DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed on 3/3/2026 has been entered. Claims 7-9 cancelled.
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 § 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 1, 6, 10 including 2-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in line 5 “the aircraft”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for the bolded limitation, because it has not been recited previously.
Claim 6 recites “the skin component”. It is unclear if the bolded limitation refers to aircraft skin component, therefore it makes the claimed limitations indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted as aircraft skin component.
Claim 10 recites “an aircraft”. It is unclear if the bolded limitation refers to the previously claimed limitation in claim 1. Not only does the phrase in claim 10 lacks a definite article (e.g. the or said) but the limitation is inconsistently recited.8Attorney Docket No.: 1006/0395PUS1
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman (US 10,307,871 B2), in view of Grip (US 2023/0140102 A1), in view of Bannink (US 4,556,591), and in view of Palombini (US 2024/0051676 A1).
Claim 1: Coleman discloses an aircraft fuel cell arrangement, comprising:
an aircraft cooling device (to clarify, as claimed aircraft cooling device is aircraft skin component, further skin component is a composite structure that can be used in any application including aircraft) for cooling a fluid, or the drainage device, or both of an aircraft in flight, the aircraft cooling device configured as an aircraft skin component (aircraft is intended use; to clarify, skin component is a composite structure that can be used in any application including aircraft) for the aircraft (intended use),
the aircraft skin component comprising
an integrated ply (layer 306) of one or more hollow fibers (1102), each hollow fiber (1102) of the integrated ply configured for conducting the fluid (fluid transfer 1103) from one end portion to another end portion (column 72 lines 48-55: fluid transfer component comprises of hollow fibers which the inner surface 1107 of hollow fibers 1102 define channels through which transfer fluid 1103 flows in the fluid transfer component 1105) of the hollow fiber (1102) such that the fluid supply (column 65 lines 4-5: fluid is pumped from reservoir) or the drainage device is configured to pump the fluid through the one or more hollow fibers of the integrated ply (306); and an integrated fiber arrangement of one or more hollow fibers (column 52 lines 1-4: channels of bundle of fibers used as fiber arrangement), each hollow fiber (1102) of the integrated fiber arrangement (channels of bundle of fibers used as fiber arrangement) configured for conducting a fluid from one end portion to another end portion (functional language/intended use) of the hollow fiber (1102) such that the fluid is pumped through (column 61 line45-47; column 66 line 42: fluid is pumped by pump to flow through channels) the one or more hollow fibers (1102), in fluid connection with the integrated fiber arrangement for pumping the fluid (column 66 line 42: fluid is pumped by pump) through the one or more hollow fibers (1102) of the fiber arrangement (channels of bundle of fibers used as fiber arrangement).
Coleman discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, but fails to disclose an aircraft fluid supply or drainage device, a fuel cell device fluidically connected with the aircraft fluid supply or drainage device, wherein the fuel cell device includes a polar plate.
However, Palombini teaches an aircraft fluid supply (paragraph [29]: coolant source 144 includes a tank to supply coolant by pump through channels 132) for the purpose of absorbing and dissipating heat in cooling device of the aircraft (paragraph [3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Coleman to include an aircraft fluid supply as taught by Palombini to be in fluid communication with the aircraft skin component of Coleman in order to absorb and to dissipate heat in cooling device of the aircraft.
Further, Grip teaches a fuel cell device (paragraph [167]: fuel tanks used as fuel cell device) fluidly connected with the aircraft fluid supply (intended use; taught by Palombini) for the purpose of reducing interference drag which significantly improves the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft (paragraph [3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Coleman to include a fuel cell device as taught by Grip in order to reduce interference drag which significantly improves the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft.
Further, Bannink teaches a polar plate (column 3 lines 47-50: plate made from multiple of laminations in form of fiber, plates forming wings, fuselage and fuel tanks 12 integral within the wing, plate structure forming fuel tank) for the purpose of reducing maintenance cost and providing a light weight and stiff fuel tank to prevent damages from fatigue in the sense that metal material does (column 1 line 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Coleman to include a polar plate as taught by Bannink in order to reduce maintenance cost and providing a light weight and stiff fuel tank to prevent damages from fatigue in the sense that metal material does.
Claim 2: Coleman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more hollow fibers (1102) of the integrated fiber arrangement, or the one or more hollow fibers (1102) of the integrated ply (306), or both respectively and independently:
are configured as carbon fibers (column 7 line 6); or
are configured for structure-reinforcing the skin component; or
include one or more cavities extending from one of the end portions to the other of the end portions of the hollow fiber (to clarify, hollow fibers includes cavities to form channels through which fluid flows through the cavities; see column 72 lines 52-55, see FIG.11 fibers 1102 include cavities inside inner surface 1107 of fibers); or a combination thereof.
Claim 3: Coleman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the skin component is configured as a composite (column 7 lines 39-44: each layer has different thermal mechanical properties such as composite materials), a laminate, or both.
Claim 4: Coleman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the integrated ply (306) is integrated in an outermost layer (to clarify, outer most layer 306 is at top of the laminate structure) of the skin component (FIG.3).
Claim 5: Coleman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more hollow fibers (1102) are configured for conducting a coolant (column 63 lines 18-22: fluid transfer component includes hollow fibers with a heat transfer fluid flowing through fibers to cool a liquid).
Claim 6: Coleman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed 1, wherein the skin component (to clarify, skin component is a composite structure with fibers matrix arrangement that can be used in any application including aircraft) comprising a wing-fuselage fairing, or a belly fairing, or any part of either (Grip, paragraph [135]: aircraft includes the skin panel with wing-fuselage joint covered by wing fairing).
Claim 10: Coleman as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, an aircraft (intended use; column 59 line 9: aircraft).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on page 4: “There is nothing in the cited art, alone or in combination that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Coleman in such a way that they would arrive at the presently claimed embodiments. Thus, Applicant submits that claim 1 includes features that are neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited art, alone or in combination. Thus, claim 1 and those claims that depend therefrom or refer thereto should be allowable over the cited art. Arguments regarding limitations “a fuel cell device fluidically connected with the aircraft fluid supply or drainage device, the fuel cell device includes a polar plate, the polar plate including an integrated fiber arrangement of one or more hollow fibers, each hollow fiber of the integrated fiber arrangement configured for conducting a fluid from one end portion to another end portion of the hollow fiber such that the fluid is pumped through the one or more hollow fibers, the aircraft fluid supply or drainage device in fluid connection with the integrated fiber arrangement for pumping the fluid through the one or more hollow fibers of the fiber arrangement”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because: Coleman is only modified by Grip to teach fuel cell device (paragraph [167]: fuel tanks used as fuel cell device) configured to be fluidly connected with the aircraft fluid supply (aircraft fluid supply is intended use) in order to reduce interference drag which significantly improves the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft (paragraph [3] of Grip).
Further, Coleman is only modified by Bannink to teach a polar plate (column 3 lines 47-50: plate made from multiple of laminations in form of fiber, plates forming wings, fuselage and fuel tanks) in order to reduce maintenance cost and providing a light weight and stiff fuel tank to prevent damages from fatigue in the sense that metal material does (column 1 line 33 of Bannink).
Note that Coleman discloses integrated fiber arrangement of one or more hollow fibers (integrated ply 306 of hollow fibers 1102), and each hollow fiber (1102) being configured for conducting a fluid (functional language/intended use) from one end portion to another end portion (to clarify, end portions are inherent to structure of hollow fiber 1102) of the hollow fiber (1102) such that the fluid can be pumped (column 65 lines 4-5: fluid is pumped from reservoir) through the one or more hollow fibers (1102), the aircraft fluid supply (column 50 lines 52-56: fluid transfer system comprises valve to supply line when valve opens fluid transfer component automatically drains into reservoir) as indicated in the office action above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 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, Len Tran can be reached on (571) 272-1184. 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.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights