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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 28, 2026, has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claim 25 (now cancelled and incorporated into Claim 16), directed to the process of making or using a product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because claim 25 previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on April 02, 2025, with respect to Claim 25 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined invention, applicant(s) is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 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.
Claims 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al (US 20190322374 A1) in view of Matsler (US 5810286 A) and Wang et al. (US 20230211888 A1).
In re Claim 16, Moon (Fig. 1-7) discloses an aircraft ([0056]: configured to fit in the belly of the aircraft) comprising:
a storage tank (1) that is configured to store a liquefied gas ([0041]: a liquid nitrogen storage tank);
a heat exchanger (2),
wherein the aircraft is configured to receive the liquefied gas (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 and [0041]: aircraft receives liquefied gas via 27) for the storage tank (1) from a liquefied gas production and storage facility (22),
wherein the heat exchanger (2) is configured to induce a phase change in the liquefied gas from liquid to gas ([0048]: liquid nitrogen is changed to nitrogen gas),
wherein the phase change generates energy ([0048]: the nitrogen gas evaporates as it absorbs heat and expands to 700 times the original liquid volume. Gas expansion is ideal for powering the gas turbine generator 16), and
However, Moon does not explicitly teach, a lighter than air aircraft.
On the other hand, Matsler teaches a lighter than air aircraft (Fig.1 and Col 1:30-39: aircraft can be a lighter than air aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made substitute the aircraft of Moon for a lighter than air aircraft of Duncan, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material/part on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. A lighter than air aircraft is well known in the art and substituting a lighter than air aircraft for an aircraft of the primary reference, Moon, would not change the way the overall apparatus functions. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
However, Moon/Mastler does not explicitly teach, wherein the lighter than air aircraft ([0056]) is configured to convert the energy generated by the phase change to rotational motion that rotates one or more propellers to propel the lighter than air aircraft through the air.
On the other hand, Wang teaches convert the energy generated by the phase change to rotational motion that rotates one or more propellers (100A-100B) to propel the lighter than air aircraft through the air (See [0003], [0033], [0026], and [0097]: converts fuel to rotational energy to rotate propellers via a turbine to propel the aircraft through air).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Moon and to have modified them by having the lighter than air aircraft of modified Moon configured to convert the energy generated by the phase change of modified Moon to rotational motion that rotates one or more propellers to propel the aircraft through the air as taught by Wang in order to fly at high altitude in the direction of the prevailing jet stream and greatly reduce the required energy to power the gas turbine engine and propel an aircraft (See Wang [0003] and [0113]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Modified Moon does not explicitly teach wherein the lighter than air aircraft is assembled from airship components, wherein the airship components are manufactured from carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and woven carbon nanotube fabric, wherein the carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and the woven carbon nanotube fabric are produced through component manufacture with renewable energy and carbon nanotubes, wherein the carbon nanotubes are produced with molten carbonate electrolysis using renewable energy and carbon dioxide, wherein the carbon dioxide is a byproduct of production of liquid nitrogen used for the lighter than air aircraft.
However, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, Eitan teaches wherein the airship components are manufactured from carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and woven carbon nanotube fabric ([0257]), wherein the carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and the woven carbon nanotube fabric are produced through component manufacture with renewable energy and carbon nanotubes (See [0207] and [0257]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Moon and to have modified them by having the lighter than air aircraft components of modified Moon as taught by Eitan in order to electrically insulate and protect airship components from intense thermal environments.
In re Claim 17, Modified Moon teaches wherein the liquefied gas is nitrogen ([0040]: the liquefied gas is liquid nitrogen).
In re Claim 18, Modified Moon teaches wherein the heat exchanger (2) utilizes at least one of heat ([0048]: the nitrogen evaporates from heat absorption) from ambient air (18)|(See [0046-0047]: air that moves through the system is used to heat and evaporate nitrogen).
Response to Arguments
The Remarks of January 30, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Applicant argues
On Page 6 ¶ 4-5 of the Remarks, that the examiner has not shown that claims 16 is obvious over Moon in view of Duncan because there is allegedly no basis in the prior art for “…wherein the lighter than air aircraft is assembled from airship components, wherein the airship components are manufactured from carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and woven carbon nanotube fabric, wherein the carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and the woven carbon nanotube fabric are produced through component manufacture with renewable energy and carbon nanotubes, wherein the carbon nanotubes are produced with molten carbonate electrolysis using renewable energy and carbon dioxide, wherein the carbon dioxide is a byproduct of production of liquid nitrogen used for the lighter than air aircraft” as required by the claims. Applicant appears to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize from the teaching of Moon/Duncan/Mastler the assembly and manufacture of airship components. This is persuasive.
However, it should be noted that applicant's amendments have changed the scope of the claimed invention, thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection. Namely, claim 16 now requires wherein the lighter than air aircraft is assembled from airship components, wherein the airship components are manufactured from carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and woven carbon nanotube fabric, wherein the carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy resin and the woven carbon nanotube fabric are produced through component manufacture with renewable energy and carbon nanotubes, wherein the carbon nanotubes are produced with molten carbonate electrolysis using renewable energy and carbon dioxide, wherein the carbon dioxide is a byproduct of production of liquid nitrogen used for the lighter than air aircraft. In light of the above, the claim has been reconsidered, and the new grounds of rejection now incorporates teachings from Eitan to arrive at the claimed invention.
Since Moon/Mastler/Wang/Eitan teach or suggest all the limitations of Claim 16, applicant’s remaining arguments are moot as the rejection of Claim 1 is maintained and additional arguments are not presented in regards to Claims 17-18.
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 IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights