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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears to relate to an apparatus to refuel a vessel, not to the disclosed claims of the instant invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 2-6 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 recites “a second latch coupling the hydrogen fuel tank to the wing at the second location.” This is indefinite because Claim 1 introduces the “second location” as being between the hydrogen fuel tank and the stabilizer. It is unclear how the second location can also be between the wing and the hydrogen fuel tank. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-4 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 4 recites “removable drop tank”. This is indefinite because the scope of “drop tank” is unclear. What makes a tank a “drop tank” beyond being removable? Does a drop tank have an additional structure or function that differentiates it from a “removable” tank? Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “an engine disposed in the framework of the hydrogen fuel tank”. This is indefinite because it is unclear how an engine can be disposed inside of a hydrogen fuel tank, in the part of a tank that holds the hydrogen fuel. Is the framework within the hydrogen fuel tank, or is it adjacent to or surrounding the hydrogen fuel tank, for example? Appropriate clarification or correction is required. Claim 6 fails to cure the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kayama (US 20230242252 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kayama discloses an aircraft (Fig. 1A) including:
a fuselage (12, Fig. 1A);
a wing extending from the fuselage (26, Fig. 1A);
a stabilizer extending from the fuselage (32, Fig. 1A); and
a hydrogen fuel tank (14, Fig. 1A and para. [0036]) coupled to the wing at a first location (location of coupling between 14 and 26, Fig. 1A, additionally see 48, Fig. 1G) and coupled to the stabilizer at a second location (location of coupling between 14 and 32, Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 2, Kayama discloses the aircraft of claim 1.
Kayama 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 wing 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 wing/stabilizer of Kayama with latch mechanisms as taught by Bowers, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the capability of jettisoning the fuel tanks as a safety mechanism to protect the aircraft in the event of a fuel tank malfunction, or for maintenance purposes.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kayama 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 Kayama teaches the aircraft of claim 2, wherein the hydrogen fuel tank is a removable drop tank (Kayama as modified by Bowers, which allows for the tank to jettison, see Bowers Col. 2, line 53 – Col. 3, line 9 and Fig. 1, for example).
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) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayama (US 20230242252 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Armand (US 20050178911 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kayama discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the hydrogen fuel tank includes a framework (shell of 14, for example). and the aircraft further includes an engine associated with the hydrogen fuel tank (22, Fig. 1A and para. [0028]).
Kayama is silent about wherein the engine is disposed in the framework of the hydrogen fuel tank, and instead discloses engine 22 attached to the outside of 14 (see Fig. 1A).
Armand teaches an engine disposed in the framework of a structure (turbo-propellers 7, 7’, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hydrogen fuel tank of Kayama to have the engine disposed in the framework of the fuel tank, instead of attached to the outer surface, as taught by Armand, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to streamline the aerodynamic shape of the fuel tank/engine and reduce parasitic drag.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kayama teaches the aircraft of claim 5, wherein the engine is a turboprop engine (Armand, turbo-propellers 7, 7’).
Regarding Claim 7, Kayama discloses the aircraft of claim 1.
Kayama 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 modify the stabilizer of Kayama 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 Kayama teaches the aircraft of claim 7, wherein the second location is at an intersection of the first portion and the second portion (Kayama as modified by Armand, location of fuel tank between 50’ and 53a’ as depicted in Armand Fig. 1, for example).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bangerter et al. (US 20230025482 A1) teaches a jettisonable tank.
Moore et al. (WO 2022056597 A1) teaches an aircraft with a hydrogen fuel tank between a wing and stabilizer.
Villa et al. (US 20190337613 A1) teaches an aircraft with a fuel tank between two airfoil surfaces.
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 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642