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 .
This is in response to the correspondence received on 4/1/2026.
It is noted the PRO 63/223417 and application 17/864974 (present application is related as CIP of 17/864974) do not appear to provide support for the claims in the present application, especially limitations involving at least one processor and computational tools for designing an aircraft. Therefore, the effective filing date of the present application is 1/25/2024.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-14, and Species 2 (Figure 12B) from Group II, in the reply filed on 7/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Therefore Claims 15-20 are drawn to non-elected invention, and Figure 12A is drawn to a non-elected species.
Claim 15 is withdrawn, but it is not marked as “withdrawn” in the set of claims dated 4/1/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and their dependent claims 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recites the limitation “an automated aircraft fuel tank sizing computation tool”, however this tool does not appear to be supported by the Specification and is considered new matter.
Claims 4 and 11 recite the limitation “including automatically sizing the cryogenic fuel tank(s) to provide enough energy only for a typical mission comprising a mission range that covers around 80% of all forecasted operations in terms of accumulated range frequency” however this tool does not appear to be supported by the Specification and is considered new matter. The specification appears to discuss typical mission on [0058] “The typical missions cover around 80% of the complete operating network. Therefore, a possible mixing strategy for the typical mission is presented in Figure 2 which starts with cryogenic fuel and later switches to non-cryogenic fuel if necessary”, but this paragraph does not appear to restrict the size of cryogenic fuel to “enough energy only for a typical mission”; the specification indicates the tank may be even smaller than needed for a typical mission, and indicates the use of non-cryogenic fuel to supplement it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11, 12 and dependent claims, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2: in “operating further comprises developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size based on propulsion and energy parameters including -weight, overall dimensions, available thrust or power and fuel flow at different flight conditions and for cryogenic and non-cryogenic fuels”, it is not clear if “for cryogenic and non-cryogenic fuel” refers to the “at least cryogenic fuel tank” being developed and it is intended to be used for the two different fuels, energy parameters, or something else.
Claim 9: in “further comprises automatically developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size based on propulsion and energy parameters including .weight, overall dimensions, available thrust or power and fuel flow at different flight conditions and for cryogenic and non-cryogenic fuels” , it is not clear if “for cryogenic and non-cryogenic fuel” refers to the “at least cryogenic fuel tank” being developed and it is intended to be used for the two different fuels, energy parameters, or something else.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12: The term “around” in “covers around 80% of all forecasted operations” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the limits of the “range” described by “around 80% would be.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the Specification does not provide a meaning for terms rejected under 112(b) above, including the limitation “Top-level Aircraft Requirements” in claim 1, “a typical mission” in claim 5. The specification objected for failure to provide clear support under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvath “Comparison of Aircraft Conceptual Design Weight Estimation Methods to the Flight Optimization System” - NASA 20190000431 (Publication Date: January 8, 2018) in view of Nusseler 20250206458.
Regarding claim 1, Horvath teaches:
A process for designing an aircraft (Horvath teaches, inter alia, the use of FLOPS and publicly available methos used in aircraft design, Roskam and Raymer: “aircraft conceptual design process. The Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) is an aircraft conceptual design tool that has been the primary aircraft synthesis software used by the Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate at NASA Langley Research Center. – page 1, abstract, “examines several popular, publicly available weight estimation methods and compares them to the methods in NASA Flight Optimization System (FLOPS)” page 1, I. Introduction; pages 2-3) comprising:
obtaining operational data defining missions ranges requirements (inter alia, detailed mission performance analysis, and cost analysis (page 2, II, A.), fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A);
operating at least one processor (inter alia, FLOPS is a single computer program with an execution control module that executes eight other modules - page 2, II, A.) providing an automated aircraft fuel tank sizing computational tool (inter alia, FLOPS; tank sizing on page 9, III, F, further discussed below, and it is noted that Horvath teaches the overall designing of the aircraft and computational tools, which would include fuel tank, geometry etc) based on the defined missions ranges requirements (If the gross weight is specified, the mission fuel is calculated and FLOPS performs the mission analysis and estimates the range”, page 2, II, A), fuel tanks sizing logic (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A; it is noted that a software tool can be used to calculate requirements for different missions, FLOPS can be used multiple times an applied to different scenarios, mission requirements and engineering specifications), Top-Level Aircraft Requirements other than the defined missions ranges requirements that, together with the defined missions ranges requirements, define aircraft wing area and engines thrust levels, including field performance take-off and landing, climb performance, and cruise performance (inter alia, takeoff and landing performance analysis, page 2, II, A, where Horvath teaches different types of aircraft including transport aircraft, fighter/attack aircraft, hybrid wing body etc, these aircraft having significantly different requirements for aircraft geometry, power and performance requirements), and aircraft geometry and engine thrust levels (weights analysis, aerodynamics analysis, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis, page 2, II, A), to iteratively develop at least fuel tank size for aircraft (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A); and
configuring and sizing a fuel tank based on the iteratively developed at least fuel tank size for aircraft (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A; weight, the number of engines scaled for distributed propulsion if applicable, and the maximum Mach number, FLOPS page 9 III F; and fuel system weight estimation method is a function of the total fuel volume, the volume of any integral tanks, the volume of any self-sealing protected tanks, and the overall number of tanks, page 9, III, F; it is noted that sizing of tanks are directly correlated to volume of the tanks).
Horvath teaches the development and configuration of fuel tanks but is silent about the tanks being cryogenic.
However, Nusseler teaches an aircraft architecture (title) with a dual fuel propulsion system (abstract), using kerosene and cryogenic fuel [0028], and:
cryogenic fuel tank (“the required fuel storage for the mission can be limited to the actual flight time which is reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Horvath with Nusseler's teachings discussed above, providing cryogenic fuel tanks in order to have an aircraft “capable of performing a flight mission during which the first or the second selectively useable” (abstract) and “reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028].
Regarding claim 2, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Horvath further teaches:
The process of claim 1 wherein operating further comprises developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as already discussed) based on propulsion (inter alia, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, page 2 II. A; “FLOPS fuel system weight includes the weight of fuel tanks and necessary plumbing. It is calculated from the aircraft maximum fuel capacity in terms of weight, the number of engines scaled for distributed propulsion if applicable, and the maximum Mach number.” Page 9, III, F) and energy parameters (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A.) including -weight, overall dimensions, available thrust or power and fuel flow at different flight conditions (as discussed and, inter alia, “These modules include weights analysis, aerodynamics analysis, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis.” Page 2 II.A.)
Horvath in view of Nusseler, as discussed so far, teaches cryogenic ad non-cryogenic fuels, but does not explicitly teach:
for cryogenic and non-cryogenic fuels
However, Nusseler teaches:
for cryogenic and non-cryogenic fuels (“propulsive thrust using selectively a first kerosene based jet fuel and a second liquid hydrogen fuel, and two independent sets of fuel systems, including a first fuel system feeding the first fuel from a first set of fuel storage tanks to the internal combustion engine and a second fuel system feeding the second fuel from a second set of fuel storage tanks to the internal combustion engine” abstract)
Regarding claim 3, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Horvath further teaches:
The process of claim 1 wherein operating further comprises developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as discussed above) based on an aircraft requirements compliance check (“weight estimation for a fuel system with integral tanks uses the provided Torenbeek method and is based on the number of engines, number of separate fuel tanks, the mission fuel weight (including reserves), and the specific weight of the fuel used”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam), and performing an iteration (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A) with updated aircraft geometry (based upon the aircraft geometry) and updated engine thrust levels (inter alia, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis, page 2, II. A) if an aircraft requirements compliance check fails (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A, where a fuel requirement comprises reserve fuel in order to meet compliance checks.).
Regarding claim 4, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Horvath teaches the development of fuel tanks (inter alia, see page 9 F. Fuel System), and Horvath in view of Nusseler, as disused above, teaches the development of cryogenic fuel tanks, but Horvath in view of Nusseler, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein the operating develops a size for the cryogenic fuel tank(s) and a size for the non-cryogenic fuel tank(s), including automatically sizing the cryogenic fuel tank(s) to provide enough energy only for a typical mission comprising a mission range that covers around 80% of all forecasted operations in terms of accumulated range frequency, and automatically sizing the non- cryogenic fuel tank or tanks to provide enough energy for regulatory reserves and for a design range mission, taking into consideration available energy of the cryogenic fuel tank(s) and added weight and drag of mass and volume allocations for the cryogenic fuel tank(s), wherein the design range mission covers 100% of all forecasted operations and represents a maximum range of the aircraft at its maximum payload.
However, Nusseler teaches:
wherein the operating develops a size for the cryogenic fuel tank(s) and a size for the non-cryogenic fuel tank(s) (Nusseler teaches the size of cryogenic and non-cryogenic tanks meet the needs to hold the required fuel: “Both sets of fuel storage tanks host the required fuel for the flight mission plus reserve fuel”, abstract; “The proposed aircraft architecture is using a dual fuel engine technology in combination with the required dual fuel system and fuel tanks system to reduce significantly the weight and required space impact of hydrogen tanks and fuel systems for an aircraft” [0030], including automatically sizing the cryogenic fuel tank(s) to provide enough energy only for a typical mission comprising a mission range that covers around 80% of all forecasted operations in terms of accumulated range frequency (“For a given 300 nm mission this quantity already presents a significant volume of more than 50% of the total required fuel quantity of a mission. In consequence the majority, if not the full remaining mission can be flown by using hydrogen fuel alone. In this way the required fuel storage for the mission can be limited to the actual flight time which is reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028]; “Based on a turboprop aircraft with approx. 40 to 90 passengers, about 90% of the energy during a 1-hour mission can be generated emission-free via hydrogen” [0063]), and automatically sizing the non- cryogenic fuel tank or tanks to provide enough energy for regulatory reserves and for a design range mission, taking into consideration available energy of the cryogenic fuel tank(s) ( inter alia, “[0048] The sizing of the fuel tank systems is primarily adapted to climb, cruise flight, descent and landing therefore the limited use of kerosene fuel predominantly for reserve is an optimisation of the use without having to oversize the LH.sub.2 fuel tanks and to take advantage of given fuel reservoirs hosted internally in the wings”; and added weight and drag of mass and volume allocations for the cryogenic fuel tank(s) (inter alia, “The major impact of using hydrogen fuel for aircrafts is the increased energy storage volume and fuel tank system weight” [0019]), wherein the design range mission covers 100% of all forecasted operations and represents a maximum range of the aircraft at its maximum payload (one of ordinary skill in the art would design an aircraft to cover the forecasted operations this would be an obvious and unavoidable consideration in the design process).
Regarding claim 5, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Horvath further teaches:
The process of claim 1 wherein the operating produces the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as already discussed) for a typical mission (the range is specified, page 2, II. A) defining a mission range that covers around 80% of all forecasted operations in terms of accumulated range frequency (“For a given 300 nm mission this quantity already presents a significant volume of more than 50% of the total required fuel quantity of a mission. In consequence the majority, if not the full remaining mission can be flown by using hydrogen fuel alone. In this way the required fuel storage for the mission can be limited to the actual flight time which is reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Horvath further teaches:
operating produces a fuel tank size to provide energy for regulatory fuel reserves (“weight estimation for a fuel system with integral tanks uses the provided Torenbeek method and is based on the number of engines, number of separate fuel tanks, the mission fuel weight (including reserves), and the specific weight of the fuel used”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam) and for a design range mission (the mission fuel weight (including reserves)”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam).
Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches operating produces fuel tank size but does nto explicitly teach the tank is a non-cryogenic tank.
However, Nusseler teaches:
operating produces a non-cryogenic fuel tank size to provide energy (the reserve fuel is hardly used during a usual flight mission profile, it is allocated to the kerosene fuel tanks [0028]) for the regulatory fuel reserves (Final reserve fuel is the minimum fuel required to fly for 45 minutes at 1,500 feet above the alternate aerodrome or, if an alternate is not required, at the destination aerodrome at holding speed in ISA conditions [0026]) and for a design range mission (An essential aspect of the invention is the design of such a system on the basis of an intended mission [0027], For a given 300 nm mission this quantity already presents a significant volume of more than 50% of the total required fuel quantity of a mission [0028]) that covers 100% of all forecasted operations and represents a maximum range of the aircraft at its maximum payload (one of ordinary skill in the art would design an aircraft to cover the forecasted operations, this would be an obvious and unavoidable consideration in the design process).
Regarding claim 7, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Horvath further teaches:
The process of claim 1 further including manufacturing (Manufacturers use the resulting weight and performance estimates to plan budgets and schedules for production projects, page 1 Introduction) and installing in or integrating into the aircraft, a cryogenic fuel tank (as discussed for claim 1) based on the developed at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as discussed for claim 1) for aircraft (The success of a production project depends heavily on the quality of the conceptual design phase analyses, page 1 Introduction).
Regarding claim 8, Horvath teaches:
An aircraft (aircraft conceptual design, title) having a right sized fuel tank, produced based on a process (Horvath teaches, inter alia, the use of FLOPS and publicly available methos used in aircraft design, Roskam and Raymer: “aircraft conceptual design process. The Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) is an aircraft conceptual design tool that has been the primary aircraft synthesis software used by the Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate at NASA Langley Research Center. – page 1, abstract, “examines several popular, publicly available weight estimation methods and compares them to the methods in NASA Flight Optimization System (FLOPS)” page 1, I. Introduction; pages 2-3); Manufacturers use the resulting weight and performance estimates to plan budgets and schedules for production projects, Page 1, I. Introduction) comprising:
obtaining operational data defining missions ranges requirements (inter alia, detailed mission performance analysis, and cost analysis (page 2, II, A.), fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A);
operating at least one processor (inter alia, FLOPS is a single computer program with an execution control module that executes eight other modules - page 2, II, A.) providing an automated aircraft fuel tank sizing computational tool (inter alia, FLOPS; tank sizing on page 9, III, F, further discussed below, and it is noted that Horvath teaches the overall designing of the aircraft and computational tools, which would include fuel tank, geometry etc) based on the defined missions ranges requirements (If the gross weight is specified, the mission fuel is calculated and FLOPS performs the mission analysis and estimates the range”, page 2, II, A), fuel tank sizing logic (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A), Top-Level Aircraft Requirements other than the defined missions ranges requirements that, together with the defined missions ranges requirements, define aircraft wing area and engines thrust levels, including field performance take-off and landing, climb performance, and cruise performance (inter alia, takeoff and landing performance analysis, page 2, II, A, where Horvath teaches different types of aircraft including transport aircraft, fighter/attack aircraft, hybrid wing body etc, these aircraft having significantly different requirements for aircraft geometry, power and performance requirements), and aircraft geometry and engine thrust levels (weights analysis, aerodynamics analysis, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis, page 2, II, A), to iteratively develop at least fuel tank size for aircraft (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A); and configuring and sizing a fuel tank based on the developed at least cryogenic fuel tank size for aircraft (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A; weight, the number of engines scaled for distributed propulsion if applicable, and the maximum Mach number, FLOPS page 9 III F; and fuel system weight estimation method is a function of the total fuel volume, the volume of any integral tanks, the volume of any self-sealing protected tanks, and the overall number of tanks, page 9, III, F; it is noted that sizing of tanks are directly correlated to volume of the tanks).Horvath teaches an aircraft conceptual design having a fuel tank as discussed above, but is silent about the aircraft having a right sized cryogenic fuel tank.
However, Nusseler teaches an aircraft architecture (title) with a dual fuel propulsion system (abstract), using kerosene and cryogenic fuel [0028], and:
An aircraft (Fig. 1a) having a right sized (fuel storage tanks host the required fuel for the flight mission plus reserve fuel, Abstract) cryogenic fuel tank (liquid hydrogen fuel, abstract)
cryogenic fuel tank (“the required fuel storage for the mission can be limited to the actual flight time which is reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Horvath with Nusseler's teachings discussed above, in order to have an aircraft “capable of performing a flight mission during which the first or the second selectively useable” (abstract) and “reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028].
Furthermore, regarding the limitation “produced based on a process comprising: obtaining operational data defining missions ranges requirements; operating at least one processor providing an automated aircraft sizing computational tool based on the defined missions ranges requirements, tank sizing logic, Top-Level Aircraft Requirements other than the defined missions ranges requirements that, together with the defined missions ranges requirements, define aircraft wing area and engines thrust levels, including field performance take-off and landing, climb performance, and cruise performance, and aircraft geometry and engine thrust levels, to iteratively develop at least cryogenic fuel tank size for aircraft; and configuring a cryogenic fuel tank based on the developed at least cryogenic fuel tank size for aircraft”, MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 9, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Horvath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein operating further comprises automatically developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as already discussed) based on propulsion (inter alia, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, page 2 II. A; “FLOPS fuel system weight includes the weight of fuel tanks and necessary plumbing. It is calculated from the aircraft maximum fuel capacity in terms of weight, the number of engines scaled for distributed propulsion if applicable, and the maximum Mach number.” Page 9, III, F) and energy parameters (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A.) including weight, overall dimensions, available thrust or power and fuel flow at different flight conditions (as discussed and, inter alia, “These modules include weights analysis, aerodynamics analysis, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis.” Page 2 II.A.)
Horvath in view of Nusseler, as discussed so far, teaches cryogenic ad non-cryogenic fuels, but does not explicitly teach:
for cryogenic and non-cryogenic fuels
However, Nusseler teaches:
for cryogenic and non-cryogenic fuels (“propulsive thrust using selectively a first kerosene based jet fuel and a second liquid hydrogen fuel, and two independent sets of fuel systems, including a first fuel system feeding the first fuel from a first set of fuel storage tanks to the internal combustion engine and a second fuel system feeding the second fuel from a second set of fuel storage tanks to the internal combustion engine” abstract)
Regarding claim 10, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Horvath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein operating further comprises automatically developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as discussed above) based on an aircraft requirements compliance check (“weight estimation for a fuel system with integral tanks uses the provided Torenbeek method and is based on the number of engines, number of separate fuel tanks, the mission fuel weight (including reserves), and the specific weight of the fuel used”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam), and performing an iteration (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A) with updated aircraft geometry (based upon the aircraft geometry) and updated engine thrust levels (inter alia, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis, page 2, II. A) if an aircraft requirement compliance check fails (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A, where a fuel requirement comprises reserve fuel in order to meet compliance checks).
Regarding claim 11, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Horvath teaches the development of fuel tanks (inter alia, see page 9 F. Fuel System) and Horvath in view of Nusseler, as disused above, teaches the development of cryogenic fuel tanks, but Horvath in view of Nusseler, as discussed so far, is silent about both cryogenic fuel tank and non-cryogenic fuel tanks at the same time as claimed
the operating develops sizes for both a cryogenic fuel tank and a non-cryogenic fuel tank including automatically sizing the cryogenic fuel tank(s) to provide enough energy only for a typical mission comprising a mission range that covers around 80% of all forecasted operations in terms of accumulated range frequency, and automatically sizing the non- cryogenic fuel tank(s) to provide enough energy for regulatory reserves and for a design range mission, taking into consideration available energy of the cryogenic fuel tank(s) and added weight and drag of mass and volume allocations for the cryogenic fuel tank(s), wherein the design range mission covers 100% of all forecasted operations and represents a maximum range of the aircraft at its maximum payload.
However, Nusseler teaches:
operating develops sizes for both the cryogenic fuel tank(s) (the cryogenic fuel tank [0028]) and a non-cryogenic fuel tank(s) (kerosene fuel tanks [0028]; Nusseler teaches the size of cryogenic and non-cryogenic tanks meet the needs to hold the required fuel: “Both sets of fuel storage tanks host the required fuel for the flight mission plus reserve fuel”, abstract; “The proposed aircraft architecture is using a dual fuel engine technology in combination with the required dual fuel system and fuel tanks system to reduce significantly the weight and required space impact of hydrogen tanks and fuel systems for an aircraft” [0030]) including automatically sizing the cryogenic fuel tank(s) to provide enough energy only for a typical mission comprising a mission range that covers around 80% of all forecasted operations in terms of accumulated range frequency (“For a given 300 nm mission this quantity already presents a significant volume of more than 50% of the total required fuel quantity of a mission. In consequence the majority, if not the full remaining mission can be flown by using hydrogen fuel alone. In this way the required fuel storage for the mission can be limited to the actual flight time which is reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028]; “Based on a turboprop aircraft with approx. 40 to 90 passengers, about 90% of the energy during a 1-hour mission can be generated emission-free via hydrogen” [0063]), and automatically sizing the non- cryogenic fuel tank(s) to provide enough energy for regulatory reserves and for a design range mission, taking into consideration available energy of the cryogenic fuel tank(s) (inter alia, “[0048] The sizing of the fuel tank systems is primarily adapted to climb, cruise flight, descent and landing therefore the limited use of kerosene fuel predominantly for reserve is an optimisation of the use without having to oversize the LH.sub.2 fuel tanks and to take advantage of given fuel reservoirs hosted internally in the wings”) and added weight and drag of mass and volume allocations for the cryogenic fuel tank(s) (inter alia, “The major impact of using hydrogen fuel for aircrafts is the increased energy storage volume and fuel tank system weight” [0019]), wherein the design range mission covers 100% of all forecasted operations and represents a maximum range of the aircraft at its maximum payload (one of ordinary skill in the art would design an aircraft to cover the forecasted operations this would be an obvious and unavoidable consideration in the design process).
Regarding claim 12, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Horvath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein the operating produces the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as already discussed) for a typical mission (the range is specified, page 2, II. A)
Horvath in view of Nusseler, as discussed so far, is silent about:
[typical mission] defining a mission range that covers around 80% of all forecasted operations in terms of accumulated range frequency.
However, Nusseler teaches:
[typical mission] defining a mission range that covers around 80% of all forecasted operations in terms of accumulated range frequency (“For a given 300 nm mission this quantity already presents a significant volume of more than 50% of the total required fuel quantity of a mission. In consequence the majority, if not the full remaining mission can be flown by using hydrogen fuel alone. In this way the required fuel storage for the mission can be limited to the actual flight time which is reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028]; “Based on a turboprop aircraft with approx. 40 to 90 passengers, about 90% of the energy during a 1-hour mission can be generated emission-free via hydrogen” [0063]),
Regarding claim 13, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8.
Horvath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein the operating produces fuel tank size to provide energy for regulatory fuel reserves (“weight estimation for a fuel system with integral tanks uses the provided Torenbeek method and is based on the number of engines, number of separate fuel tanks, the mission fuel weight (including reserves), and the specific weight of the fuel used”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam) and for a design range mission (the mission fuel weight (including reserves)”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam). that covers 100% of all forecasted operations and represents a maximum range of the aircraft at its maximum payload (one of ordinary skill in the art would design an aircraft to cover the forecasted operations this would be an obvious and unavoidable consideration in the design process).
Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches operating produces fuel tank size but does nto explicitly teach the tank is a non-cryogenic tank.
However, Nusseler teaches:
operating produces a non-cryogenic fuel tank size to provide energy (the reserve fuel is hardly used during a usual flight mission profile, it is allocated to the kerosene fuel tanks [0028]) for the regulatory fuel reserves (Final reserve fuel is the minimum fuel required to fly for 45 minutes at 1,500 feet above the alternate aerodrome or, if an alternate is not required, at the destination aerodrome at holding speed in ISA conditions [0026]) and for a design range mission (An essential aspect of the invention is the design of such a system on the basis of an intended mission [0027], For a given 300 nm mission this quantity already presents a significant volume of more than 50% of the total required fuel quantity of a mission [0028]),
Regarding claim 14, Horvath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Horvath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 further including manufacturing (Manufacturers use the resulting weight and performance estimates to plan budgets and schedules for production projects, page 1 Introduction) and installing in or integrating into the aircraft, a cryogenic fuel tank (as discussed for claim 1) based on the developed at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as discussed for claim 1) for a particular aircraft (The success of a production project depends heavily on the quality of the conceptual design phase analyses, page 1 Introduction).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive because they appear to refer to the amended claims filed on 4/1/2026, and the new limitations. However, the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights