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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
206: Fig. 2
451, 453: Fig. 4
551, 553: Fig. 5
702: Fig. 7
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “350A” has been used to designate two different elements in Fig. 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11-22 recite “An aircraft wing…” in the preamble, despite introducing “An aircraft wing” in claim 10. For purposes of examination, these recitations are interpreted as “The aircraft wing…”. 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.
Claims 10-22 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “spars/spar” in claims 10 and 12-14 is used by the claim to mean “elements being located at a respective spanwise position and extending substantially chordwise,” while the accepted meaning is “the main longitudinal members of the wing of an airplane” (www.merriam-webster.com). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The term “ribs/rib” is typically used in the art to mean elements extending chordwise in the wing. Claims 11 and 15-22 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 10 recites “extending substantially chordwise” in lines 2-3 The use of the term “substantially” renders the claim indefinite because the scope of “substantially” is unclear and not defined in the specification, rendering it unclear how close to chordwise the plurality of spars must extend. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12-14, 17 and 22 contain additionally recitations of “substantially” that are similarly rejected. Claims 11, 1-16, and 18-21 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 10 recites “a continuous tank wall defining a serial array of substantially cylindrical hollow elongate tank portions of substantially constant diameter” in lines 5-6, and then continues in lines 10-11 with “a hollow connecting portion having a circular cross-section with a diameter that varies continuously with axial position. It is unclear how the continuous tank wall has a substantially constant diameter while parts of the tank wall around the hollow connection portions have a diameter which varies. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 11-22 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 10 recites “a hollow connecting portion” in line 10, despite previously introducing “hollow connecting portions” in line 8. It is unclear if this recitation in line 10 intends to reference the previous recitation or intends to introduce a new, additional “hollow connecting portion.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 11-22 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 10 recites “an aperture in a respective spar” in the last line, despite previously introducing “a plurality of spars…having a respective aperture therein” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this recitation in the last line intends to reference the previous recitation or intends to introduce a new, additional “aperture” and/or spar. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 11-22 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 12 recites “a second hollow connecting portion” in line 10, despite previously introducing “second hollow connecting portions” in line 8. It is unclear if this recitation in line 10 intends to reference the previous recitation or intends to introduce a new, additional “second hollow connecting portion”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 14 is similarly rejected. Claims 13 and 15-16 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 12 recites “a second aperture of a respective spar” in the last two lines, despite previously introducing “each spare has a respective second aperture” in line 2. It is unclear if this recitation in the last line intends to reference the previous recitation or intends to introduce a new, additional “aperture” and/or spar. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 13 fails to cure the deficiency.
Claim 14 recites “the apertures of a corresponding spar” in lines 3-4. This is indefinite because parent claim 11 only claims each spar as having “a respective aperture therein”, rendering it unclear how many apertures are located in each spar. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 15-16 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 14 recites …”the second substantially hollow elongate tank portions the second hollow connecting portion connects at the axial positions of the second adjacent ends…” in lines 11-13. This appears to contain a grammatical error and is generally unclear/indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 15-16 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 15 recites “the storage volume of the tanks”. This is indefinite because it is unclear which “tanks” are being referred to. Is this intended to refer to “a plurality of second storage tanks” of claim 14, or “a first storage tank” of claim 1, or all of the claimed tanks? Examiner recommends using consistent terminology for clarity. Claim 16 is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 recites “a diameter which varies with axial position” in line 2, despite previously introducing “a diameter which varies continuously with axial position” in claim 10. It is unclear if this recitation in claim 18 intends to reference the previous recitation in claim 10, or intends to introduce a new, additional “diameter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “the wall thickness of the first tank”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “a wall thickness of the first tank.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 22 is similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior arts of record, individually or in combination, do not disclose or render obvious the combined limitations of Applicant’s invention. The closest prior art of record is Xu et al. (CN 106628114 A), hereafter Xu. Specifically, Xu discloses an aircraft wing (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of spars (4) and storage tanks comprising a serial array of substantially hollow elongate tank portions (Fig. 6) with hollow connecting portions (area of 103, Fig. 6).
However the prior art of record does not appear to teach the combined limitations of the Claim 10, specifically wherein the hollow connecting portions have a circular cross-section with a diameter which varies continuously with axial position along the axis between the pair of substantially cylindrical hollow elongate tank portions. While Xu’s connecting portions change diameter (end of 101, Fig. 6), the diameter does not continuously vary with axial position, and it would not be obvious to combine or modify the prior arts of record to teach the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights