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 .
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 depends from a cancelled claim. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the has been interpreted to depend from claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
Claim(s) 3-6, 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knapp et al. US 10,759,539 B2.
Re claim 3, Knapp et al. teach an aircraft having a fuel cell (130, 132) and one or more aircraft wings (fig 2, 114) comprising:
a coolant loop (138, 150, 142, 144) through which a coolant flows, wherein the coolant loop is a closed loop (fig 4),
wherein the closed coolant loop is arranged such that a first part of the closed coolant
loop (142, 144) is positioned adjacent the fuel cell to exchange heat with the fuel cell, and such that a second part of the closed coolant loop is formed within a body of the aircraft wing (150, fig 2); wherein the second part of the closed coolant loop formed within the body of the aircraft wing comprises a first coolant conduit (170a) and a second coolant conduit (170b); wherein the first coolant conduit and the second coolant conduit are located adjacent each other and close to or at a leading edge of the wing body (figs 2, 4); wherein hot coolant, which has become hot by performing its cooling function at the fuel cell, flows into the part of the closed coolant loop that forms the first coolant conduit, wherein the wing body performs heat exchange with the hot coolant, causing the wing body temperature to increase and the coolant temperature to decrease, and wherein the cooled coolant then returns along the wing body via the second coolant conduit (col 8).
Rew claim 4, Knapp et al. teach wherein the first coolant conduit and the second coolant conduit extend along the body of the aircraft wing for flow of the coolant therethrough (see the rejection of claim 3).
Rew claim 5, Knapp et al. teach the first coolant conduit and the second coolant conduit comprising: an inlet end of the first coolant conduit for flow of a hot coolant into the first coolant conduit; and an outlet end of the second coolant conduit for flow of a cooled coolant out
of the second coolant conduit after heat exchange between the hot coolant and the wing body (192, 194).
Re claim 6, Knapp et al. teach wherein the first coolant conduit and the second coolant conduit extend adjacent a leading edge of the aircraft wing (see the rejection of claim 3, figs).
Re claim 8, Knapp et al. teach wherein the one or more coolant conduits define a wavy or angled path relative to a leading edge of the aircraft wing (figs noting the U-turn of the path at the end).
Re claim 14, Knapp et al. teach wherein the coolant loop is arranged to cool components, machines and/or devices on the aircraft (136, 137, noting that a working pump generates heat and naturally the cooling flow is capable or removing heat from the pump).
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 (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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp et al. in view of Allison US 4,505,445.
Re claim 7, Knapp et al. fail to explicitly teach conduit details.
Allison teach wherein the first conduit is closer to the leading edge than the second
coolant channel conduit (fig 3, col 3) to emit heat to the trailing edge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include conduit details as taught by Allison in the Knapp et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for heat removal efficiency in a aircraft wing cooling loop
Claim(s) 9-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp et al. in view of Mehring US 10,618,636 B2.
Re claim 9, Knapp et al. fail to explicitly teach heat conductive members.
Mehring teach wherein the one or more aircraft wings further comprise further comprising: heat conductive members (annotated fig, 1476, 1474) extending across the body of the wing to conduct heat from the coolant across the wing (it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing) (para 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include heat conductive members as taught by Mehring in the Knapp et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for stability and improved heat exchange in operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 10, Mehring teach wherein the heat conductive members are ribs across the width of the wing body (see the rejection of claim 9, para 135).
Re claim 11, Mehring teach wherein the coolant loop is formed by spars along the aircraft wing (see the rejection of claim 9, para 135).
Additionally Re claim 14, Knapp et al. teach wherein the coolant loop is arranged to cool components, machines and/or devices on the aircraft ( noting that struts etc holding the conduits will increase heat due to heat exchange but also have heat taken away via the fluid in a conduit, see the rejection of claim 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 3 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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 at 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 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights