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 .
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, 3-6, 9, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linde et al. (US 2022/0411092) (hereinafter Linde) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20120033827 – supplied by Applicant) (hereinafter Lee), with evidence by Robinson et al. (US 3979005) (hereinafter Robinson).
Regarding Claim 1
Linde teaches an aircraft fuel tank (Fig. 1, 16) (Paragraph [0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Linde does not teach the tank comprising 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, wherein the door portion comprises one or more sliding door plates configured to linearly move relative to the frame portion for selectively closing or unclosing the opening.
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, wherein 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 below (Paragraphs [0013]-[0023]).
PNG
media_image2.png
256
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
180
549
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
441
460
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
240
391
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Linde and Lee are analogous inventions in the field of tanks. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the aircraft fuel tank of Linde with the teachings of the anti-sloshing wall arrangement of Lee in order to prevent sloshing of fuel within the tank, which is a known reason for including baffles within aircraft fuel tanks (Robinson – Col. 4, Ln. 7-29). See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding Claim 3
Linde in view of Lee with evidence by Robinson (hereinafter “modified Linde”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Lee further 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
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Lee further 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
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Lee further teaches the 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_image6.png
420
365
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
366
469
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Lee further 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.
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Linde does not specifically teach the opening includes an area of at least 45cm x 50cm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the openings include an area of at least 45cm x 50cm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of the opening including an area of at least 45cm x 50cm does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Linde does not specifically teach the tank has a single entrance into an interior space.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the tank having a single entrance into an interior space, in order to reduce the number of potential leakage points in the tank. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(E). As such, the claim of the tank having a single entrance into an interior space does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Linde further teaches the tank (16) is configured as a pressure vessel for containing liquid hydrogen (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 12
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Linde further teaches the 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]).
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above. Linde further teaches an aircraft (10) comprising: the aircraft fuel tank (16) according to claim 12, and at least one engine configured to be fed with fuel contained in the aircraft fuel tank (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as shown above. Linde further teaches the aircraft fuel tank (16) is integrated in a fuselage (12) of the aircraft (10) (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 15
Linde teaches an aircraft fuel tank (Fig. 1, 16) (Paragraph [0028]).
Linde does not teach the tank comprising 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, wherein the frame portion and the door portion extend orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft fuel tank.
Lee teaches a tank (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, wherein the frame portion (14) and the door portion (100) extend orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft fuel tank, as can be seen in the figures above (Paragraphs [0013]-[0023]).
Linde and Lee are analogous inventions in the field of tanks. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the aircraft fuel tank of Linde with the teachings of the anti-sloshing wall arrangement of Lee in order to prevent sloshing of fuel within the tank, which is a known reason for including baffles within aircraft fuel tanks (Robinson – Col. 4, Ln. 7-29). See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim(s) 1 and 6-15 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) (hereinafter Stumpf), with evidence by Robinson et al. (US 3979005) (hereinafter Robinson).
Regarding Claim 1
Linde teaches an aircraft fuel tank (Fig. 1, 16) (Paragraph [0028]).
Linde does not teach the tank comprising 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, wherein the door portion comprises one or more sliding door plates configured to linearly move relative to the frame portion for selectively closing or unclosing the opening.
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_image8.png
335
362
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
294
329
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Linde and Stumpf are analogous inventions in the field of tanks. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the aircraft fuel tank of Linde with the teachings of the anti-sloshing wall arrangement of Stumpf in order to prevent sloshing of fuel within the tank, which is a known reason for including baffles within aircraft fuel tanks (Robinson – Col. 4, Ln. 7-29). See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding Claim 6
Linde in view of Stumpf with evidence by Robinson (hereinafter “modified Linde”) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Stumpf further 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
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Stumpf further 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
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Stumpf further 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).
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Linde does not specifically teach the opening includes an area of at least 45cm x 50cm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the openings include an area of at least 45cm x 50cm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). As such, the claim of the opening including an area of at least 45cm x 50cm does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Modified Linde does not specifically teach the tank has a single entrance into an interior space.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have the tank having a single entrance into an interior space, in order to reduce the number of potential leakage points in the tank. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(E). As such, the claim of the tank having a single entrance into an interior space does not provide patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Linde further teaches the tank (16) is configured as a pressure vessel for containing liquid hydrogen (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 12
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above. Linde further teaches the 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]).
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as shown above. Linde further teaches an aircraft (10) comprising: the aircraft fuel tank (16) according to claim 12, and at least one engine configured to be fed with fuel contained in the aircraft fuel tank (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Linde teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as shown above. Linde further teaches the aircraft fuel tank (16) is integrated in a fuselage (12) of the aircraft (10) (Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 15
Linde teaches an aircraft fuel tank (Fig. 1, 16) (Paragraph [0028]).
Linde does not teach the tank comprising 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, wherein the frame portion and the door portion extend orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft fuel tank.
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, wherein the frame portion (60) and the door portion (62) extend orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft fuel tank (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. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the aircraft fuel tank of Linde with the teachings of the anti-sloshing wall arrangement of Stumpf in order to prevent sloshing of fuel within the tank, which is a known reason for including baffles within aircraft fuel tanks (Robinson – Col. 4, Ln. 7-29). See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 20 May 2026
Prosecution Insights