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 as described in the specification. At present the labels 52 and 54 appear to point at nothing. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “the electrically conductive track” is new matter as there is no support for the electrically conductive layer and a separate electrically conductive track as claimed. Further, there is no support for the electrically conductive layer to be integrally formed with the sensors and for the electrically conductive path to comprise the first and second terminals.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-13 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “plate-like aluminum material” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what features or characteristics of a plate are being required by the recitation.
The recitation, “the substrate” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what the electrically insulating substrate layer of aluminum oxide should be formed on relative to the previously recited aluminum material.
The recitation, “in the plurality of sensors” is indefinite for reintroducing sensors inappropriately and it is unclear why the recitation is not
--in the plurality of the sensors--.
The recitation, “local galvanization process” is unclear since it is not clear what steps or structures are required of the term “local”.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “the electrically conductive track” lacks proper antecedent basis. Further the recitation is indefinite as it is unclear what integral connection is required by the recitation since the application does not support integral formation of the electrically conductive layer and the sensor in combination with the first and the second terminals.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “a control unit” is indefinite for inappropriately reintroducing what was already introduced in claim 1.
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) is formed of an aluminum material (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.
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.
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 the sensors and the electrically conductive layer (Rodeghiero 504, 506) are integrally connected (interpreted as physically connected).
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 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) that is electrically coupled to the first terminal (Aigner-connecting part near 4, 6) of each electrically conductive path (electrical line printed by method of Rodeghiero) and configured for measuring physical parameters (liquid level through capacitance measurement) that relate to the cryogenic liquid (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 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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
JFPIII
March 5, 2026