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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/28/2026 has been entered. Claim 16 has been amended. Claim 17 has been cancelled. Claims 16, 18-20, 22, and 25-26 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response. Unfortunately, the claims remain rejected as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding amended claim 16, on page 9 of Applicant’s remarks dated 1/28/2026, Applicant asserts, “However, the tanks that are unloaded from the aircraft ([0079-0081, 0202]) are depleted or partially depleted in order to provide propulsion ([0200], [0201]), which is contrary to amended claim 16. Moreover, if the hydrogen in the tanks is not oxidized to provide thrust, then they would not be used as reserve tanks.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
¶ [0016, 0074, 0187] of Clarke teaches the hydrogen fuel compatible vehicles may comprise one or more hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity using the hydrogen fuel stored within one or more fuel modules, provide electrical output to power consuming units of the vehicle, and store excess electricity within batteries. Examiner takes official notice that hydrogen fuel cells oxidize hydrogen to generate electricity (see Wikipedia- Fuel Cell for extrinsic supporting evidence), thus hydrogen stored on board within one or more fuel modules for use within a hydrogen fuel cell would not have previously been oxidized, and is not used to provide thrust to the airplane. This satisfies the claimed limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation and directly refutes Applicant’s assertion. The claim remains obviated under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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) 16, 19, 22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke et al. (US 20220009648 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Clarke teaches a method of transmitting energy, comprising: a production step of producing hydrogen (¶ [0005-0006, 0009] Figures 2A-2B); a liquefaction step of converting the hydrogen to liquid hydrogen (¶ [0014, 0087-0091] Figures 2A-2B); a first transferring step of transferring the liquid hydrogen into a first tank at a first location (¶ [0005-0006, 0061]. Figures 1, 2A-2B); a transporting step of transporting the first tank to a second location using an airplane (¶ [0009, 0011-0012, 0123-0145]. Figures 1, 2A-2B); a second transferring step of transferring a transmitted portion of the hydrogen out of the first tank at the second location (¶ [0009, 0011-0012, 0079, 0202]. Figures 1, 2A-2B); a gasification step of gasifying the transmitted portion after the second transferring step (¶ [0083] Figures 2A-2B); an oxidation step of oxidizing the gasified transmitted portion to generate thermal, electrical or mechanical energy (¶ [0087-0091] Figures 2A-2B), wherein the tank has a modular structure (Figures 1, 4C-6F. ¶ [0146-0162]), is attached to the airplane after the first transferring step (¶ [0163-0184]) and detached from the airplane before the second transferring step (¶ [0079, 0202-0205]), a second tank containing liquid hydrogen is transported along with the first tank in the transporting step (Figures 1-7, ¶ [0009, 0011-0012, 0079, 0123-0145]), and in the transporting step, hydrogen from the first tank is not oxidized to provide thrust to the plane (¶ [0016, 0074, 0187] of Clarke teaches the hydrogen fuel compatible vehicles may comprise one or more hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity using the hydrogen fuel stored within one or more fuel modules, provide electrical output to power consuming units of the vehicle, and store excess electricity within batteries. Examiner takes official notice that hydrogen fuel cells oxidize hydrogen to generate electricity (see Wikipedia- Fuel Cell for extrinsic supporting evidence), thus hydrogen stored on board within one or more fuel modules for use within a hydrogen fuel cell would not have previously been oxidized, and is not used to provide thrust to the airplane.), but fails to specifically teach that after the first tank is detached from the airplane, the second tank is flown in the airplane and unloaded at a different location so as to transport liquid hydrogen to a third location. However, Clark teaches an end-to-end system whereby aircraft are loaded with a plurality of fuel tanks (¶ [0079-0081, 0202]), where depleted or partially depleted tanks are unloaded from the aircraft (¶ [0079-0081, 0202]), and replaced with new re-filled tanks ( ¶ [0079-0081, 0202]). More, Clark teaches that additional reserve tanks may be on board the aircraft and not need to be filled/re-filled (¶ [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to suggest that Clark’s tank modules that have not been depleted or partially depleted on board aircraft would remain on board the aircraft until they were spent, in order to provide a redundant source of fuel while simultaneously mitigating ground crews having to load/unload full tanks that may be used on a subsequent flight. Finally, Examiner took official notice on pages 3-4 of the Office Action dated 10/29/2025 that “hub-and-spoke” logistics are well known in the art to efficiently transport cargo and passengers around the world for airline operations. The applicant’s failure to successfully traverse the official notice renders such notice admitted prior art. (See MPEP 2144.03) As such, it would have also been obvious to suggest that an aircraft would start in one location (a spoke airport), touchdown at a second location (a hub airport), depart the second location, and arrive a third location (final destination as a spoke airport), in order to facilitate passenger or cargo travel via aircraft.
Regarding claim 19, Clarke teaches the invention in claim 16, wherein gaseous hydrogen is discharged from the first tank to the atmosphere in the transporting step (¶ [0145] of Clarke).
Regarding claim 22, Clarke teaches the invention in claim 16, wherein the first tank is loaded into a fuselage of the airplane (¶ [0007-0012] and Figure 1 of Clarke), moved through the fuselage along a longitudinal axis of the airplane to an attachment position and attached to the airplane at the attachment position (¶ [0007-0012] and Figure 1 of Clarke inasmuch as applicant has claimed); as the first tank moves to the attachment position, an outlet of the first tank facing the movement direction engages with an airplane-side inlet facing the opposite direction to form a coupling (¶ [0007-0012] and Figure 1 of Clarke); the coupling is locked automatically in response to a command from an operator or the movement of the first tank toward the attachment position coupling (¶ [0007-0012, 0121, 0150, 0167] and Figure 1 of Clarke); hydrogen is discharged from the tank through the coupling (¶ [0007-0012, 0121, 0150, 0167] and Figure 1 of Clarke); the coupling is subsequently unlocked automatically in response to a command from the operator prior to detachment of the first tank coupling (¶ [0007-0012, 0121, 0150, 0167] and Figure 1 of Clarke).
Regarding claim 25, Clarke teaches the invention in claim 16, wherein in the second transferring step, the liquid hydrogen is pumped from the tank directly to another tank on another airplane, and the gasification and oxidation steps take place on the other airplane (Figures 2A-2B of Clarke. More, on page 4 of the Office Action dated 10/29/2025, Examiner took official notice that mid-air refueling between aircraft is a standard practice that has occurred in the art since 1923, and would otherwise be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The applicant’s failure to successfully traverse the official notice renders such notice admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Regarding claim 26, Clarke teaches the invention in claim 16, wherein the mass of the transmitted portion is greater than 20 percent of the empty weight of the airplane, preferably greater than 30 percent of the empty weight of the airplane (¶ [0088, 0121, 0122]).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke et al. (US 20220009648 A1) in view of Li (CN 212250268 U).
Regarding claim 18, Clarke teaches the invention in claim 17, but fails to specifically teach wherein the hydrogen is discharged from the first tank as liquid hydrogen and gasified prior to oxidation (¶ [0091] of Clarke); but fails to specifically teach wherein the latent heat of evaporation of the hydrogen that is discharged from the first tank is used to cool an airplane system and/or the transmitted portion. However, using the latent heat of gases discharged from tanks wherein a liquid gas is gasified prior to oxidation is well known in the art as is evidenced by Li (Abstract. Embodiment 1 as explained in ¶ [0047-0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Li, into the hydrogen system of Clarke, in order to recycle waste heat during the gasification process for more efficient energy utilization (as taught by Li).
Regarding claim 20, Clarke teaches the invention in claim 16, further comprising carrying out a control to prevent gauge pressure in the first tank falling below a predetermined pressure in the transporting step (¶ [0076, 0088-0091, 0103-0104, 0143-0144, 0177-0184] of Clarke), but fails to specifically teach wherein the control consists of increasing a supply of heat to the first tank and/or transferring hydrogen to the first tank from an auxiliary tank, an evaporation circuit, or a heat exchanger. However, using heat exchange and/or transferring hydrogen using a plurality of buffer tanks, evaporation circuits, and a heat exchangers is known in the art as is evidenced by Li (Working solution taught in ¶ [0028-0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the teaches of Li into the hydrogen system of Clarke, in order to recycle waste heat during the gasification process for more efficient energy utilization (as taught by Li).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ermanoski (US 20210339858 A1)- teaches an analogous method of transmitting energy comprising the use of a plurality of hydrogen tanks as a reservoir on board an aircraft (¶ [0007, 0050]), wherein the hydrogen is permitted for use as a fuel within an engine or in conjunction with hydrogen fuel cells (¶ [0047]) to power the aircraft (¶[0048]) and external electrical interfaces in response to natural disasters (¶[0055]), and facilitate hydrogen delivery to a plurality of locations and dispensing points (¶[0052-0061) to facilitate local and global distribution.
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 JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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 D 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights