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 .
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to sufficiently show the first and second terminals. The labels 52 and 54 point at nothing and the dearth of indication creates ambiguity. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitation, “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and is interpreted as a computer (pg. pub. para. 89).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke (US 2022/0009648) in view of Aigner (US 2017/0184436) and Rodeghiero (US 2019/0396474). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Clarke teaches (see whole disclosure) a cryogenic liquid tank (20, para. 88 holds liquid hydrogen) for storing cryogenic liquids, the tank (20) comprising: a tank body (body of tank Fig. 3A, 3B, 3C) having at least one aluminum tank wall (60, para. 224) that defines a cryogenic storage volume (para. 5 storage space of “storage modules”) for storing a cryogenic liquid at cryogenic temperatures (see liquid hydrogen); the at least one aluminum tank wall (60) forming a substrate (para. 224), but does not explicitly teach a plurality of sensors, an electrically insulating substrate layer of aluminum oxide formed on the aluminum material, an electrically conductive layer formed on the electrically insulating substrate layer forming a plurality of electrically conducting paths, each electrically conductive path comprising a first terminal configured to be connected to a control unit and a second terminal electrically connected to a sensor in the plurality of the sensors, wherein the plurality of electrically conductive paths are formed by one of a cold metal deposition process or a galvanization process directly on the electrically insulating substrate layer, thereby the aluminum tank wall forming a layer structure.
However, it is routine to provide sensors to a liquid fuel tank as taught by Aigner. Aigner teaches providing a liquid fuel tank (1) of a vehicle (vehicle, para. 2, 40) with a sensor assembly (para. 2) having a plurality of sensors (2, 3; para. 6, 40, “plural sensor elements” of a sensor assembly) so as to sense the liquid level (para. 7) with capacitance (para. 7) and provide data transmission and analysis of the fluid conditions in the tank (1) (para. 42-46). Aigner further teaches providing the plurality of sensors (2, 3) inside a tank wall (para. 7) of the tank (1) and providing electrically conductive connection (para. 40, 41) forming a plurality of electrically conducting paths (see “lines”, para. 40-41), each electrically conductive path comprising a first terminal (end part near 4 or 6) configured to be connected to a control unit (at least 4) and a second terminal (end connected to sensors 3) electrically connected to a sensor (3) in the plurality of the sensors (2, 3).
In addition, Rodeghiero teaches that such electrical connections can be formed by cold metal deposition. Rodeghiero teaches a plurality of electrically conductive paths (conductive traces, para. 32)(including 504, 506) formed by cold metal deposition (para. 8, 19, 28, 29) to provide reduced cost of installation benefits (para. 4-6, 12). Rodeghiero teaches that the plurality of electrically conductive paths are insulated by placing an insulating film or trace (508)(para. 13) surrounding (para. 32) lengths of the plurality of electrically conductive paths (504, 506)(para. 13).
Lastly, official notice is taken that aluminum oxide is a well known insulating material layer.
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Clarke with the plurality of sensors and electrically conductive paths, first and second terminals, and control unit as taught by Aigner for the purpose of providing sensing and analyzing capability of a liquid level of the liquid hydrogen of Clarke and to form the electrically conductive paths with cold spray deposition as taught by Rodeghiero for the purpose of simplifying the installation of the electrical connection with the sensors and provide the wire connection at a lower material costs (para. 4-6) and with fewer installation errors (para. 4-6) among many other benefits and to form the insulating layer from aluminum oxide for the purpose of providing a well known and easily installed insulating layer that would be chemically stable and compatible with the Aluminum tank of Clarke. Note that the modification as described above results in the tank wall of Clarke being formed as a layer structure (see aluminum wall with sensors and insulative aluminum oxide layer provided therewith).
In regard to claim 2, Clarke, as modified above, teaches each sensor (Aigner 3) on the at least one tank wall (60).
In regard to claim 3, Clarke, as modified above, teaches that at least one sensor is integrally formed (interpreted as physically connected) with an electrically conducting path of the plurality of electrically conducting paths (of Rodeghiero 504, 506) are integrally connected (interpreted as physically connected to form one united structure; see sensors and electrical paths are united physically to permit electrical transmission from and to the sensors).
In regard to claim 4, Clarke, as modified above, teaches that the sensors are capacitance sensors (para. 7 Aigner).
In regard to claim 5, Clarke, as modified above, teaches that the at least one aluminum tank wall (60) comprises an inside portion (inner face of 60) that faces towards the storage volume (interior of 60) and the electrically conducting paths (printed electrically conductive lines to sensors of Aigner and Rodeghiero) are formed on the inside portion (inner face per Aigner para. 7) so as to be securely mounted within the tank (60) and able to sense the fluid level within the tank (60).
In regard to claim 11, Clarke, as modified, teaches a tank arrangement (see at least one of the plurality of tanks) for an aircraft (see Clarke, para. 3 “aircraft”), the tank arrangement (at least plurality of tanks) comprising the tank according to claim 1 (see combination above) and the control unit (Aigner - 6; para. 46) is configured for measuring physical parameters (Aigner - liquid level through capacitance measurement) that relate to the cryogenic liquid (Clarke - liquid hydrogen fuel in tank).
In regard to claim 12, Clarke, as modified, teaches the aircraft (para. 3 “aircraft) comprising the tank (see combination above) according to claim 1.
In regard to claim 13, Clarke, as modified, teaches the aircraft (para. 3) comprising the tank arrangement according to claim 11 (see above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments (page 7) are an allegation that the drawings “show end points and connections therewith”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive and these aspects are exactly what the drawings fail to show as the reference labels point at no end points that would communicate a terminal.
Applicant's arguments (page 9-10) are an allegation that the prior art does not teach a tank wall formed as a layer structure.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for ignoring the basis of the rejection which is founded on the modification of the aluminum wall of Clarke to have the sensors printed thereon as made obvious by Aigner and Rodeghiero.
Applicant's arguments (page 10) are an attack on each of the references alone, followed by an allegation that no reference teaches an aluminum tank wall that “itself becomes the circuit board for the sensors and electrical connections”.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for being an attack against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the allegation ignores that the structure recited by the claims is formed by the modification of Clarke, as suggested by the teachings of Aigner and Rodeghiero, as outlined by the rejection for the clear benefits described. Further, the allegation is false since the claimed invention does not turn a metallic tank into a circuit – rather electrical paths are merely formed on the aluminum tank wall along with the electrically insulating substrate layer and therefore the allegation fails to identify any claimed feature that the prior art as combined is missing and therefore the rejection must be maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any of 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.
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights