at least some of the oxygen from the gas; see [0099]) and create nitrogen enriched air (This is the natural consequence of removing oxygen from air) which flows into the fuel tank through the at least one check valve (with oxygen-depleted air being fed via a flow control valve 512 to an outlet 514 for delivering oxygen-depleted air to a central fuel tank; see [0099), wherein the plurality of valves and the plurality of sensors (sensor located in the fuel tank. Those skilled in the art will realize that other arrangements are possible; see [0107]) are configured to control the flow of the air (one or more valves for controlling the flow of gas through the aircraft fuel tank inerting arrangement; see [0038]).
Regarding the limitation claiming a “check valve”, this check valve is broadly interpreted as a valve that prevents reverse flow. The control valve, referenced above, disclosed in Jomain is disposed between the air separator and the fuel tank and is necessarily capable of being positioned to block reverse flow. Accordingly, Jomain discloses the check valve.
Jomain does not explicitly teach the claimed sensor locations or a heat sensor. However, Doherty discloses a heat sensor located between the filter and the air separator module (see Fig. 1, temperature sensor 110, filter 108, air separation module 100) and an oxygen sensor located between the air separator module and the fuel tank (oxygen sensor 116 is configured to measure concentration… prior to the oxygen-depleted air flow fraction 22 reaching the fuel system 12 and… to measure oxygen concentration within the oxygen-depleted air flow fraction 22 received from the separator 112; see [0042]), wherein the oxygen content of the nitrogen enriched air is measured prior to entering the at least one check valve by an oxygen sensor (flow control valve 118 is fluidly coupled between the oxygen sensor 116 and the supply conduit; see [0043]).
Jomain and Doherty are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of inerting systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jomain by incorporating the teachings of Doherty and disposing the sensors in the claimed locations. Doing so enables temperature measurement of the compressed air flow provided to the separator (see Doherty [0038]) and monitoring of the performance of the air separation module via monitoring of the oxygen concentration (see Doherty [0042]) while also enabling throttling of the flow of oxygen depleted air flow; see Doherty [0043]).
Jomain does not explicitly teach a pressure sensor. However, Peacos discloses a pressure sensor located between a filter and an air separation module (passes through an ozone filter 104. The air then passes through… a number of sensors, including pressure sensor 108… then passes into a first end cap 112 in fluid communication with air separation canister 116; see Col. 2 Lines 41-52).
Jomain and Peacos are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air separation to achieve an inert gas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to place a pressure sensor in the claimed position. Doing so would enable utilization of the pressure differential (see Col. 1 Line 11).
Jomain does not explicitly teach wherein the oxygen sensor is configured to measure oxygen content of the nitrogen enriched air by bleed off prior to entering the at least one check valve by the oxygen sensor. However, this is a commonly employed technique as taught by Hedges (oxygen sensor to measure oxygen concentration in gas samples continuously drawn from sample locations; see [0010]). Jomain and Hedges are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of inerting fuel tank systems. Therefore, this technique would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would offer an improved oxygen analysis system and method for measuring, monitoring, and recording oxygen concentration (see Hedges [0008]).
Jomain does not explicitly teach a flow impingement valve. However, Knis discloses at least one flow impingement valve (non-return valve 10; see [0032] and “flow is first deflected”; see [0016]) disposed in an inlet of a fuel tank (in a fuel injection system; see [0032]), wherein the at least one flow impingement valve contains one or more flow impingement blockers (The non-return valve 10 includes a cup shaped housing, which is closed in fuid tight fashion by a cap… An impact plate 20 is embodied on the inside of the cap 14; see [0032]-[0033]) configured to create a series of loops (At the impact plate 20, the fluid flows deflected from the axial direction to the radial direction. After that, the fluid flows onward in the axial direction along the outside of the filter component and must change its flow direction again so that it can pass radially inward… With these deflections, particles in the fluid flow are made turbulent by eddy currents that arise; see [0040]) that are designed to partially impede reverse flow out of the fuel tank so as to allow uninhibited flow of the nitrogen enriched air into the fuel tank (This is a necessary consequence of the design of a non-return valve). KSR Rationale C (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to use a “known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”. The redirected and recirculating flow travels in what is considered “looping paths”, which is analogous to the claimed “series of loops”, around the obstruction. Because the instant specification does not provide any special definition of “loops”, the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses these recirculating flow paths. Accordingly, Knis teaches the production a fluid flow in a series of loops around the impingement member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of employing a non-return valve or impingement valve from Knis to the fuel tank of Jomain in order to improve it by having a favorable effect on the hydrodynamic performance (see Knis [0004]). Further, including a flow impingement blocker or impact plate would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enabled deflection of the fluid (see Knis [0016]).
Regarding Claim 4, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 1. Jomain further discloses wherein the oxygen sensor located between the air separator module and the oxygen sensor is configured to measure an amount of oxygen in the nitrogen enriched air in the fuel tank (sensing the oxygen content of the gas, above the fuel in a fuel tank; see [0017]).
Regarding Claim 5, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 1. Jomain further discloses wherein the air that flows into the ozone removal device is engine bleed air (inlet for the introduction of air… (such as an engine bleed line), optionally an ozone remover for removing ozone from the air; see [0017]).
Regarding Claim 8, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 1. The limitation claiming that the impingement valve is disposed at an angle is necessarily true in all embodiments as “an angle” encompasses every valve position as there is no reference frame. Therefore, valves disposed at any angle, including 0o, acute, obtuse, right, and straight orientations are disposed at an angle.
Regarding Claim 9, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 8. The courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts is unpatentable when shifting the position does not modify the operation of the device. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, because disposing the impingement valve at a 45 to 90 degree angle in relation to a top level plane of the fuel tank does not offer any new or unexpected results, the particular placement of said impingement valve is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 10, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 1. The courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts is unpatentable when shifting the position does not modify the operation of the device. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, because disposing the impingement valve on the side of the fuel tank does not offer any new or unexpected results, the particular placement of said impingement valve is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 11, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 1. The courts have held that a mere rearrangement of parts is unpatentable when shifting the position does not modify the operation of the device. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore, because disposing the impingement valve on the top of the fuel tank does not offer any new or unexpected results, the particular placement of said impingement valve is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 12, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 1. Knis further discloses wherein the at least one flow impingement valve is disposed on the outside of the fuel tank and provides access into the fuel tank (see Fig. 6 Parts 10 (non-return valve) and 70 (fuel tank)).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claims 1 and 3. Please refer to the rejections of claims 1 as the rejection of claim 13 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 13. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 8. Please refer to the rejection of claim 8 as the rejection of claim 14 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 14. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 9. Please refer to the rejection of claims 9 as the rejection of claim 15 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 16, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 13. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 1. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as the rejection of claim 16 follows the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jomain (US-20200079522-A1) in view of Doherty et al. (US-20210178320-A1), hereinafter Doherty, Peacos, III et al. (US-9855544-B2), hereinafter “Peacos”, Hedges et al. (US-20150219554-A1), hereinafter “Headges”, and Knis et al. (US-20120222759-A1), hereinafter “Knis”, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dardas et al. (US-20210206503-A1), hereinafter “Dardas”.
Regarding Claim 2, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 1. Modified Jomain does not explicitly teach a coalescing filter. However, Dardas discloses wherein the filter is a particulate coalesce filter (one or more filter components, including but not limited to a particulate filter (e.g., a HEPA filter) for removal of particulates, or a coalescing filter for removal of liquid entrained in the air flow. In the case of multiple filter components, they can be integrated into a single module; see [0043]).
Jomain and Dardas are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of inerting tank systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jomain by incorporating the teaching of Dardas and including a particulate coalescing filter. Doing so would have enabled removal of particulates and liquid entrained in the air flow (see Dardas [0043]).
Regarding Claim 6, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 1. Modified Jomain does not explicitly teach catalytic conversion. However, Dardas discloses wherein the ozone removal device is a catalytic ozone converter (catalytic treatment modules such as for ozone removal; see [0043]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would enable ozone removal (see Dardas [0043]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jomain (US-20200079522-A1) in view of Doherty et al. (US-20210178320-A1), hereinafter Doherty, Peacos, III et al. (US-9855544-B2), hereinafter “Peacos”, Hedges et al. (US-20150219554-A1), hereinafter “Headges”, and Knis et al. (US-20120222759-A1), hereinafter “Knis”, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tesla (US-1329559-A).
Regarding Claim 7, Jomain, Doherty, Peacos, Hedges, and Knis together disclose the inerting fuel tank system of claim 1. Modified Jomain does not explicitly teach an impingement valve with no moving parts. However, Tesla discloses wherein an impingement valve (virtually no resistance to the passage of the fluid in one direction, other than surface friction, constitute an almost impassable barrier to its flow in the opposite sense by reason of the more or less sudden expansions, contractions, deflections, reversals of direction; see Pg. 2 Lines 53–59) contains no moving parts (fluid impulses are made to pass, more or less freely, through suitable channels or conduits in one direction while their return is effectively checked or entirely prevented… invent any means, which permit the performance of the above function without the use of moving parts; see Pg. 2 Lines 9-42).
KSR Rationale D (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to apply a “known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of avoidance of moving parts in an impingement valve from Tesla to the impingement valve of modified Jomain in order to yield the predictable result of increased practical value and decreased cost of manufacture and maintenance (see Tesla, Pg. 2 Lines 21-25).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights