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 .
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 2 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 2, line 2, states “and angularly offset by about 180 degrees.” It is not understood what aspect of the first and second walls is offset by 180 degrees. This may be referring to a hole pattern for the duct(s) that pass through the first and second walls. Claim 2 is indefinite.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over applicant admitted prior art including prior art Fig. 1 and 2 and any mention of prior art in the written specification (AAPA) in view of Meyer-Blumenroth et al. (US 2023/0321607) (Meyer) and Hess (US 4318692).
The AAPA of Fig. 1 discloses a tank comprising: an outer enclosure, an inner enclosure positioned in the outer enclosure, first and second connection systems connecting the outer and inner enclosures, a first wall fastened to or forming part of the outer enclosure, a second wall fastened to or forming part of the inner enclosure, and at least one duct passing through the first and second walls, the first and second walls comprising, for each duct, respectively, first and second orifices to allow the duct to pass therethrough, wherein the tank further comprises, for each duct, first and second rigid connections connecting the duct and, respectively, the first and second walls, wherein each duct comprises an intermediate segment situated between the first and second walls. The intermediate segments of the ducts are straight pipes. The AAPA fails to disclose that the intermediate segment has a curved path and helical shape.
Meyer teaches a membrane filter as shown in Fig. 8 and 8A. The membrane tubes are arranged in triple helixes (three tubes curved about a same helix axis). Meyer teaches a first wall (end face 2) and a second wall (end face 2a), each tube is a duct, each duct having an intermediate segment situated between the first and second walls, each intermediate segment has a curved, helically shaped path such that the segment length exceeds the minimum spacing distance between the first and second walls. However, each intermediate segment path is several multiples of one 360 degree rotation of the helix. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of all of the intermediate segments of the ducts to be a multiple helix and curved about the same helix axis as this configuration of multiple helixes provides a stress tolerant design that tolerates longitudinal stresses (see paragraph [153] of Meyer).
Hess teaches a helical duct 40, a duct that follows a helical path, the trajectory of the helical path extends approximately 180 degrees of rotation as stated in column 5, lines 32-39. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the length in degrees of rotation to be less than 360 degrees as (1) the amount of helical turning in a confined space would reduce the complexity of manufacture and (2) the reduction in stress would be maintained.
Re claim 2, the first wall of the AAPA has a first plane corresponding to a surface exposed to ambient conditions and the second wall of the AAPA has a second plane corresponding to a surface exposed to the inner enclosure, the first and second walls of the AAPA are substantially parallel to each other and angularly offset by about 180°.
Re claim 4, the first connection system of the AAPA comprises: a tubular interface passing through the outer and inner enclosures, connected thereto and having a first end opening out to an outside of the outer enclosure, and a second end opening out to an inside of the inner enclosure, a first closure plate closing the first end of the tubular interface and forming the first wall, and, a second closure plate closing the second end of the tubular interface and forming the second wall.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Meyer and Hess as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Preston (US 25151836).
The combination fails to disclose use on an aircraft. Preston teaches an apparatus for holding and vaporizing liquefied gases with an outer enclosure and an inner enclosure and is suited for use on an aircraft for breathing purposes. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the tank on an aircraft for the storage of a liquefied gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcame the rejection of record and applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection (AAPA in view of Fernandes) has been withdrawn. A new ground of rejection has been made in view of the “rotation of less than 360 degrees” limitation added to claim 1.
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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733