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 .
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (WO 2022056597 A1), hereafter Moore, in view of Ciet et al. (US 20210078702 A1), hereafter Ciet.
Regarding Claim 1, Moore discloses an aircraft (Fig. 1) including:
a fuselage (24, Fig. 1);
a wing extending from the fuselage (20 and 22, Fig. 1);
a stabilizer extending from the fuselage (30 and 32, Fig. 1);
a hydrogen fuel tank (para. [0037]) included within a framework (42, Fig. 1, and para. [0037], “…used to store…hydrogen tanks”), the framework coupled to the wing at a first location (location of coupling between 42 and 20, Fig. 1) and coupled to the stabilizer at a second location (location of coupling between 42 and 30, Fig. 1); and
wherein fan blades extend from a forward end of the framework (70, Fig. 1).
Moore discloses electric motors including within the framework to drive fan blades (para. [0052] and Fig. 1) and is therefore silent about a turbine engine included within the framework.
Ciet teaches a turbine engine for a similar aircraft (Fig. 3 and para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Moore with the turbine engine as taught by Ciet, with a reasonable expectation of success, because all of the claimed elements, i.e., an aircraft having an electric motor and an aircraft having a turbine engine, where known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the turbine engine, taught by Ciet, for the electric motor of Moore, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results and drive rotation of the fan blades which extend from a forward end of the framework. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the hydrogen fuel tank is coupled to the aircraft at only the first location and the second location (Moore, Fig 1, 42 is coupled to the aircraft only at the location of coupling between 42 and 20 and the location of coupling between 42 and 30).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 5, wherein the turbine engine is a turboprop engine (Ciet, para. [0055], “turboprop engine”).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Moore as applied above, and further in view of in view of Bowers (US 2591913 A).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Modified Moore is silent about a first latch coupling the hydrogen fuel tank to the wing at the first location; and
a second latch coupling the hydrogen fuel tank to the stabilizer at the second location.
Bowers teaches a latch mechanism used for coupling a similar tank to an aircraft element (Col. 2, line 53 – Col. 3, line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the hydrogen fuel tank and each of the wing and stabilizer of modified Moore with latch mechanisms as taught by Bowers, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the capability of removing the fuel tank for maintenance purposes.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 2, wherein the first latch is a two-stage rotary latch (Bowers, Col. 3, line 63 – Col. 4, line 15).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 2, wherein the hydrogen fuel tank is removable from the aircraft via uncoupling of the first latch and the second latch (Modified Moore in combination with Bowers, which allows for the tank to jettison, see Bowers Col. 2, line 53 – Col. 3, line 9 and Fig. 1, for example).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Moore as applied above, and further in view of Armand (US 20050178911 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Modified Moore is silent about wherein the stabilizer includes a first portion having a forward swept profile and a second portion having a back swept profile.
Armand teaches a similar stabilizer includes a first portion having a forward swept profile and a second portion having a back swept profile (Fig. 1, stabilizer 5 with portions 50, 50’ and 53a, 53a’ and para. [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the stabilizer of modified Moore to have a first portion having a forward swept profile on one side of the fuel tank and a second portion having a back swept profile on a second side of the fuel tank, as taught by Armand, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce turbulence or enhance the aerodynamics of the stabilizer (Armand, para. [0079]). Additionally, there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 7, wherein the second location is at an intersection of the first portion and the second portion (Moore as modified by Armand, location of fuel tank between 50’ and 53a’ as depicted in Armand Fig. 1, for example).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights