CTNF 18/198,961 CTNF 93089 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I and Species 2 (claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-10) in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged; wherein Species 1 is drawn to figures 1 and 3-4, Species 2 is drawn to figure 2, Species 3 is drawn to figure 7, and Species 4 is drawn to figures 5-6. Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from consideration due to these claims directs to non-elect species 3. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “and or” in claims 9 and 10 should read “or” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an electrical element for regulating an electric current through the ply” in claim 10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 10 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-23 Regarding claim 10 , the limitation “ “an electrical element for regulating an electric current through the ply” ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Linde (US 2019/0331429) (cited in IDS) . PNG media_image1.png 280 328 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1 , Linde teaches a pipe (pipe 10) for heating a cryogenic liquefied gas, the pipe (pipe 10) having a peripheral wall including a ply (heat-generating ply 16) of one or more electrically conductive carbon fibers (See para.[0030] “The heat-generating ply 16 comprises at least one fiber composite layer 20, which, for its part, has fibers and a matrix surrounding the fibers (not shown specifically). In contrast to conventional plastics reinforced with glass fibers or reinforced with carbon fibers, at least some of the fibers in the at least one fiber composite layer 20 are formed as conducting fibers 22 (cf. FIG. 2). For this purpose, the conducting fibers 22 are formed as carbon fibers 24 with an electrically insulating coating 26.”) , the ply (heat-generating ply 16) being configured and electrically connectable to a power supply such that the one or more carbon fibers are heated when power is supplied to the ply (See para.[0030] “the conducting fibers 22 are integrated into the pipe 10, wherein a power source 46 (cf. FIG. 3) can be applied to the conducting fibers 22 in order to pass a heating current through the fibers.”). Regarding claim 6 , Linde teaches the one or more carbon fibers are at least partially embedded in a matrix for building a carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (See para.[0030] “The heat-generating ply 16 comprises at least one fiber composite layer 20, which, for its part, has fibers and a matrix surrounding the fibers (not shown specifically).”). Regarding claim 8 , Linde teaches the ply is a part of a laminate that includes at least a further ply of one or more carbon fibers (See para.[0030] “The heat-generating ply 16 comprises at least one fiber composite layer 20, which, for its part, has fibers and a matrix surrounding the fibers (not shown specifically). In contrast to conventional plastics reinforced with glass fibers or reinforced with carbon fibers, at least some of the fibers in the at least one fiber composite layer 20 are formed as conducting fibers 22 (cf. FIG. 2). For this purpose, the conducting fibers 22 are formed as carbon fibers 24 with an electrically insulating coating 26.”) . Regarding claim 9 , Linde teaches the pipe is configured for converting cryogenic liquefied gas into gas and or for conducting gas and cryogenic liquefied gas, and wherein the cryogenic liquefied gas is cryogenic liquefied hydrogen, while the gas is hydrogen [Examiner’s note: This limitation is an intended function of the pipe. The pipe of Linde is capable to conducting gas and cryogenic liquefied gas.] Regarding claim 10 , Linde teaches a power supply (power source 46) electrically connected to the ply (fiber composite layer 20, which is a part of heat-generating ply 16) , and an electrical element for regulating an electric current through the ply and or a temperature measurer for measuring a temperature of the pipe (See pare.[0032] “The pipe heating system 40 furthermore has a control unit 50 having temperature sensors 48, by means of which the heating power of the power source 46 can be controlled.”) . PNG media_image2.png 222 368 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde in view of Lou (CN 206752623) . Regarding claim 3 , Linde does not explicitly teach graphene layer which is arranged between an inner pipe region of the pipe and the ply. However, Lou teaches in the same field of endeavor of a pipe comprising a graphene layer (graphene layer 2) which is arranged between an inner pipe region of the pipe and the ply (see fig.4). PNG media_image3.png 372 366 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the pipe of Linde by adding a graphene layer arranged between an inner pipe region of the pipe and a ply as taught by Lou, in order to provide flame retardancy (See para.[0012] of Lou) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde in view of Stolte (US 2014/0150649) . Regarding claim 11 , Linde does not explicitly teach the pipe being in fluid connection with a tank and a fuel cell device. However, Stolte teaches in the same field of endeavor of a pipe system comprising a pipe (membrane device 6) being in fluid connection with a tank (region 20) and a fuel cell device (fuel cell 4). PNG media_image4.png 420 496 media_image4.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Linde by adding a tank and a fuel cell device being in fluid connection with a pipe as taught by Stolte, in order to increase the overall efficiency of an aircraft, to reduce maintenance expenditure, and to simplify the design (See para.[0007] of Stolte). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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. /CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 10 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 11 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 12 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/198,961 Page 13 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights