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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/24/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file but the struck item has not been considered. IT appears that applicant attempted to cite CN-85108795 but instead cited CN-1985108795. Applicant is required to correct this issue.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sathya (US 12084177 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Sathya (US 12084177 B2) discloses an aircraft section for an aircraft (Sathya, figure 4, item 40), the aircraft section comprising:
at least one flight component from a group consisting of: a wing assembly (Sathya, figure 4, item 42) and a tail assembly (Sathya, figure 4, item 44); and
a first fuselage component (Sathya, figure 4, item 41);
wherein the at least one flight component is mounted on the first fuselage component (Sathya, figure 4, wing and tail mounted to fuselage);
wherein the first fuselage component has a first coupling point (Sathya, figure 6, item 62) designed for releasable connection to a second coupling point on a second fuselage component, in order to form an integrated fuselage of the aircraft when in a coupled state (Sathya, col 7 line 64- col 8 line 7, couples with second part of fuselage on road vehicle);
wherein the first coupling point is configured to provide a mechanical coupling with the second coupling point, to create a system infrastructure interface (Sathya, figure 4, item 63, col 7 line 64- col 8 line 7, communication between flight and vehicle controllers), and to provide a data transmission device for integrity checking when the aircraft section is coupled to a second aircraft section (Sathya, figure 4, item 63, col 7 line 64- col 8 line 7, communication between flight and vehicle controller is capable of checking integrity), and
wherein the first coupling point comprises positioning sensors for guided docking of the aircraft section with the second aircraft section in a target position (Sathya, figure 4, item 61).
Regarding claim 2, Sathya discloses the aircraft section as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data transmission device comprises transmitter and receiver units, with which data is exchanged bidirectionally with a complementary second coupling point of another aircraft section (Sathya, col 4 lines 41-47, wireless transceivers used to communicate between the road vehicle and flight vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Sathya discloses the aircraft section as claimed in claim 1, wherein the positioning sensors comprise sensors and controls configured to allow position sensing, steering, and centering of the aircraft section relative to another aircraft section (Sathya, col 7 lines 32-46, sensors allow for docking between vehicle and flight vehicle autonomously).
Regarding claim 4, Sathya discloses the aircraft section as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data transmission device and the positioning sensors utilize a data communication device that is the same (Sathya, col 7 lines 32-46, sensors can communicate wirelessly by transceivers).
Regarding claim 6, Sathya discloses the aircraft section as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and second coupling parts form a coupling unit,
wherein at least one coupling unit has a self-locking bolt lock configured to form a controllable closure of the coupling unit (Sathya, figure 8, items 66),
wherein the bolt lock comprises a controller that is in data communication with the data transmission device (Sathya, col 7 lines 32-46, controller operates clamps and communicate wirelessly).
Regarding claim 7, Sathya discloses the aircraft section as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system infrastructure interface comprises first supply line connection points (Sathya, figure 6, item 63) which are configured complementary to second supply line connection points of the second aircraft section (Sathya, figure 3, item 33), and
wherein the supply line connection points are configured to be reversibly couplable at the coupling points (Sathya, connection points can be coupled and decoupled at the coupling points).
Regarding claim 9, Sathya discloses the aircraft section as claimed in claim 1, wherein the aircraft section is a tail section and wherein the at least one flight component includes the tail assembly, and wherein the tail assembly comprises a vertical stabilizer and a horizontal stabilizer (Sathya, figure 5, item 44, tail with a vertical and horizontal stabilizer).
Regarding claim 11, Sathya discloses an aircraft comprising:
two aircraft sections as claimed in claim 1;
wherein a second aircraft section of the two aircraft sections is designed to be complementary to a first aircraft section of the two aircraft sections (Sathya, figure 7, items 20 and 40), and,
wherein, when coupled together, the two aircraft sections form an integrated aircraft (Sathya, figure 1, item 10).
Regarding claim 12, Sathya discloses the aircraft as claimed in claim 11, wherein the two aircraft sections are configured in such a manner that the first aircraft section, the second aircraft section, or both are exchangeable with a third aircraft section, in order to form the integrated aircraft (Sathya, figure 7, driving vehicle or flight vehicles could be exchanged with a like driving or flight vehicle).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Quinn (US 4736910 A) in view of Sathya (US 12084177 B2).
Regarding claim 1, O’Quinn (US 4736910 A) discloses an aircraft section for an aircraft (O’Quinn, figure 12, item 22), the aircraft section comprising:
at least one flight component from a group consisting of: a wing assembly (O’Quinn, figure 12, item 40)
a first fuselage component (O’Quinn, figure 12, item 22);
wherein the at least one flight component is mounted on the first fuselage component (O’Quinn, figure 12, item 40, wing mounted to fuselage);
wherein the first fuselage component has a first coupling point (O’Quinn, figures 12-14, item 66; col 11 lines 32-49) designed for releasable connection to a second coupling point on a second fuselage component (O’Quinn, figures 12-13, item 106; col 12 lines 28-36), in order to form an integrated fuselage of the aircraft when in a coupled state (O’Quinn, figures 12-13, fuselage and tail couple to create aircraft fuselage);
wherein the first coupling point is configured to provide a mechanical coupling with the second coupling point, to create a system infrastructure interface (O’Quinn, figures 12-13, items 68 and 70, col 11 lines 50-66, electrical connection between tail and fuselage), and to provide a data transmission device for integrity checking when the aircraft section is coupled to a second aircraft section (O’Quinn, figures 12-13, items 68 and 70, col 11 lines 50-66, instruments and controls connection between tail and fuselage capable of use for checking integrity), except:
wherein the first coupling point comprises positioning sensors for guided docking of the aircraft section with the second aircraft section in a target position.
Sathya (US 12084177 B2) teaches a coupling point comprising positioning sensors for guided docking of the aircraft section with the second aircraft section in a target position (Sathya, figure 4, item 61).
O’Quinn and Sathya are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of modular aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coupling point of O’Quinn with the positioning sensors of Sathya with a reasonable expectation of success in order to guide the mating between the fuselage and tail.
Regarding claim 5, O’Quinn and Sathya teaches the aircraft section as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mechanical coupling comprises at least three coupling units (O’Quinn, figures 12-14, items 106 and 109) which each have:
i)
ii) a receptacle for holding a positioning dowel of a complementary coupling part (O’Quinn, figures 12-14, items 66; col 11 lines 32-49);
wherein the positioning dowel and the receptacle are configured to provide structural stability and centering for the mechanical coupling of the coupling parts (O’Quinn, col 11 lines 32-49, pins and sleeve act to secure the fuselage and tail together).
Regarding claim 10, O’Quinn and Sathya teaches aircraft section as claimed in claim 1, wherein the aircraft section is a passenger section (O’Quinn, figures 12-14, item 26), and wherein the at least one flight component comprises the wing assembly, the wing assembly including a wing (O’Quinn, figures 12-14, item 40) and an engine (O’Quinn, figures 12-14, item 48).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Quinn (US 4736910 A) in view of Sathya (US 12084177 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schneider (WO 2024015421 A1).
Regarding claim 8, O’Quinn and Sathya teaches aircraft section as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, for reversible coupling with the second aircraft section, lines are configured, at the first coupling point, with a first line coupling for connection to a complementary second line coupling (O’Quinn, figures 12-13, items 68 and 70, col 11 lines 50-66, connections can be coupled and decoupled at the coupling points), except:
further comprising:
a hydrogen tank device with at least one tank unit for storing hydrogen,
wherein the at least one tank unit forms a structurally integrated unit with the first fuselage component,
wherein hydrogen lines are provided which are configured to convey hydrogen from the hydrogen tank device of the aircraft section to consumers in the second aircraft section,
wherein, for reversible coupling with the second aircraft section, the hydrogen lines are configured, at the first coupling point, with a first line coupling for connection to a complementary second line coupling.
Schneider (WO 2024015421 A1) teaches a hydrogen tank device with at least one tank unit for storing hydrogen (Schneider, figure 1, LH2 tanks in tail),
wherein the at least one tank unit forms a structurally integrated unit with the first fuselage component (Schneider, figure 1, LH2 tanks are integrated into a tail structure),
wherein hydrogen lines are provided which are configured to convey hydrogen from the hydrogen tank device of the aircraft section to consumers in the second aircraft section (Schneider, figure 1, lines from tail hydrogen tank lead into a fuel cell system).
O’Quinn and Schneider are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tail of O’Quinn with the hydrogen tank and line for hydrogen of O’Quinn with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an additional fuel storage for the aircraft.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathya (US 12084177 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Quinn (US 4736910 A).
Regarding claim 5, Sathya discloses the aircraft section as claimed in claim 1, except:
wherein the mechanical coupling comprises at least three coupling units which each have:
i) a positioning dowel for mounting in a receptacle of a complementary coupling part; or
ii) a receptacle for holding a positioning dowel of a complementary coupling part;
wherein the positioning dowel and the receptacle are configured to provide structural stability and centering for the mechanical coupling of the coupling parts.
O’Quinn (US 4736910 A) teaches wherein the mechanical coupling comprises at least three coupling units which each have:
i) a positioning dowel for mounting in a receptacle of a complementary coupling part (O’Quinn, figures 12-13, items 106 and 109); or
ii) a receptacle for holding a positioning dowel of a complementary coupling part (O’Quinn, figures 12-14, item 66);
wherein the positioning dowel and the receptacle are configured to provide structural stability and centering for the mechanical coupling of the coupling parts (O’Quinn, col 11 lines 32-49, pins and sleeve act to secure the fuselage and tail together).
Sathya and O’Quinn are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of modular aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coupling point of Sathya with the positioning dowels and receptacles of O’Quinn with a reasonable expectation of success in order to securely attach the tail and fuselage together.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathya (US 12084177 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schneider (WO 2024015421 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sathya discloses the aircraft section as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, for reversible coupling with the second aircraft section, lines are configured, at the first coupling point, with a first line coupling for connection to a complementary second line coupling (Sathya, figure 6, items 63 and 33, connections can be coupled and decoupled at the coupling points), except:
further comprising:
a hydrogen tank device with at least one tank unit for storing hydrogen,
wherein the at least one tank unit forms a structurally integrated unit with the first fuselage component,
wherein hydrogen lines are provided which are configured to convey hydrogen from the hydrogen tank device of the aircraft section to consumers in the second aircraft section,
wherein, for reversible coupling with the second aircraft section, the hydrogen lines are configured, at the first coupling point, with a first line coupling for connection to a complementary second line coupling.
Schneider (WO 2024015421 A1) teaches a hydrogen tank device with at least one tank unit for storing hydrogen (Schneider, figure 1, LH2 tanks in tail),
wherein the at least one tank unit forms a structurally integrated unit with the first fuselage component (Schneider, figure 1, LH2 tanks are integrated into a tail structure),
wherein hydrogen lines are provided which are configured to convey hydrogen from the hydrogen tank device of the aircraft section to consumers in the second aircraft section (Schneider, figure 1, lines from tail hydrogen tank lead into a fuel cell system).
Sathya and Schneider are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flight vehicle of Sathya with the hydrogen tank and line for hydrogen of O’Quinn with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an alternative fuel/power source to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathya (US 12084177 B2) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Talmage (US 7234667 B1) and Haberbusch (US 20170341769 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sathya discloses the hydrogen refueling system for aircraft comprising:
the aircraft as claimed in claim 11, wherein at least one transport system for one of the two aircraft sections (Sathya, figure 1, item 20); and
wherein the two aircraft sections are configured to be coupled to form a fueled integrated aircraft (Sathya, figure 1, item 10), except:
wherein one of the two aircraft sections comprises a hydrogen tank device
a hydrogen refueling station;
wherein the aircraft section with the hydrogen tank device is configured to be uncoupled from the other aircraft section and with the transport system, a spatial distance between the two aircraft sections is created,
wherein the aircraft section with the hydrogen tank device is configured to be refueled at the spatial distance.
Talmage (US 7234667 B1) teaches an aircraft section comprising a hydrogen tank device (Talmage, figure 3, item 12).
Sathya and Talmage are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of modular aircraft designs. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft section of Sathya with the aft hydrogen tank of Talmage with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide storage for fuel.
Haberbusch (US 20170341769 A1) teaches a hydrogen refueling station (Haberbusch, figure 2).
Sathya as modified by Talmage and Haberbusch are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft fueling. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft section of Sathya as modified by Talmage with the hydrogen fuel station of Haberbusch with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide fuel for fueling the aircraft.
Such a modified system would meet
wherein the aircraft section with the hydrogen tank device is configured to be uncoupled from the other aircraft section and with the transport system, a spatial distance between the two aircraft sections is created (Front section and rear section could be separated and distanced from each other),
wherein the aircraft section with the hydrogen tank device is configured to be refueled at the spatial distance (Tank in rear flight module is capable of being refueled at a distance).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathya (US 12084177 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seely (US 11541801 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Sathya discloses the method for providing an aircraft, the method comprising the following steps:
providing two aircraft sections according to claim 1;
positioning the two aircraft sections in a target position in relation to one another (Sathya, col 7 lines 43-46, controllers communicate to align vehicles);
mechanical coupling the two aircraft sections in the target position (Sathya, col 7 lines 3-7, controllers communicate to operate docking clamps);
connecting the system infrastructure of the two aircraft sections (Sathya, col 8 lines 43-46, connector pins engage plug); except:
internally onboard checking an integrity of the aircraft; and
clearance of flight operations when the integrity is confirmed.
Seely (US 11541801 B1) teaches the steps of internally onboard checking an integrity of the aircraft (Seely, col 3 lines 43-48, modules perform checks); and
clearance of flight operations when the integrity is confirmed (Seely, col 3 lines 43-48, indicators to operator indicate functionality).
Sathya and Seely are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of modular aircraft designs. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sathya with the steps including checking integrity and clearing the vehicle for flight of Seely with a reasonable expectation of success in order to make sure that the aircraft ready for flight before flying.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, Sathya discloses the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein one of the two aircraft sections has a hydrogen tank device and both of the two aircraft sections form an integrated aircraft; except:
wherein the method further includes, before the steps of providing or positioning:
uncoupling of the one aircraft section with the hydrogen tank device from the other aircraft section without the hydrogen tank device; and
exchanging of the one aircraft section with the hydrogen tank device for an aircraft section with a refueled hydrogen tank device, or
refueling of the hydrogen tank device remotely from the other aircraft section without the hydrogen tank device.
Thus, the prior art fails to teach the claimed matter alone and it would not have been obvious to meet the claims either without undue hindsight based on the applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 102765472 A describes mechanical coupling of tail section
CN 109665101 A describes a mechanical/electrical coupling with a prop module also includes some details about communications with module and parent aircraft
CN 116902196 A describes removable hydrogen tanks in aft part of aircraft
CN 118850343 A describes a tail hydrogen tank
DE 4218197 A1 teaches a two part aircraft with a rear part that separates from the front part; communications and electric connections between the two parts
EP 4296158 A1 teaches similar to CN 116902196 A
US 9090324 B2 teaches a forward cab shown separated from rear; rear part has a fuel tank
US 20220402604 A1 teaches an air/road vehicle with detachable rear air module containing h2
US 20240150032 A1 similar to EP 4296158 A1 and CN 116902196 A
US 4736910 A describes a modular aircraft with nose and tail being removable – nose may have a fuel module (tail would be obvious too) also describe connections both mechanical and electrical
US 7234667 B1 teaches a modular aircraft with a removable tail which has fuel in a tail tank
WO 2022271436 A1 teaches controllers and communications between a front and rear section of aircraft
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights