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. Claims 9, 10 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1-8, 11-16 and 18-23 will be treated on the merits. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 7 , 8 and 12 are 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. Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitations "the outer lobes". There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claims. Regarding claim 12, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. By analogy, see MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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. (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, 3, 4, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1/a2 as being anticipated by Pradel ( DE 198 44 555 A1 ) , which discloses : A pipe spacer (35) for separating inner (3) and outer (31) pipes of a double-walled pipe assembly, the pipe spacer comprising: an inner circumferential bearing surface (35b) for contacting an inner pipe of a double-walled pipe assembly; an outer circumferential bearing surface (35a) for contacting an outer pipe of the double-walled pipe assembly; at least three inner lobes (51) , each of the inner lobes having an apex on which lies the inner circumferential bearing surface (see the centers of the lobes 51, FIG 3) ; wherein the outer circumferential bearing surface is curved in two orthogonal directions (see angle 47 of FIG 2, and the outer circumferential curvature of FIG 3) . The pipe space of claim 1, wherein the curvature of the outer circumferential bearing surface extends across the axial extent of the pipe spacer (see FIG 2) . The pipe spacer of claim 1, wherein the inner circumferential bearing surface is cylindrical (see the inner surface of FIG 2) . 11. The pipe spacer of claim 1, wherein the pipe spacer has a diameter to thickness aspect ratio of less than 6:1 ( as shown in FIG 2, the diameter is less than 6 times the thickness) . 13. A double-walled pipe assembly comprising an inner pipe (3) and an outer pipe (31) separated by the pipe spacer of claim 1. Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8 , 13 and 15 -16 (7-8 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Siemen s ( DE 3033167 A1 ) , which discloses: A pipe spacer for separating inner ( 4 ) and outer ( 6 ) pipes of a double-walled pipe assembly, the pipe spacer comprising: an inner circumferential bearing surface ( inner support points 13, at the 12-, 2-, 4-, 6-, 8- and 10-o-clock positions of inner pipe 4 ) for contacting an inner pipe (4) of a double-walled pipe assembly; an outer circumferential bearing surface ( outer support points 13, at the 12-, 2-, 4-, 6-, 8- and 10-o-clock positions of outer pipe 6 ) for contacting an outer pipe (6) of the double-walled pipe assembly; at least three inner lobes ( the inside portions of the balls ) , each of the inner lobes having an apex (13) on which lies the inner circumferential bearing surface ( by definition, the inner circumferential bearing surface is read as the collection of support points 13 ) ; wherein the outer circumferential bearing surface is curved in two orthogonal directions ( due to the spherical shape of the balls ). The pipe spacer of claim 1, wherein the outer circumferential bearing surface is spherical (since it is formed by balls) . The pipe spacer of claim 1, further comprising three or more outer lobes, each of the outer lobes having an apex on which lies the outer circumferential bearing surface (the outer portions of the balls are seen as lobes, which have apexes at their support points 13) . The pipe spacer of claim 1 , wherein a centre of each inner lobes aligns circumferentially with a centre of each outer lobes (inner and outer support points 13 are radially aligned across each of the balls) . The pipe spacer of claim 1, wherein the outer lobes occupy less than or equal to 50% of the circumference of the pipe spacer (see FIG 2) . The pipe spacer of claim 1, defining three or more through-holes located between the inner and outer circumferential bearing surfaces (the spaced in 20, in which the balls fit) , or wherein a centre of the through-holes is aligned circumferentially with a centre of the inner and/or outer lobes, or wherein the through-holes are offset circumferentially from the inner and/or outer lobes. 13. A double-walled pipe assembly comprising an inner pipe ( 4 ) and an outer pipe ( 6 ) separated by the pipe spacer of claim 1. 15. The double-walled pipe assembly of claim 13, further comprising a vacuum pressure between the inner pipe and the outer pipe (see Abstract: “as there is a large temp. drop between the conduction sections (4, 6), the space between them is evacuated) . 16. The double-walled pipe assembly of claim 13, further comprising a cryogenic fuel in the inner pipe, or wherein the cryogenic fuel is liquid hydrogen (this limitation is given limited patentable weight pursuant to MPEP 2115, where the material worked upon by an apparatus does not impart patentability to an apparatus claim) . 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 12 and 14 (12 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradel, which discloses: Pradel discloses the invention as claimed with exception to the fibre reinforced composite material and flanges between the inner and outer pipes. However these features were well-known in the art before the effective filing date (official notice), and it would have been obvious to utilize these features with the Pradel spacer to increase its durability and prevent axial movement thereof, respectively. Claim(s) 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami (US 9,447,899) in view of either Siemens or Pradel. Regarding claim 18 , Minami discloses a n aircraft assembly (100) comprising an aircraft structure (102) , a fixture arrangement (109) , and a pipe assembly (103) coupled to the aircraft structure by the fixture arrangement. Minami does not disclose the pipe assembly to be a double-walled pipe as required of claim 13, however each of Siemens and Pradel teach that such double-walled pipes were known in the art before the effective filing date (see the analyses set forth above) . To better insulate and protect Mimami’s pipe and contents, it would have been obvious to embody Minami’s pipe as such a double-walled pipe as taught by either of Siemens and Pradel. Regarding claim 19, locating the fixture arrangement in the same plane as the spacer is a simple matter of design choice that would have been obvious before the effective filing date in order to better support and avoid damaging the pipe. Alternatively this limitation is anticipated in that a plane could be drawn through the pipe spacer and the claimed contact point. Regarding claim 20 , Minami discloses wherein the aircraft structure (102) is a wing rib, and wherein the pipe assembly passes through a plane of the wing rib (see FIG 1) . Regarding claim 21, see the analyses of claims 18 and 19 above. Regarding claim 22, see the analysis of claim 20 above. Regarding claim 23 , the obvious double-walled pipe assembly is configured to rotate about axes perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the pipe assembly (it is capable of such rotation, such as by rotation of the airplane) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1869 . The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm FILLIN "Insert your normal duty hours for example -- 6:30 AM-5:00 PM --." \d "[ 5 ]" . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s name." \* MERGEFORMAT CRAIG SCHNEIDER , can be reached at telephone number FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3607 , or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 2/18/26