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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0048] references “an fastener”. The Examiner believes the Applicant intended to reference “[[an]] a fastener”.
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 13 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 13 currently states “The aircraft according to claim 13, wherein the tank is integrated in a fuselage of the tank.” This appears to be incorrect aircraft anatomy. The Examiner believes the Applicant intended to state “The aircraft according to claim 13, wherein the tank is integrated in a fuselage of the [[tank]] aircraft.” For the purposes of further consideration, the claim has been interpreted as referencing the fuselage of the aircraft. Further clarification or correction is required.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20120033827 – supplied by Applicant) (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 1
Lee teaches a tank (below – Fig. 1-3 and 5) comprising: at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement including a frame portion (14) fixed to a tank wall of the tank, and a door portion (100) configured to selectively close or unclose an opening (12) edged by the frame portion, as can be seen in the figures below (Paragraphs [0013]-[0023]).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
180
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
441
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
240
391
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2
Lee teaches the door portion (100) comprises one or more sliding door plates configured to linearly move relative to the frame portion (14) for selectively closing or unclosing the opening (12), as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 3
Lee teaches the frame portion (14) comprises at least one slide rail guiding the one or more sliding door plates (100), as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 4
Lee teaches in an orientation designated for use of the tank, the one or more sliding door plates (100) are configured to slide vertically, as can be seen in the figures above.
Regarding Claim 5
Lee teaches door portion comprises several sliding door plates (Fig, 6 and 7), at least two sliding door plates (2000/1000) having a hook portion (120) configured to engage with a hook portion (2100) of another sliding door plate, as can be seen in Fig. 7 below (Paragraph [0039]).
PNG
media_image5.png
420
365
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
366
469
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6
Lee teaches the at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement comprises a fastener (120/130) for selectively locking or unlocking the door portion (100) in a predetermined position relative to the frame portion (14), as can be seen in the figures above.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stumpf et al. (US 11192491) (hereinafter Stumpf).
Regarding Claim 1
Stumpf teaches a tank (below – Fig. 9 and 13) comprising: at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement including a frame portion (60) fixed to a tank wall of the tank, and a door portion (62) configured to selectively close or unclose an opening (61) edged by the frame portion (Col. 11, Ln. 56-62; Col. 12, Ln. 63 – Col. 13, Ln. 17; and Col. 13, Ln. 50-61).
PNG
media_image7.png
335
362
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
294
329
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6
Stumpf teaches the at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement comprises a fastener (63) for selectively locking or unlocking the door portion (62) in a predetermined position relative to the frame portion (60), in that the solenoid is intended to maintain (or lock) the position of the door portion over the opening, and then release the door portion from covering the opening (Col. 13, Ln. 50-61).
Regarding Claim 7
Stumpf teaches the fastener (63) is configured to move with an electromagnet (solenoid) comprised by the at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement.
Regarding Claim 8
Stumpf teaches a motor (63) configured to operate the door portion (62) for closing the opening, unclosing the opening, or both (Col. 13, Ln. 50-61).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reber (US 7604256).
Regarding Claim 1
Reber teaches a tank (below – Fig. 3 and 4) comprising: at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement including a frame portion (24) fixed to a tank wall of the tank, and a door portion (32) configured to selectively close or unclose an opening (28) edged by the frame portion (Col. 3, Ln. 5-55).
PNG
media_image9.png
258
442
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
495
495
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6
Reber teaches the at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement comprises a fastener (36) for selectively locking or unlocking the door portion (32) in a predetermined position relative to the frame portion (24), as can be seen in Fig. 5 below.
PNG
media_image11.png
203
228
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9
Reber teaches the opening includes an area of at least 45cm x 50cm (Col. 3, Ln. 45-49).
Regarding Claim 10
Reber teaches the tank has a single entrance (13) into an interior space, as can be seen in the Fig. 3 above.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde et al. (US 2022/0411092) (hereinafter Linde) in view of Stumpf et al. (US 11192491).
Regarding Claim 11
Linde teaches a tank (below – Fig. 1), wherein the tank (16) is configured as a pressure vessel for containing liquid hydrogen (Paragraph [0028]).
PNG
media_image12.png
337
558
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Linde does not teach at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement including a frame portion fixed to a tank wall of the tank, and a door portion configured to selectively close or unclose an opening edged by the frame portion.
Stumpf teaches a tank (Fig. 9 and 13) comprising: at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement including a frame portion (60) fixed to a tank wall of the tank, and a door portion (62) configured to selectively close or unclose an opening (61) edged by the frame portion (Col. 11, Ln. 56-62; Col. 12, Ln. 63 – Col. 13, Ln. 17; and Col. 13, Ln. 50-61).
Linde and Stumpf are analogous inventions in the field of tanks for transporting liquids. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tank of Linde with the teachings of the anti-sloshing wall arrangement of Stumpf in order to lessen the dynamic load that the fluid exerts on the tank as it moves within the interior space due to the movement of the tank (Col. 12, Ln. 64-66).
Regarding Claim 12
Linde teaches a tank (16) configured to be mounted in an aircraft (10), for feeding an engine of the aircraft with fuel contained in the tank (Paragraph [0018]).
Linde does not teach at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement including a frame portion fixed to a tank wall of the tank, and a door portion configured to selectively close or unclose an opening edged by the frame portion.
Stumpf teaches a tank (Fig. 9 and 13) comprising: at least one anti-sloshing wall arrangement including a frame portion (60) fixed to a tank wall of the tank, and a door portion (62) configured to selectively close or unclose an opening (61) edged by the frame portion (Col. 11, Ln. 56-62; Col. 12, Ln. 63 – Col. 13, Ln. 17; and Col. 13, Ln. 50-61).
Linde and Stumpf are analogous inventions in the field of tanks for transporting liquids. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the tank of Linde with the teachings of the anti-sloshing wall arrangement of Stumpf in order to lessen the dynamic load that the fluid exerts on the tank as it moves within the interior space due to the movement of the tank (Col. 12, Ln. 64-66).
Regarding Claim 13
Linde in view of Stumpf (hereinafter “modified Linde”) teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above. Linde further teaches an aircraft (10) comprising: the tank (16) according to claim 12, and at least one engine configured to be fed with fuel contained in the tank (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as shown above. Linde further teaches the tank (16) is integrated in a fuselage (12) of the aircraft (10) (Paragraph [0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-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, 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights