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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the amendment, filed 2/10/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 11-13 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Gowens (3604478) and Lofquist, Jr. (4157104).
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear as to whether "a second connector", line 3, is
the same second connector defined in claim 1. If so, "a second connector" should be "the second connector".
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gowens (3604478).
Regarding claim 1, the Gowens reference discloses an aircraft (col. 1, lines 3 – 10), comprising: a port (Figure 5) over which a first connector (45) is mounted for connecting to a second, complementary connector (12) to transfer fluid to and/or from the aircraft, wherein the port is an opening in a side of the aircraft (inherent), and wherein the first connector including a first fluid path (46) extending from the port
towards an aircraft fluid tank and a second, different, fluid path (47) extending from the port towards an aircraft fluid tank (col. 3, lines 38 – 60).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first fluid path is defined by a first conduit (46) configured to connect to a first conduit (13) of the second connector, and the second fluid path (47) is defined by a second conduit of the first connector configured to connect to a second conduit (14) of the second connector.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the cross-section of the first fluid path (46) is different to the cross-section of the second fluid path (47). See Figure 5 showing different cross-sections of paths (46, 47).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first connector (45) comprises an alignment
port (52, 53) for mating with a corresponding alignment port (23, 25) of a second connector so as to align the connectors.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the first fluid path extends to a first aircraft fluid tank and the second fluid path extends to a second aircraft fluid tank. The Gowens device fuels plural fuel tanks (see col. 3, lines 38 – 43 and col. 4, line 73 – col. 5, line 13).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the first and/or second aircraft fluid tank is an aircraft fuel tank. The Gowens tanks are fuel tanks.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the first fluid path and the second fluid path extend to a common fluid tank (i.e., the aircraft fuel tank).
Regarding claim 11, the Gowens reference discloses a “kit of parts” comprising the second connector (12) configured to releasably connect to the first connector (45) to form a connection, the second connector including a first fluid path that upon connection to the first connector extends from the first fluid path of the first connector towards an external fluid tank (vapor path extends to external fuel supply tank), and a second fluid path that upon connection to the first connector extends from the second fluid path of the first connector towards an external fluid tank (fuel path extends to external fuel supply tank).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the first connector (45) and the second connector (12) are configured such that: the first fluid path (46) of the first connector (45) is unable to form a fluidically sealed path with the second fluid path (14) of the second connector, and the second fluid path (47) of the first connector is unable to form a fluidically sealed path with the first fluid path of the second connector.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the second connector (12) is a male connector (Figure 3) and the first connector (45) is a female connector (Figure 5) configured to receive the second connector.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowens in view of Lofquist, Jr. (4157104).
Regarding claim 4, the Gowens reference discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn’t disclose wherein the first fluid path is concentric with the second fluid path. However, the Wokas reference discloses another fuel delivery apparatus having concentric passages (see Figures 1 and 2) to deliver fuel and return vapor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Gowens device to have concentric passages as, for example, taught by the Lofquist, Jr. reference since concentric passages are well known in the art, conventional and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowens in view of Fromm (3171448).
Regarding claim 14, the Gowens reference discloses the invention (discussed supra), but doesn't disclose wherein the connection includes a locking mechanism
configured to releasably fix the second connector relative to the first connector.
However, the Fromm reference discloses another multi-passage fuel connection (see Figures) having a locking mechanism (39, 119; bayonet slots and pins) with releasable lock couplings (4, 115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Petit device to have a locking mechanism as, for example, taught by the Fromm reference to ensure a secure connection by releasably locking the first and second couplings.
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 TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753