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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-2 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/06/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 3/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a burdensome search due to overlapping scope. This is not found persuasive because even though the scope may overlap to an extent, a burdensome search and serious burden is clearly outlined in the restriction requirement (which is not directly addressed and therefore the arguments are considered unresponsive).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3-8, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allison US 4,505,445.
Re claim 3, Allison teach an aircraft wing (13) comprising: a coolant loop (10, 11) through which a coolant flows, wherein the coolant loop is a closed loop, and wherein a part of the closed loop is formed within a body of the aircraft wing (figs 1-2, col 3) .
Re claim 4, Allison teach the coolant loop comprising: one or more coolant conduits extending along the body of the aircraft wing for flow of the coolant therethrough (noting one conduit is considered in the leading edge and another conduit is in the trailing edge of the aircraft wing; fig 4).
Re claim 5, Allison teach the one or more coolant conduits comprising a first coolant conduit for flow of a hot coolant and a second coolant conduit for flow of a cooled coolant conduit after teat exchange between the hot coolant and the wing body (it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing ; noting the conduits are capable of meeting the functional limitations; 11 and 24).
Re claim 6, Allison teach wherein the one or more coolant conduits extend adjacent a leading edge of the aircraft wing (noting the term adjacent is broad and both are considered adjacent by being in the wing).
Re claim 7, Allison teach wherein the one or more coolant conduits comprising a first coolant conduit for flow of a hot coolant and a second coolant conduit for flow of a cooled coolant conduit after teat exchange between the hot coolant and the wing body (it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing ; see the rejection of claim 5); wherein the first coolant channel is closer to the leading edge than the second coolant channel (figs).
Re claim 8, Allison 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 11 portion).
Re claim 12, Allison teach an aircraft (figs) having one or more aircraft wings as claimed in claim 3 (see the rejection of claim 3).
Re claim 14, Allison teach wherein the coolant loop is arranged to cool components, machines and/or devices on the aircraft (col 3 lines 40-55).
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 4,505,445.
Re claim 3, Mehring teach an aircraft wing (1460) comprising: a coolant loop (1462) through which a coolant flows, wherein the coolant loop is a closed loop, and wherein a part of the closed loop is formed within a body of the aircraft wing (fig 8) .
Re claim 4, Mehring teach the coolant loop comprising: one or more coolant conduits extending along the body of the aircraft wing for flow of the coolant therethrough (fig 8 noting multiple conduits).
Re claim 5, Mehring teach the one or more coolant conduits comprising a first coolant conduit for flow of a hot coolant and a second coolant conduit for flow of a cooled coolant conduit after teat exchange between the hot coolant and the wing body ( it is noted that the italicized limitation is a functional limitation which the reference is capable of performing fig 8 noting multiple conduits).
Re claim 6, Mehring teach wherein the one or more coolant conduits extend adjacent a leading edge of the aircraft wing (fig 8).
Re claim 8, Allison teach wherein the one or more coolant conduits define a wavy or angled path relative to a leading edge of the aircraft wing (fig 8).
Re claim 9, Mehring teach 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
615
708
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).
Re claim 12, Mehring teach an aircraft (figs) having one or more aircraft wings as claimed in claim 3 (see the rejection of claim 3).
Re claim 13, Mehring teach having a fuel cell, and wherein the coolant loop is arranged to cool the fuel cell (para 153).
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) 9-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison in view of Mehring .
Re claim 9, Allison fail to teach members.
Mehring teach 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) to provide structural support that is thermally conductive (para 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include members as taught by Mehring in the Allison invention in order to advantageously allow for a stable wing to be built as known in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
708
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).
Re claim 13, Allison fail to teach a fuel cell.
Mehring teach having a fuel cell, and wherein the coolant loop is arranged to cool the fuel cell (para 153) to provide heat exchange with an onboard component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a fuel cell as taught by Mehring in the Allison invention in order to advantageously allow for a cooling loop to cool a specific device in heat exchange on an aircraft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180051716 A1.
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