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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/14/2025.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Further recognition:
The rejections pursuant to 112(b) with respect to claim 5 are withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/09/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “wherein entrainment of gaseous hydrogen within the liquid hydrogen is kept at or below a threshold amount during changes in aircraft pitch within the operating pitch range,” was not described in the original disclosure.
The closest description is found in the specification paragraph 0043 “To the extent that any gaseous hydrogen is entrained in the liquid hydrogen flowing through the fuel extraction line 267 to the liquid hydrogen pump 152, the suction adaptor 158 is configured to separate the gaseous hydrogen from the liquid hydrogen, and the gaseous hydrogen is recirculated back to the fuel tank 200”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of claim limitation “fuel delivery assembly" in at least claim 1.
Corresponds to “a liquid hydrogen pump 152, including a motor 154, to distribute the liquid hydrogen in the fuel delivery assembly 150. A discharge line 156 fluidly connects the liquid hydrogen pump 152 to the downstream components of the fuel delivery assembly 150.
[0043] A suction adaptor 158 is located upstream of the liquid hydrogen pump 152 and fluidly connects the fuel extraction line 267 and hydrogen vapor return line 269” in 0042-0043 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant has added the limitation “wherein entrainment of gaseous hydrogen within the liquid hydrogen is kept at or below a threshold amount during changes in aircraft pitch within the operating pitch range,” of the claim 1.
In the originally filed specification in paragraph 0043 “To the extent that any gaseous hydrogen is entrained in the liquid hydrogen flowing through the fuel extraction line 267 to the liquid hydrogen pump 152, the suction adaptor 158 is configured to separate the gaseous hydrogen from the liquid hydrogen, and the gaseous hydrogen is recirculated back to the fuel tank 200.”
There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 21 is/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 Claim 1, the term “about” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “about” 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 apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore “over an operating pitch range of the aircraft, an angle between the fuel extraction line and a horizontal plane is maintained within a range from about five degrees to about thirty degrees” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 21, the term “maximum” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “maximum” 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 apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore “wherein the downward angle is at least five degrees greater than a maximum pitch angle of the aircraft when the pitch angle varies from about minus five degrees to about plus twenty degrees” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 21, the term “about” is a relative terms which renders the claim indefinite.
The term “about” 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 apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore “wherein the downward angle is at least five degrees greater than a maximum pitch angle of the aircraft when the pitch angle varies from about minus five degrees to about plus twenty degrees” is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-15 are rejected to because of dependency from an objected to claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 1 is cited as containing allowable subject matter.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Epstein et al. (US20140026597A1), in view of Keeping (US2940631A) and further in view of Czapla et al. (US20230045036A1).
A fuel system for an aircraft, the fuel system comprising:
a fuel tank configured to hold hydrogen fuel in a liquid phase, the fuel tank having
a chamber for holding the hydrogen fuel and
(ii) a fuel extraction line fluidly coupled to the chamber, at least a portion of the fuel extraction line directly attached to the fuel tank, the portion of the fuel extraction line directly attached to the fuel tank extending from the fuel tank at a downward angle relative to a centerline of the fuel tank, the downward angle being greater than twenty degrees;
a liquid hydrogen pump fluidly connected to the fuel extraction line, the fuel extraction line extending from the fuel tank to the liquid hydrogen pump; and
a fuel delivery assembly fluidly coupled to the liquid hydrogen pump downstream of the liquid hydrogen pump to receive liquid hydrogen from the fuel tank to provide the hydrogen fuel from the fuel tank to a power generator; and
with at least ninety-nine percent by mass of the hydrogen fuel received by the fuel delivery assembly being in the liquid phase.
In contrast to the claimed features of wherein, over an operating pitch range of the aircraft, an angle between the fuel extraction line and a horizontal plane is maintained within a range from five degrees to thirty degrees such that the fuel tank supplies hydrogen fuel to the fuel delivery assembly in the liquid phase, and
wherein entrainment of gaseous hydrogen within the liquid hydrogen is kept at or below a threshold amount during changes in aircraft pitch within the operating pitch range.
It would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 1 with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern).
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763