DETAILED ACTION
for
NON-INTRUSIVE MOUNTING OF AIRCRAFT FUEL PRESSURE SENSORS
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024 & 09/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 02/16/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carralero et al. [herein after Carralero] (US 2018/0164140).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Carralero discloses a system comprising: an aircraft fuel tank (106) defining an interior configured to store fuel for flight (¶0026, lines 1-3), wherein the interior is defined by a plurality of tank walls including a vertical wing spar of a wing (182); an opening (174) through the vertical wing spar (182); a guide tube (168) with a first end sealingly engaged in the opening of the vertical wing spar (182) to prevent leakage between the guide tube [(168); ¶0051, lines 1-5] and the opening (¶0048, lines 1-2); an optic fiber (116) extending through the guide tube (Fig. 3), sealingly engaged to the first end of the guide tube (168) to prevent leakage between the optic fiber [(16); ¶0051, lines 1-5] and the first end of the guide tube (168); and an optical pressure sensor (112) optically coupled to the optic fiber (116) proximate a second end of the guide tube (168) opposite the first end (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Carralero further discloses the tube (168) and optic fiber (116) extending from the vertical wing spar (182) into the interior (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Carralero further discloses the second end of the guide tube (168) terminates at terminal surface (surface of the tube) that defines an opening locally perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the guide tube [(168); Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Carralero further discloses the terminal surface (surface of the tube) being devoid of any covering over the second end of the guide tube (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Carralero further discloses the guide tube (168) and optic fiber (116) are devoid of electrical circuitry within the interior (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Carralero further discloses the guide tube (168) being a non-pressure transmitting tube (¶0048, lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 7, Carralero further discloses at least one drain hole (176) is defined laterally through the guide tube (168).
Regarding claim 8, Carralero further discloses a retainer (110) mounted inside the interior, wherein the second end of the guide tube (168) engages the retainer (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Carralero further discloses the retainer (110) includes a shoulder (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Carralero further discloses a bracket (190) anchoring the guide tube (168) to the tank (106) at a point along the guide tube (168) between the first end and the second end (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Carralero further discloses a sheath around the optic fiber (116) configured to facilitate guiding the optic fiber (116) along an inside surface of the guide tube (168).
Regarding claim 12, Carralero further discloses the first end (end of 168) of the guide tube (168) being mounted to the vertical spar (182) proximate an access control surface of the wing (182).
Regarding claim 14, Carralero further discloses the pressure sensor (112) includes a reflective pressure diaphragm (142) extending in a direction parallel (Fig. 2) to a terminal surface of the guide tube (168).
Regarding claim 16, Carralero further discloses a sheathed optic fiber (116) through an interior of the guide tube (168) until a sealing fitting (156) of the sheathed optic fiber (116) engages a terminal at the first end of the guide tube (168), to position an optical probe (140) at a tip of the optic fiber (116) into a predetermined pressure-measurement (¶0038, lines 1-8) position relative to the second end of the guide tube (168).
Regarding claim 17, Carralero discloses a method comprising: advancing a sheathed optic fiber (116) through an interior of a guide tube (168) in an aircraft fuel tank (106) until a sealing fitting (156) of the sheathed optic fiber (116) engages a terminal at the first end of the guide tube (168), to position an optical probe (140) at a tip of the optic fiber (116) into a predetermined pressure-measurement position relative to a second end of the guide tube (168).
Regarding claim 18, Carralero further discloses a terminal surface (surface of the tube) of the guide tube (168) being devoid of any covering over the second end of the guide tube (168).
Regarding claim 19, Carralero further discloses the guide tube (168) and optic fiber (116) are devoid of electrical circuitry within the interior (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Carralero further discloses the guide tube (168) being a non-pressure transmitting tube (¶0048, lines 1-11).
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 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.
Claims 13 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carralero et al. [herein after Carralero] (US 2018/0164140).
Regarding claim 13, Carralero further discloses the guide tube (168).
Carralero fails to explicitly discloses the guide tube being polymeric.
The use of the particular material, i.e., polymeric, as stated in claim 13, for the material, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” material that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made using routine experimentation would have found obvious to provide for the probe element disclosed by Prior Art since it has been held to be a matter of obvious design choice and within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 15, Carralero discloses, a method comprising: during construction of an aircraft wing (182), installing a polymeric guide tube extending from a vertical wing spar (182) at a first end of the guide tube (168) into an interior of a fuel tank (106) at a second end of the guide tube (168), engaging and the second end of the polymeric guide tube with a retainer (110) in the interior of the fuel tank (168), affixing the guide tube (168) along its length with brackets (190) and mounting the first end of the guide tube (168) to the vertical spar (182). Carralero fails to explicitly discloses the guide tube being polymeric.
Carralero fails to explicitly discloses the guide tube being polymeric.
The use of the particular material, i.e., polymeric, as stated in claim 15, for the material, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” material that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made using routine experimentation would have found obvious to provide for the probe element disclosed by Prior Art since it has been held to be a matter of obvious design choice and within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Carralero discloses an example fuel quantity indicating system includes a fuel tank, optical sensors mounted inside the fuel tank that each include a sensor chip and a diaphragm that deflects when ambient pressure differs from a reference pressure of the sensor chip, an optical fiber bundle that has an optical fiber connected to each of the optical sensors for guiding light to each of the optical sensors, and a processor connected to the optical fiber bundle for receiving outputs of the optical sensors indicative of respective pressures, and for determining a fuel level measurement of the fuel tank based on the outputs of the optical sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855