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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regan U.S. Pub. No. 20150291291 A1, October 15, 2015 (hereinafter “Regan”) in view of Susko U.S. Pub. No. 20030116679 A1, June 26, 2003 (hereinafter “Susko”).
Regarding claim 1, Regan discloses an aircraft (fig. 9, paragraph 0033) comprising: a source of inert gas (paragraph 0033, nitrogen generation system 904); a fuel system for containing fuel (fig. 9, fuel tanks 908); and a piccolo tube (paragraph 0034, outer line 1002 may be referred to as a “piccolo tube”) within the fuel tank, the piccolo tube connected from an inner line (1000) to nitrogen generation system (904) and an outer piccolo tube receives and distributes the gas (paragraphs 0035-0036), nitrogen flows from generation system through distribution system into ullage space through a plurality od distribution orifices (1014) on the piccolo tube (figs. 10-11, paragraph 0036). However, Regan fails to disclose a containment area of the aircraft outside the fuel system and configured to contain oxygen and/or fuel vapor leaked from the fuel system;
Susko discloses an onboard inert system for an aircraft that provides inert gas to environments other than the fuel tank, including remote locations such as cargo holds or other aircraft compartments, in order to inert flammable vapor-containing regions and reduce explosion risk (paragraphs 0004 and 0019). 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 system of Regan to supply inert gas to a containment outside the fuel system as taught by Susko, in order to mitigate explosion hazards in regions where leaked fuel vapor may accumulate outside the fuel tank.
Regarding claim 3, Regan fails to disclose that the containment area is in an aircraft wing, an aircraft fuselage, a fuel pod or a pylon. However, Susko discloses supplying inert gas to multiple regions of an aircraft, including location outside the fuel tank e.g., cargo holds, which are part of the aircraft structure, such as fuselage (fig. 1 showing delivery of inert gas to remote locations). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to extend the inert gas distribution system of Regan to other aircraft locations, including fuselage or other structural regions, as taught by Susko in order to mitigate explosion hazards in areas were leaked vapor may accumulate.
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. Susko further discloses a fuel system including fuel tanks (11) connected by fuel lines and associated conduit for transporting fuel and gases within the aircraft (fig. 1 shows fuel tank connected via lines to other components). 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. Including a piccolo tube to reduce oxygen concentrations in a region containing fuel vapors (figs. 9-11, paragraphs 0033-0036). Susko discloses the use of inert gas, including nitrogen, for inerting environments within the aircraft to reduce flammability and explosion risk (paragraphs 0005 and 0019). 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 9, Regan fails to disclose a control valve configured to control the flow of inert gas through and/or from the piccolo tube. However, Susko discloses an inerting system including valves (17, 25) that control the flow of inert gas from a source (fig. 1, Nitrogen Dewar 13) to a target region, such as a fuel tank and other aircraft compartment, to maintain desired oxygen levels (paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0021, and 0042). 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 inert gas distribution system, to regulate flow of inert gas through the piccolo tube, in order to control oxygen concentration, and improve system efficiency and safety.
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. Susko disclose a control valve (fig. 1, control valve 17, 25) positioned in a line supplying inert gas from a source to a target region, where in the valve controls the flow of the gas delivered into the region (paragraphs 0015, 0019, and 0042). 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 or 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, Regan fails to disclose the control valve separates a first, upstream section and a second, downstream section of the piccolo tube. However, Susko discloses an inert gas delivery system including valves positioned within gas supply lines to regulate and control the flow of inert gas from a source to a target region (fig. 1, valves 17, 25; paragraph 0015). Such valves divide the flow path into upstream and downstream sections relative to the valve location. 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.
Claims 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regan U.S. Pub. No. 20150291291 A1, October 15, 2015 (hereinafter “Regan”) in view of Claim 1, in further view of Kwok U.S. Pub. No. 20080187785 A1, August 07, 2008 (hereinafter “Kwok”).
Regarding claim 2, Regan discloses a fuel system but fails to disclose that the fuel system comprises a fuel cell in a fuel cell enclosure, wherein the containment area is in the fuel cell enclosure. However, Kwok discloses a fuel system for an aircraft including a hydrogen fuel cell array (306) supplied with hydrogen from a fuel reformer (304), forming a hydrogen-based propulsion/power system (figs. 3A and 4, paragraphs 0029-0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the hydrogen fuel cell system of Kwok into the aircraft system of Regan within an enclosure, since aircraft fuel systems are conventionally housed within compartments or enclosures for safety, containment, and integration purposes.
Regarding claim 4, 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, Kwok discloses a hydrogen fuel system for an aircraft including a fuel reformer (304) that generate hydrogen and a hydrogen fuel cell array (306) that utilizes hydrogen to generate power for aircraft component (figs. 3-4A, paragraphs 0029, 0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the hydrogen fuel system of Kwok in the aircraft of Regan as an alternative fuel system, as hydrogen fuel systems used in aircraft applications provide improved efficiency and reduced emissions.
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regan U.S. Pub. No. 20150291291 A1, October 15, 2015 (hereinafter “Regan”) in view of 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 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 od 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 od 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 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 Regan U.S. Pub. No. 20150291291 A1, October 15, 2015 (hereinafter “Regan”) in view of 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, 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. 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 Regan in view of Susko 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, 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.
Susko 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, paragraph 0015). 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 Regan as taught by Susko in order to regulate flow through each channel and achieve controlled distribution of inert gas to multiple regions.
Conclusion
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