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 .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pressurized walls and the septa of the fuel sources extend from a lower outer mold line to an upper outer mold line of claims 21, 23-24, and 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (US Patent #12065239) in view of Regnier (US PgPub #2022/0388628).
For Claim 1, figures 2-11 of Booth ‘239 disclose a system for an aircraft with a combustion engine (38), the aircraft comprising: at least a cylindrical fuel source (74) oriented within the aircraft and configured to store a fuel, wherein: the at least fuel source is configured to connect to at least an upper skin and at least a lower skin of the aircraft; and at least a flight component (36) configured to propel the aircraft, wherein the at least a flight component comprises a combustion engine, wherein the combustion engine is configured to burn the fuel from the fuel source; and produce mechanical work to power the flight component.
While Booth ‘239 discloses the cylindrical fuel source it is silent about it being vertically oriented so as to act as a load bearing column within the aircraft. However, figure 5F of Regnier ‘628 teaches that it is well known in the art to have vertically oriented cylindrical fuel tanks (148) that act as load bearing columns. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Booth ‘239 with the vertically oriented column fuel tank of Regnier ‘628. The motivation to do so would be to provide load support with a fuel tank that can be incorporated into the frame so as to reduce frame structures.
For Claim 2, figures 2-11 of Booth ‘239 disclose a blended wing body, wherein the blended wing body comprises no striking demarcation between a main body of the aircraft and at least a wing of the aircraft.
For Claim 3, figures 2-11 of Booth ‘239 disclose that the fuel source oriented within the aircraft is located in a transition region between a fuselage and wings of the blended wing body of the aircraft.
For Claim 5, figures 2-11 of Booth ‘239 disclose that the fuel source provides structural support to the upper and lower skin.
For Claim 11, figures 2-11 of Booth ‘239 disclose a method for us of a system for an aircraft with a combustion engine, the method comprising: vertically orienting at least a cylindrical fuel source (74) within the aircraft; connecting the fuel source to an upper skin and a lower skin of the aircraft; storing a fuel using the fuel source; propelling, using at least a flight component (36), the aircraft; burning at a combustion engine of the flight component, mechanical work to power the flight component.
While Booth ‘239 discloses the cylindrical fuel source it is silent about it being vertically oriented so as to act as a load bearing column within the aircraft. However, figure 5F of Regnier ‘628 teaches that it is well known in the art to have vertically oriented cylindrical fuel tanks (148) that act as load bearing columns. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Booth ‘239 with the vertically oriented column fuel tank of Regnier ‘628. The motivation to do so would be to provide load support with a fuel tank that can be incorporated into the frame so as to reduce frame structures.
For Claim 12, figures 2-11 of Booth ‘239 disclose that the aircraft is a blended wing body, wherein the blended wing body comprises no striking demarcation between a main body of the aircraft and at least a wing of the aircraft.
For Claim 13, figures 2-11 of Booth ‘239 disclose locating the fuel source vertically oriented within the aircraft in a transition region between a fuselage and a wing of the blended wing body of the aircraft.
For Claim 15, figures 2-11 of Booth ‘239 disclose that fuel source provides structural support to the upper and lower skin.
Claim(s) 7, 17, and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (US Patent #12065239) in view of Regnier (US PgPub #2022/0388628) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Barmichev (US PgPub #2015/0069184).
For Claims 7 and 17, while Booth ‘239 and Regnier ‘628 are silent about the fuel source being a multi-bubble fuel tank, the figure 5 of Barmichev ‘184 teach that it is well known to use multi-bubble fuel tanks (502, 504, 506, 508, 510) so as to fill the aircraft shape. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Booth ‘239 and Regnier ‘628 with the multi-bubble fuel tank of Barmichev ‘184. The motivation to do so would be to fill the space more fully and to take up loads from the aircraft.
For Claims 21-26, while Booth ‘239 in view of Regnier ‘628 discloses that the vertically oriented fuel sources are configured to resist pressurization of the aircraft, it is silent about the fuel sources including a multi-lobed tank, and septa extending from a lower to upper mold line. However, figure 5 and paragraph [0044] of Barmichev ‘184 teach multi-lode tanks (502, 504, 506, 508, and 510) having septa (516, 518, 520, 522) between the lobes and extend from a lower outer mold line to an upper outer mold line of the aircraft so as to carry shear stress applied to the aircraft. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Booth ‘239 with the tank design and location of Barmichev ‘184. The motivation to do so would be to provide a fuel tank that can take up the loads of the aircraft thus reducing the need for load frame structures.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (US Patent #12065239) in view of Regnier (US PgPub #2022/0388628) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Fucke (US PgPub #2006/0237583).
For Claims 9 and 19, while Booth ‘239 discloses energy storage devices including batteries, fuel cells, etc., it is silent about have an auxiliary power unit. However, figure 1 of Fucke ‘583 teaches that it is well known in the art to use APUs in aircraft to provide extra power when it is needed or for creating electricity to store in a battery for later use. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Booth ‘239 with an APU as taught by Fucke ‘583. The motivation to do so would be to provide extra power for the aircraft.
For Claims 10 and 20, while Booth ‘239 and Regnier ‘628 both disclose a fuel cell that is powered by the fuel from the fuel source, it is silent about if being configured to start the engine of the aircraft. However, figure 1 of Fucke ‘583 teaches using a fuel cell (104) powered by fuel of a fuel source (120), wherein the fuel cell is configured to start the combustion engine. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Booth ‘239 with the fuel cell configured to start an engine as taught by Fucke ‘583. The motivation to do so would be to use the already provided structure with a secondary known function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Regnier ‘628.
Applicant’s arguments, see 9-11, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7, 9-10, 17, and 19-20 under Official Notice have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Barmichev ‘184 and Fucke ‘583.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 2/5/2026