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 § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 3951362 A) in view of Rohrbach (GB 212942 A), and further in view of Shakesby (US 2369921 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Robinson teaches a fuel tank for an aircraft (Fig. 1 element 10), the fuel tank (Fig. 1 element 14) comprising: two pressure bulkheads (Fig. 1 elements 16 and 17) which are connected to each other by a tank wall (Fig. 1 wall connecting elements 16 and 17); and, at least one anti-sloshing wall (Fig. 1 element 21) at least partially enclosing one or more openings (Openings shown in Fig. 3) and at least partially formed by a belonging frame stabilizing said skin (Shown in Fig. 5).
Robinson fails to explicitly teach a tank wall at least partially formed by a portion of a skin of a fuselage of the aircraft.
However, Rohrbach teaches a tank wall at least partially formed by a portion of a skin of a fuselage of the aircraft (“an airplane having a tank whose walls are formed by the skin and internal structural portions of the aircraft body” Page 1 lines 49-52).
Robinson and Rohrbach are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft fuel tank design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tank of Robinson to have a tank wall at least partially formed by a portion of the aircraft skin as disclosed by Rohrbach. Doing so would reduce the weight of the aircraft as there would not be the additional weight of a tank wall. As upgrades to insulated skin panels have been made, less space is required for insulation around cryogenic tanks.
Robinson and Rohrbach fail to explicitly teach the belonging frame is attached to the at least one anti-sloshing wall and the belonging frame is attached to the skin via at least one flange freely projecting into an interior space of the tank.
However, Shakesby teaches the belonging frame is attached to the at least one anti-sloshing wall and the belonging frame is attached to the skin via at least one flange freely projecting into an interior space of the tank (Fig. 7 free end of element 20 inside the tank).
Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of fuel tanks. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tank of Robinson in view of Rohrbach to have the internal flange connecting the baffle to the skin and frame as disclosed by Shakesby. Doing so would allow for a secure connection between the baffle and the skin/frame while providing more stabilization of the baffle inside the tank.
Regarding Claim 2, Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses at least one of the one or more openings: includes a circular area having a diameter of at least 45cm; or has a diameter of at most 80cm; or both (Shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses the one or more openings is configured as a clearance formed between the at least one anti-sloshing wall and said skin (Fig. 8 shows opening between baffle system 21 and walls 15).
Regarding Claim 4, Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses the at least one anti-sloshing wall is further formed by a belonging wall portion (Fig. 3 element 40) attached to said belonging frame (Fig. 3 element 43).
Regarding Claim 5, Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby teach the limitations set forth in Claim 4.
Robinson further discloses a ratio of a coefficient of thermal expansion of a material of the belonging frame divided by a coefficient of thermal expansion of a material of the belonging wall portion is within a range of 0.9 to 1.1 (Fig. 1 elements 40 and 43 of the same material have the ratio equal to 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby teach the limitations set forth in Claim 4.
Robinson further discloses the belonging wall portion is attached to the belonging frame in a same way as the belonging frame is attached to said skin (Connection of elements 40 and 43).
Regarding Claim 10, Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses a fuselage for an aircraft comprising: the fuel tank according to claim 1 (Shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby teach the limitations set forth in Claim 10.
Robinson further discloses an aircraft comprising: the fuselage according to claim 10 (Shown in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 3951362 A) in view of Rohrbach (GB 212942 A), in view of Shakesby (US 2369921 A) and further in view of Perez Diaz et al. (US 20160355273 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Robinson, Rohrbach and Shakesby fail to explicitly teach the at least one anti-sloshing wall is stabilized with at least one clip joined to both the skin and the frame belonging to the at least one anti-sloshing wall.
However, Perez Diaz teaches at least one anti-sloshing wall is stabilized with at least one clip joined to both the skin and the frame belonging to the at least one anti-sloshing wall (Fig. 3A element 345a shows connection to stringer, skin and wall).
Robinson, Rohrbach, Shakesby and Perez Diaz are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of fuel tank design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Robinson in view of Rohrbach to have the clip connection structure as disclosed by Perez Diaz. Doing so would allow for a secure connection between the baffle wall and the skin while allowing fuel to flow through the gaps as shown by Perez Diaz.
Regarding Claim 9, Robinson, Rohrbach, Shakesby and Perez Diaz teach the limitations set forth in Claim 8.
Perez Diaz further discloses the at least one anti-sloshing wall is further formed by a belonging wall portion attached to said belonging frame, and wherein the at least one clip is further joined to the belonging wall portion of the at least one anti-sloshing wall (Shown in Fig. 3A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejection relying on Shakesby (US 2369921 A) as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644