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 .
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. (PBA)
DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
Claims 1-20 are pending as the applicant filed on 05/24/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 18 are 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.
Regarding claims 1-8, 10, 11, 16, 17 and 18 the term “normal operating conditions” is vague and a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal operating conditions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “normal operating conditions” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “normal operating conditions” occurs.
Note: In view of the PTO compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that due to the indefiniteness issues described above all consideration of the merits of the claims in view of prior art is as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to an aircraft fuel tank monitoring system, comprising: a processor for monitoring the change in the pressure of the fuel within the fuel tank over a time period and for monitoring the change in the pressure of the ullage space within the fuel tank over the time period, and to determine a fault if the monitored pressure changes exceed normal operating conditions which is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of at least one first sensor for sensing a pressure of fuel within a fuel tank are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of at least one second sensor for sensing a pressure of an ullage space above the fuel within the fuel tank appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible.
Claim 9, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to an aircraft fuel tank monitoring system, comprising: a processor for monitoring the change in the pressure of the ullage spaces within the respective fuel tanks over a time period, wherein the ullage spaces are coupled by a cross vent line, and wherein the processor is configured to determine a fault if a pressure difference between the ullage spaces of the respective fuel tanks exceeds a threshold which is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of at least one sensor for sensing a pressure of an ullage space above fuel within a first fuel tank are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of at least one sensor for sensing a pressure of an ullage space above fuel within a second fuel tank appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 9 not eligible.
Claim 16, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method of monitoring an aircraft fuel tank, comprising: monitoring the change in the pressure of the fuel within the fuel tank over a time period and monitoring the change in the pressure of the ullage space within the fuel tank over the time period, and determining a fault if the monitored pressure changes exceed normal operating conditions which is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of sensing a pressure of fuel within a fuel tank are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of sensing a pressure of an ullage space above the fuel within the fuel tank appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 16 not eligible.
Claim 2 related to wherein the ullage space is fluidly coupled to ambient via a vent, and the processor is configured to monitor the pressure changes and to determine a fault if a blockage in the vent or in a vent line between the ullage space and the vent is deduced from the monitored pressure changes exceeding normal operating conditions, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2 not eligible.
Claim 3 related to wherein the fuel tank is fluidly coupled to a surge tank, and the processor is configured to monitor the pressure changes and to determine a fault if an imminent overspill from the fuel tank to the surge tank is deduced from the monitored pressure changes exceeding normal operating, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 3 not eligible.
Claim 4 related to wherein the ullage space is coupled to ambient via a pressure relieving system, and the processor is configured to monitor the pressure changes and to determine a fault if a failure or activation in the pressure relieving system is deduced from the monitored pressure changes, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 4 not eligible.
Claim 5 related to wherein the processor is configured to determine a fault if both the pressure of the fuel within the fuel tank and the pressure of the ullage space within the fuel tank increase over the time period, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 5 not eligible.
Claim 6 related to wherein the processor is configured to calculate a change in a volume of the fuel within the fuel tank based on the first sensor, and wherein the processor is configured to determine a fault if both the volume of the fuel within the fuel tank and the pressure of the ullage space within the fuel tank decrease over the time period, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 6 not eligible.
Claim 7 related to at least one third sensor for sensing a pressure of an ullage space above fuel in another fuel tank, wherein the processor is configured to monitor the change in the pressure of the ullage spaces within the respective fuel tanks, wherein the ullage spaces are coupled by a cross vent line, and wherein the processor is configured to determine a fault if a pressure difference between the ullage spaces of the respective fuel tanks exceeds a threshold, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 7 not eligible.
Claim 8 related to wherein the ullage spaces are fluidly coupled to ambient via one or more vents and the processor is configured to monitor the pressure changes and to determine a fault if a blockage in the one or more vents or in a vent line between the ullage space and the vent or in the cross vent line is deduced from the monitored pressure changes exceeding normal operating conditions, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 8 not eligible.
Claim 10 related to wherein the ullage spaces are fluidly coupled to ambient via one or more vents and the processor is configured to monitor the pressure changes and to determine a fault if a blockage in the one or more vents or in a vent line between the ullage space and the vent or in the cross vent line is deduced from the monitored pressure changes exceeding normal operating conditions, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 10 not eligible.
Claim 11 related to wherein the cross vent line has an isolator to prevent fluid transfer along the cross vent line during normal operating conditions, and wherein the processor is configured to determine a fault when the isolator has permitted fluid transfer along the cross vent line during abnormal operating conditions based on the change in the pressure of the ullage spaces within the respective fuel tanks over the time period, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 11 not eligible.
Claim 12 related to wherein the sensors are part of a fuel level monitoring system for determining a level of fuel within the fuel tank, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 12 not eligible.
Claim 13 related to wherein the sensors are each configured to sense absolute pressure, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 13 not eligible.
Claim 14 related to wherein the system is configured to create an alert if the processor determines a fault, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 14 not eligible.
Claim 15 related to , wherein the system is configured to operate one or more valves for isolating or diverting pressure within one or more fuel tanks if the processor determines a fault, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 15 not eligible.
Claim 17 related to , wherein the ullage space is fluidly coupled to ambient via a vent, and the method further comprises monitoring the pressure changes and determining a fault if a blockage in the vent or in a vent line between the ullage space and the vent is deduced from the monitored pressure changes exceeding normal operating conditions, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 17 not eligible.
Claim 18 related to wherein the fuel tank is fluidly coupled to a surge tank, and the method further comprises monitoring the pressure changes and determining a fault if an imminent overspill from the fuel tank to the surge tank is deduced from the monitored pressure changes exceeding normal operating conditions, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 18 not eligible.
Claim 19 related to wherein the ullage space is coupled to ambient via a pressure relieving system, and the method further comprises monitoring the pressure changes and determining a fault if a failure or activation in the pressure relieving system is deduced from the monitored pressure changes, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 19 not eligible.
Claim 20 related to determining a fault if both the pressure of the fuel within the fuel tank and the pressure of the ullage space within the fuel tank increase over the time period, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 20 not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9, 16, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10s (a) (1) as being anticipated by Koenig (US Patent 9318757 B2, Date Published: 2016-04-19)
Regarding claim 1:
Koenig described an aircraft fuel tank monitoring system, comprising (abstract, monitor fuel tank system):
at least one first sensor for sensing a pressure of fuel within a fuel tank (page 3, a pressure storage tank);
at least one second sensor for sensing a pressure of an ullage space above the fuel within the fuel tank (page 4, fuel tank pressure, ventilated, unpressurised region);
a processor for monitoring the change in the pressure of the fuel within the fuel tank over a time period and for monitoring the change in the pressure of the ullage space within the fuel tank over the time period, and to determine a fault if the monitored pressure changes exceed normal operating conditions (page 6, detect a fault caused by an unintentional opening or a failure of the valve).
Regarding claim 9:
Koenig described an aircraft fuel tank monitoring system, comprising (abstract, monitor fuel tank system): at least one sensor for sensing a pressure of an ullage space above fuel within a first fuel tank (page 3, a pressure storage tank);
at least one sensor for sensing a pressure of an ullage space above fuel within a second fuel tank (page 4, fuel tank pressure, ventilated, unpressurised region);
a processor for monitoring the change in the pressure of the ullage spaces within the respective fuel tanks over a time period, wherein the ullage spaces are coupled by a cross vent line, and wherein the processor is configured to determine a fault if a pressure difference between the ullage spaces of the respective fuel tanks exceeds a threshold (page 5, a predetermined critical threshold value, page 6, detect a fault caused by an unintentional opening or a failure of the valve).
Regarding claim 16:
Koenig described a method of monitoring an aircraft fuel tank, comprising (abstract, aircraft fuel tank monitor):
sensing a pressure of fuel within a fuel tank (page 3, a pressure storage tank);
sensing a pressure of an ullage space above the fuel within the fuel tank (page 4, fuel tank pressure, ventilated, unpressurised region);
monitoring the change in the pressure of the fuel within the fuel tank over a time period and monitoring the change in the pressure of the ullage space within the fuel tank over the time period, and determining a fault if the monitored pressure changes exceed normal operating conditions (page 5, a predetermined critical threshold value, page 6, detect a fault caused by an unintentional opening or a failure of the valve).
.
Regarding claim 12, Koenig further described wherein the sensors are part of a fuel level monitoring system for determining a level of fuel within the fuel tank (page 5, inside the fuel tank).
Regarding claim 13, Koenig further described to sense absolute pressure (detect 9 bar)
Regarding claim 14, Koenig further described wherein the system is configured to create an alert if the processor determines a fault (page 8, output a respective warning signal).
Regarding claim 15, Koenig further described wherein the system is configured to operate one or more valves for isolating (page 7-8, isolate valve) or diverting pressure within one or more fuel tanks if the processor determines a fault.
Contact information
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272- 1000.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
July 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights