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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2301344.4, filed on 01/31/2023.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 22, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1-8, and 10-13 is currently amended and remains pending in the application. Claim 9 is canceled. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. New rejections follow.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naulty et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2889955 A, June 09, 1959 (hereinafter “Naulty”) in view Regan U.S. Pub. No. 20150291291 A1, October 15, 2015 (hereinafter “Regan”).
Regarding claim 1, Naulty discloses an aircraft fuel system including fuel tank (25), a source of inert gas (claim 1), and an enclosing compartment (30) surrounding and spaced from the tank (25) (col. 2, lines 1-5). The space (31) between the tank and compartment (30) is used to control leakage from the tank, and the branch tube (32) supplies inert gas to space (31) (col. 2, lines 5-10). Naulty further discloses valve (40) controlled by combustible gas detector (41) such that, when combustible gas in space (31) reaches a predetermined fuel percentage, valve (40) opens to introduce inert gas and purge the combustible gases until the concentration is reduced (Fig. 1; col. 2, line 71-col. 3, line 6; claims 1, 2, and 6). However, Naulty fails to disclose that the inert-gas distribution tube is a piccolo tube having a plurality of holes.
Regan discloses an aircraft nitrogen distribution system including outer line 1002, expressly identified as a piccolo tube (paragraph 0034), having a plurality of distribution orifices (1014) through which nitrogen is discharged (Figs. 9-11; paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inert gas distribution arrangement of Naulty to employ the perforated piccolo tube of Regan so as to distribute inert gas at multiple location within the containment space, thereby improving distribution of inert gas for dilution and removal of leaked combustible fuel vapor.
Regarding claim 3, Naulty discloses enclosing compartment (30) surrounding fuel tank (25) and states that the compartment may be formed from wing skin, bulkhead, or other airplanes structural material (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 1-6). Naulty also teaches that the fuel tank enclosing compartment as being located in the fuselage of the aircraft (col. 2; lines 55-62).
Regarding claim 5, Regan discloses a fuel system comprises a fuel tank (908) and associated fuel lines delivering fuel within the aircraft (fig. 9; paragraph 0033). While Regan does explicitly disclose the fuel tank, the associated fuel lines for supplying fuel are inherent components of the aircraft fuel system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a fuel tank and fuel line configuration in the system, since fuel tank and fuel lines are standard and necessary components of aircraft fuel systems for transporting fuel to engines or other systems
Regarding claim 8, Regan discloses an aircraft inert system including a source of inert gas, such as nitrogen generated by an onboard inert gas generation system, delivered through the distribution system. Specifically, Regan discloses nitrogen generation system (904) configured to supply inert nitrogen to aircraft fuel tank (908), with nitrogen flowing through distribution system (906) and piccolo tube (1002) (figs. 9-11, paragraphs 0033-0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select inert gases such as nitrogen, since the selection of an inert gas maybe based on desired system requirements and performance.
Regarding claim 10, Regan discloses an aircraft inert gas distribution system including a source of inert gas and a distribution system having flow control components that regulate delivery of inert gas through distribution lines/orifices (1014) and outlet (304) into a region containing fuel vapors (fig. 1, paragraph 0033-0036). However, Regan fails to disclose the control valve is configured to control the flow of inert gas through an outlet on an end of the piccolo tube. In the proposed combination, Naulty’s inert gas distribution arrangement is modified to employ Regan’s piccolo tube, Naulty’s control valve (40) would control the inert gas flow through the piccolo tube and therefore through the terminal outlet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a control valve in the system of Regan to regulate inert gas flow through an outlet at the end of the piccolo tube, in order to control delivery of inert gas and maintain desired oxygen concentration levels within the containment area.
Regarding claim 11, Naulty discloses a control valve (40) positioned within branch tube (32) and configured to control the flow of inert gas through the tube (col. 2, lines 16-22; Fig. 1). Regan discloses piccolo tube (1002) for distributing inert gas through the aircraft system (paragraph 0034). In modifying Naulty’s inert-gas distribution tube to employ Regan’s piccolo tube configuration, valve (40) would be positioned in the piccolo tube and would thereby separate an upstream section of the tube from a downstream section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a control valve into the distribution line (piccolo tube), thereby separating the lines into upstream and downstream sections, in order to regulate and control the flow of inert gas within the system.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naulty and Regan, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Proebstle U.S. Pub. No. 2670162 A, February 23, 1954 (hereinafter “Proebstle”).
Regarding claim 2, Naulty in view of Regan fails to disclose that the fuel system comprises a fuel cell and a fuel cell enclosure, wherein the fuel system containment area includes the fuel cell enclosure, and the fuel cell is enclosed within the fuel cell enclosure. However, Proebstle discloses that the fuel cell the fuel cell is loosely inserted within the enclosure and that the enclosure is fixed within the aircraft (Figs. 1-3; col. 2 line 50-col. 3, line 5). Proebstle further claims a flexible fuel cell disposed within a separate substantially rigid enclosure and, in claims 6 and 7, an enclosure fully surrounding the fuel cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the fuel system of Naulty with the enclosed fuel-cell arrangement taught by Proebstle, thereby providing a fuel cell enclosed within a fuel cell enclosure, because Proebstle teaches such an enclosure as a known arrangement for supporting and protecting aircraft fuel cell
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naulty and Regan, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Mackin et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20220297844 A1, September 22, 2022 (hereinafter “Mackin”).
Regarding claim 4, Naulty in view of Regan fails to disclose that the fuel system is a hydrogen fuel system configured to supply hydrogen fuel to an engine attached to the aircraft. However, Mackin discloses an aircraft propulsion system having a liquid hydrogen fuel tank (150) and fuel lines supplying hydrogen fuel (114) to combustor (110) of the aircraft engine (paragraph 0132). Mackin further teaches fuel valve (155) controlling flow of hydrogen from tank (150) to the combustor and heat exchange (154) configured to convert liquid hydrogen into gaseous hydrogen suitable for combustion in the engine (Figs. 1A-1C; paragraph 0149).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the hydrogen fuel system of Mackin in the aircraft of Naulty-Regan to supply hydrogen fuel to an aircraft engine, because hydrogen was known as an aircraft propulsion fuel and the art teaches a complete arrangement for storing, conditioning, and supplying hydrogen to an aircraft engine combustor.
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naulty and Regan, as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Ishida et al. U.S. Pub. No. 10377497 B2, August 13, 2019 (hereinafter “Ishida”).
Regarding claim 6, Regan discloses an aircraft inert gas distribution system including a piccolo tube (outer line 1002) having a plurality of holes or orifices (1014) configured to deliver inert gas into a region containing fuel vapors (figs. 10-11, paragraphs 0034-0036). However, Regan fails to disclose that the piccolo tube comprises a first set of holes and a second set of holes, wherein a distribution and/or a size of the holes in the first set is different to a distribution and/or size of the holes in the second set. Ishida discloses a piccolo tube used in an aircraft anti-icing system having a plurality of ejection holes (16) arranged along the longitudinal direction of the tube, wherein different groups of holes (e.g., holes associated with L1 and L2 regions) are positioned and configured differently to control flow distribution and heat transfer characteristics (figs. 2A-2E shows multiple hole groups along the tube and figs. 7A-9D illustrates different hole arrangements and distributions) (col. 6, lines 11-45).
These figures clearly show that the holes are arranged in distinct sets (e.g., L1 vs L2) with different spatial distributions and/or configurations, thereby corresponding to a first set of holes and a second set of holes with differing distribution and/or size characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the piccolo tube of Naulty in view of Regan to include multiple sets of holes having different distributions and/or sizes as taught by Ishida in order to improve fluid distribution performance, such as uniform or targeted delivery of inert gas within the containment area.
Regarding claim 7, Regan discloses an aircraft inert gas distribution system including a piccolo tube (outer line 1002) having a plurality of distribution orifices (1014) configured to release inert gas into a region containing fuel vapors to reduce oxygen concentration (figs. 10-11; paragraph 0004). However, Regan fails to disclose that the holes of the piccolo tube are arranged to direct the inert gas generally upwards so as to bias the flow of inert gas towards an upper zone of the containment area.
Ishida discloses a piccolo tube having a plurality of ejection holes (16) arranged and oriented to direct flow toward specific regions of an aircraft structure, including directing heated gas toward targeted zones such as upper regions of the leading edge for effective anti-icing (figs. 3A-3C and 7A shows directional flow patterns from the holes toward specific regions of the structure (col. 6, lines 45-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the holes of the piccolo tube in Naulty in view of Regan to direct inert gas generally upward toward an upper zone of the contaminant area, in order to improve distribution efficiency and ensure effective inerting of regions where lighter gases or vapors may accumulate
Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naulty and Regan, as applied to Claim 1 and 9, in further view of Zopey et al., U.S. Pub. No. 20180094557 A1, April 05, 2018 (hereinafter “Zopey”).
Regarding claim 12, Naulty in view of Regan fails to disclose the piccolo tube comprises channels extending from a main piccolo tube section at a junction, wherein the channels extend to distal zones of the fuel system containment area. However, Zopey discloses an inerting system including a conduit structure in which main flow path feeds into a central junction region (252, 262), from which multiple flow channels (250, 202) extend to distribute fluid to different regions (figs. 6, 10, and 11, paragraphs 0071-0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the piccolo tube of Naulty in view of Regan to include to include such branching channels extending from a junction in order to distribute inert gas more effectively across multiple regions within the containment area.
Regarding claim 13, Naulty in view of Regan fails to disclose the piccolo tube comprises channels extending from a main piccolo tube section at a junction, wherein the channels extend to distal zones of the containment area, and wherein the control valve is at the junction and configured to control the flow of inert gas through each of the channels. However, Zopey discloses a conduit system in which a main flow path feeds into a junction region (252, 262), from which multiple channels (250, 202) extend to different regions (figs. 6, 10, and 11, paragraphs 0071-0071). Zopey does not disclose a control valve located at the junction to control flow through each channel.
Naulty discloses an inert gas delivery system including valves positioned within flow lines to regulate and control the flow of inert gas delivered to different regions (fig. 1, col. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate a control valve at the junction of the branched channels in the modified system of Naulty in view of Regan in order to regulate flow through each channel and achieve controlled distribution of inert gas to multiple regions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
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 MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights