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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The 112(b) issues noted in the office action dated 12/8/25 have been addressed and are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 states “at a point below transverse axis”. This should read --at a point below the transverse axis--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 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.
Claim 17 states “the non-contact portions”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation.
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11-16, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dossow (US 20110259933 A1) in view of Rike et al (US 9908406 B2) and Masters et al (US 9618142 B2).
For claim 1, Dossow discloses an vehicle section comprising:
a fuel storage tank 5, a first strap 7, a second strap 7, at least one anchoring structure carrier body 6, and at least one coupling portion Fig. 3: curved section 8 of carrier body 6,
wherein the first strap and the second strap are arranged under tension such that the fuel storage tank is maintained pressed against the at least one coupling portion by the first strap and the second strap Para 0013: “holds the fuel tank and the carrier body tightly pressed against each other in the tensioned state”;
but fails to disclose that the first strap comprises two attachment portions anchored to the at least one anchoring structure;
wherein the second strap comprises two attachment portions anchored to the at least one anchoring structure;
and wherein the non-contact portions of the first strap and the second strap extend tangentially away from the fuel storage tank; and
Instead, Dossow discloses that the straps are connected to each other via a screw 14 (Fig. 3).
However, Rike teaches a fuel tank attachment system with a retaining strap Figs. 25-31: strap 116 with two attachment portions anchored to an anchoring structure ends of strap 116, wherein the fuel storage tank is resting on a contact portion of the first strap and on a contact portion of the second strap contact portion of strap being pressed into the tank, the first strap including non-contact portions between each of the two attachment portions and the contact portion of the first strap each end of strap 116 has a straight, non-contact portion as it extends away from the contact portion, and the second strap including non-contact portions between each of the two attachment portions and the contact portion of the second strap Fig. 1: plural straps; and
wherein the non-contact portions of the first strap and the second strap extend tangentially away from the fuel storage tank the straight non-contact portions extend tangentially away.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dossow by using the configuration of straps and anchoring structures as taught by Rike. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a less complex strap system as the strap of Dossow must be fed through the slits of the flanks 8, which further put those portions out of view for purposes of inspection.
Dossow discloses that this frame is to be used on a vehicle, but does not specify that the vehicle is an aircraft, and also does not disclose that the first and second straps are textile materials with fibers of materials.
However, Masters teaches an aircraft fuel tank strap that “can be a strap or rope made from a synthetic or non-synthetic material” “not limited to, polyester, nylon, polyethylene…” (Para 0069).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dossow by using the tank on an aircraft and constructing the strap from textile material with fibers as disclosed by Masters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide tank securement structure to an aircraft and to use a strong, flexible material for the strap.
For claim 8, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 1, further comprising:
at least one additional strap comprising two attachment portions anchored to the at least one anchoring structure, said at least one additional strap being arranged under tension such that the fuel storage tank is maintained pressed against the at least one coupling portion by the additional strap Rike, Fig. 1.
For claim 11, Dossow teaches the aircraft section according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second fuel storage tank other tank 5, a third strap 7 and a fourth strap 7,
wherein the third strap and the fourth strap are arranged under tension such that the second tank is maintained pressed against a second coupling portion of at least one coupling portion Fig. 3: curved section 8 of carrier body 6 by the third strap and the fourth strap Para 0013: “holds the fuel tank and the carrier body tightly pressed against each other in the tensioned state”,
wherein one of the at least one anchoring structure carrier body 6 is a coupling element,
wherein the second coupling portion of the at least one coupling portion is a portion of the coupling element Fig. 3: curved portion 8 is part of 6,
but fails to disclose that the straps comprise two attachment portions anchored to the at least one anchoring structure.
Instead, Dossow discloses that the straps are connected to each other via a screw 14 (Fig. 3).
However, Rike teaches that a retaining strap for a tank may be attached to the anchoring structure Fig. 1: straps 116 with two attachment ends.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dossow by using the configuration of straps and anchoring structures as taught by Rike. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a less complex strap system as the strap of Dossow must be fed through the slits of the flanks 8, which further put those portions out of view for purposes of inspection.
As modified, Dossow teaches
wherein the third strap comprises two attachment portions anchored to the at least one anchoring structure as modified,
wherein the fourth strap comprises two attachment portions anchored to the at least one anchoring structure as modified,
wherein at least one of the attachment portions of the first strap and at least one of the attachment portions of the second strap are anchored to the coupling element the anchoring structure 6 is the coupling element, and they are anchored to it, and
wherein at least one of the two attachment portions of the third strap and at least one of the two attachment portions of the fourth strap are anchored to the coupling element the anchoring structure 6 is the coupling element, and they are anchored to it.
For claim 12, Dossow teaches the aircraft section according to claim 11, wherein the coupling element comprises a wall interposed between both fuel storage tanks, such that the first fuel storage tank and the second fuel storage tank are maintained pressed against opposite sides of the wall 6 comprises a curved wall between the tanks.
For claim 13, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the aircraft section is a fuselage section, and
wherein the at least one coupling portion is a portion of at least one frame of the fuselage section.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the frame in the fuselage section (therefore making it a portion of a frame of the fuselage section) for ease of loading/access and for purposes of weight and balance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 14, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 13, wherein the at least one coupling portion 8 is an upper portion of the frame Fig. 3: 8 is above many elements, such as 10, therefore it is an upper portion, and
wherein a clearance is provided between the fuel storage tank and a lower portion of the frame there is clearance between 10 and the tank 5.
For claim 15, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 13, wherein at least one of the attachment portions of the first strap, or at least one of the attachment portions of the second strap, or both is anchored at a portion of the frame straps are anchored to the frame of the carrier body 6 which has a minimum displacement when the aircraft section is submitted to a vertical impact functional limitation, which is met by nature of the frame being a rigid structure and therefore may be displaced minimally with the respect to the aircraft section, depending on the vertical impact that is sustained.
For claim 16, Dossow teaches an aircraft comprising:
the aircraft section according to claim 1 as modified.
For claim 18, Dossow teaches the aircraft section according to claim 1, wherein the first strap, or the second strap, or both are arranged such as to form an L-shape Rike, Fig, 26: L-shaped strap.
For claim 19, Dossow teaches the aircraft section according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that first and second radii are defined between a longitudinal axis of the fuel storage tank and each of the two attachment portions of the first strap, respectively, and wherein an angle between the first and second radii is between 180° and 270° Rike, Fig. 25 shows the ends of the straps but it is not disclosed what angle they form.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the angle between 180° and 270° in order create a wide enough opening in the anchoring structure for the tank to drop into while still providing structure for the tank to be supported on, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 20, Dossow teaches the aircraft section according to claim 18, but fails to disclose that third and fourth radii are defined between the longitudinal axis of the fuel storage tank and each of the two attachment portions of the second strap, respectively, and wherein an angle between the third and fourth radii is between 180° and 270° Rike, Fig. 25 shows the ends of the straps but it is not disclosed what angle they form.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the angle between 180° and 270° in order create a wide enough opening in the anchoring structure for the tank to drop into while still providing structure for the tank to be supported on, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 21, Dossow teaches the aircraft section according to claim 1, wherein the fibers of the textile materials include at least one of nylon, polyamide, and polyethylene Masters, Para 0069.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dossow in view of Rike and Masters, further in view of Arold et al (US 20170057348 A1).
For claim 3, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a damping layer is provided between the at least one coupling portion and the fuel storage tank.
However, Arold teaches using rubber isolators around the tank Para 0041: “An isolator 25 formed of a rubber-like boundary layer is attached to the arc shaped inner wall 13”; Para 0043: “The strap 60 may have a rubber or rubber-like isolator disposed between the strap 60 and the tank”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dossow by using rubber isolators around the tank as disclosed by Arold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to increase friction, distribute pressure, and reduce vibrations.
For claim 4, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 3, wherein the damping layer is made of an elastomeric material as modified by Arold.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dossow in view of Rike and Masters, further in view of McBurnett et al (US 20160272337 A1).
For claim 5, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a first retention strap, wherein the first retention strap comprises a retention portion in contact with the fuel storage tank, said retention portion being wider than a portion of the first retention strap which is not in contact with the fuel storage tank.
However, McBurnett teaches an aircraft section comprising a fuel storage tank Fig. 1B a first retention strap 124, wherein the first retention strap comprises a retention portion in contact with the fuel storage tank around 116, but fails to disclose said retention portion being wider than a portion of the first retention strap which is not in contact with the fuel storage tank. McBurnett does not disclose the proportions of the strap, but states that it “may comprise at least one of wire, cable, webbing (e.g., nylon or polyester webbing) rope, string, and tape” (Para 0023).
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the strap of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient such as increasing the width where it contacts the tank in order to provide increased load capacity at that point. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
For claim 6, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 5, wherein the fuel storage tank extends along a longitudinal direction, the fuel storage tank having a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end according to the longitudinal direction Fig. 1,
wherein the first strap and the second strap are arranged transversely with respect to the longitudinal direction of the fuel storage tank Fig. 1,
wherein the retention portion of the first retention strap is in contact with the first longitudinal end of the fuel storage tank as modified by McBurnett, and
wherein the first retention strap comprises at least two attachment portions anchored to at least one anchoring structure as modified by McBurnett; securing element 124 is used to secure CGT assembly 100 to at least a portion of an aircraft.
While McBurnett does not state explicitly where the straps will attach, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ends of the retention straps attach to the at least one anchoring structure of Dossow in order to use the structure of the tank mounting frame to further secure the tank, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 7, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 6,
and it would have been obvious to duplicate the parts of:
a second retention strap, wherein the second retention strap comprises a retention portion in contact with the fuel storage tank, said retention portion being wider than a portion of the second retention strap which is not in contact with the fuel storage tank,
wherein the retention portion of the second retention strap is in contact with the second longitudinal end of the fuel storage tank, and
wherein the second retention strap comprises at least two attachment portions anchored to the at least one anchoring structure;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the retention strap on the other side of the tank in order to further secure the tank, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dossow in view of Rike and Masters, further in view of Nelson (US 5267714 A).
For claim 9, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that at least one of the attachment portions of the first strap, or at least one of the attachment portions of the second strap, or at least one attachment portion of an additional strap, or any combination thereof is bifurcated into two attachment subportions, each attachment subportion connected to a different part of the at least one anchoring structure.
However, Nelson teaches a strap for a fuel tank wherein the strap is bifurcated into two attachment subportions Fig. 4: tabs 40, each attachment subportion connected to a different part of the at least one anchoring structure each tab attaches to a different slot 56.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dossow by using the strap connection attachment structure of bifurcated subportions as disclosed by Nelson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide “a greater degree of protection against inadvertent disconnection than prior fastening arrangements” (Nelson, end of Col 1 to top of Col 2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dossow in view of Rike and Masters, further in view of Kiehn et al (US 20220089021 A1).
For claim 10, Dossow discloses the aircraft section according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the first strap, or the second strap, or an additional strap, or any combination thereof comprises two braided strands, wherein each braided strand is connected to a different part of the at least one anchoring structure.
However, Kiehn teaches a fuel tank securement assembly with straps that comprise braided strands Fig. 6: straps 12/13; Para 0022: “the tension element in question is composed of a plurality of individual fibers, or strands, which are twisted and/or braided together” wherein each braided strand is connected to a different part of the at least one anchoring structure the strap assembly 12/13 is connected ends to 14 and 11; both strands would be connected at any connection point of the strap, therefore each strand is connected to a different part.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dossow by including straps 12/13 as an additional securement mechanism as disclosed by Kiehn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to since the back-up strap “serves to catch contain, or retain the compressed gas tank if the tank becomes detached from the tank support” (Kiehn, Para 0013).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rike in view of Masters.
For claim 17, Rike discloses a vehicle section comprising:
a fuel storage tank Fig. 1, a first strap 116, a second strap 116’’, at least one anchoring structure 121, and at least one coupling portion inside portion of 124,
wherein the first strap comprises two attachment portions anchored to the at least one anchoring structure at different points of the at least one anchoring structure Fig. 25-31: strap 116 with two attachment ends, such that one of the at least two attachment portions is anchored to the at least one anchoring structure at a point above a transverse axis of the tank which is parallel to a pitch axis of the vehicle and the other of the at least two attachment portions is attached to the at least one anchoring structure at a point below the transverse axis of the tank Fig. 26: one above and one below the mid-point, where a transverse axis would be,
wherein the second strap comprises two attachment portions anchored to the at least one anchoring structure at different points of the at least one anchoring structure Fig. 25-31: strap 116 with two attachment ends, such that one of the at least two attachment portions is anchored to the at least one anchoring structure at a point above the transverse axis of the tank and the other of the at least two attachment portions is attached to the at least one anchoring structure at a point below transverse axis of the tank Fig. 26: one above and one below the mid-point, where a transverse axis would be, and
wherein the first strap and the second strap are arranged under tension such that the fuel storage tank is maintained pressed against the at least one coupling portion by the first strap and the second strap Fig. 1: tank shown secured by straps against inside surface of 124;
wherein the non-contact portions of the first strap and the second strap extend tangentially away from the fuel storage tank Fig. 26: the straight non-contact portions extend tangentially away
Rike discloses that this frame is to be used on a vehicle, but does not specify that the vehicle is an aircraft, and also does not disclose that the first and second straps are textile materials with fibers of materials.
However, Masters teaches an aircraft fuel tank strap that “can be a strap or rope made from a synthetic or non-synthetic material” “not limited to, polyester, nylon, polyethylene…” (Para 0069).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dossow by using the tank on an aircraft and constructing the strap from textile material with fibers as disclosed by Masters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide tank securement structure to an aircraft and to use a strong, flexible material for the strap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached on (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642