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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/17/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112 rejections of 1/2/26, the issues have been addressed and therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the prior art rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that since Feinberg already teaches carrying more fuel to extend flight range, there would be no rationale to improve the aerodynamics of the fairing to also improve flight range since it would be redundant. It is unclear what is meant by this – it is of course beneficial to further improve flight range at any point. Applicant then states that Mora does not teach storing fuel in the aerodynamic fairing and that it would not have been obvious to combine the fuel storage into such a fairing. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Feinberg already discloses the features of an aerodynamic fairing which stores fuel – Feinberg just doesn’t teach what shape the outer profile of the fairing is. More is simply introduced to teach that it was known and obvious to shape the fairing in a manner to increase lift and decrease drag. Applicant also states that neither Feinberg nor Mora teach the new limitation that the fairing extends between a forward and rear section of the wing-fuselage intersection. However, both references teach this limitation – Feinberg in Fig. 1 and Mora in Fig. 1c.
Applicant argues that the features which Feinberg does not teach must be non-obvious because Feinberg did not already implement them. This reasoning is essentially stating that no modification could ever be obvious because if it was so obvious then the primary reference would have already done it. This is of course not true. Applicant reasons that “it should be presumed that persons designing aircraft are constantly seeking ways to improve aerodynamics” – this is true and seems to admit that it actually would have been obvious to make the changes to Feinberg since it would be a way to improve aerodynamics.
Applicant argues that the official notice for claim 8 be withdrawn or evidence provided. However, as already stated in the office action dated 1/2/26, due to the failure by applicant to traverse this statement, it is taken as admitted prior art. MPEP 2144.03 (See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420).
Regarding claims 5, 21, and 22 applicant argues that using a pressurized configured to contain a cryogenic material in the fairing is not obvious. Applicant lists many other components that they state are required for a cryogenic container. However, these elements are not claimed. Still, Robert teaches a cryogenic tank in a fairing that is located on the outside of a fuselage (much like in Feinberg), therefore teaching that it is known to include such a tank along with whatever other structure/function is necessary for it to be supported there and to operate. Robert states “The fuel tank 15 is sufficiently thermally insulated” (Para 0067). Applicant does not provide reasons for why it would not be obvious to do – only that one would need to take into account the thermal/structural constraints. Robert teaches this.
Applicant further argues that locating a cryogenic tank is an aerodynamic fairing is not an obvious modification, as it would require thermal and other considerations. Again, Robert teaches a cryogenic tank in an aerodynamic fairing. This tank/fairing is installed outside the fuselage, much like in Feinberg. Therefore, all of these other requirements that the applicant states are not being addressed are in fact rendered obvious by Robert and one of ordinary skill in the art would of course incorporate them.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Regarding the limitations of a conformal fuel tank fitted to conform to the outer skins, applicant has clarified the record and this is interpreted that the tank is in a location where it does conform to the skins.
Applicant then makes statements that the combination of elements for claims 21 and 22 do not take into account the complexity of aircraft subsystems and relies on impermissible hindsight. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant states that Rouyre is concerned with accommodating movement due to temperature changes, but states that a “cryogenic pressurized container introduces an entirely different thermal regime” – different than what? Rouyre does not discuss what type of fuel is to be stored, and it is not relevant to the teaching and motivation. Rouyre is used to teach “a fairing capable of absorbing compression and bending forces caused by the movements of the aircraft” (Para 0004) – which has a benefit no matter what fuel is used as there is movement of aircraft skin due to aerodynamic load, temperature change at altitude, etc. If a cryogenic fuel is used then there may be other thermal considerations, which is discussed above, including insulation which Robert teaches.
Applicant states that Aull’s fuel connection is used in a modular bay system, not in a wing/body fairing and therefore is not applicable. This is not convincing – Aull teaches a fuel/air quick connection, something that is clearly beneficial to almost any fuel tank of any type and any location.
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 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 states “the plurality of hinges corresponds to positions of hinges of conventional fairings, such that the aircraft fuel tank device is interchangeable with other aircraft modules”. It is unclear what is encompassed by “positions of hinges of conventional fairings, such that the aircraft fuel tank device is interchangeable with other aircraft modules”. What makes the location of a hinge conventional, and how does that make the device interchangeable?
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, and 10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (US 20250074618 A1) in view of Mora (US 20140183301 A1).
For claim 1, Feinberg discloses an aircraft fuel tank device Fig. 2: tank 20 for increasing a flight range and a wing area of an aircraft, wherein the aircraft fuel tank device comprises a fairing 18 that is formed and configured:
to at least partly cover an aircraft wing-aircraft fuselage intersection Fig. 1: “wing-to-body fairing”;
to store fuel tank 20;
but fails to disclose that the fairing is configured to provide lift to the aircraft.
However, Mora teaches a fairing that is configured to provide lift Para 0047, Fig. 10: increases coefficient of lift. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by configuring/shaping the fairing as in Mora to provide a lifting function as disclosed by Mora. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve aerodynamics and therefore improve cargo capacity and/or range.
As modified, Feinberg discloses that the fairing is arranged at and extending between a forward section of the aircraft wing-aircraft fuselage intersection and a rear section of the aircraft wing-aircraft fuselage intersection Feinberg Fig. 1, also as modified with Mora in Fig. 1c, thereby enlarging the wing area of the aircraft the fairing extends the area, the forward section being located toward a nose of the aircraft relative to the rear section.
For claim 2, Feinberg discloses the aircraft fuel tank device according to claim 1, wherein:
the aircraft fuel tank device is connectable to an aircraft fuselage and/or an aircraft wing Fig. 1, Para 0008;
the fairing is configured as a belly fairing Fig. 1.
For claim 8, Feinberg discloses the aircraft fuel tank device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the fuel stored within the fairing is distributed inside the fairing such that a mass center of the aircraft fuel tank substantially corresponds to a mass center of the aircraft.
The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention by locating the fuel at the center of mass of the aircraft. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to not change the center of mass of the aircraft as the fuel is used.
The examiner noted in the office action dated 1/2/26 that the applicant had failed to traverse this official notice statement from the previous office action. Therefore, the statement is taken as admitted prior art.
For claim 10, Feinberg discloses an aircraft comprising the aircraft fuel tank device according to claim 1 Fig. 1.
For claim 12, Feinberg discloses the aircraft according to claim 10, wherein the aircraft fuel tank device is fluidly connected to a fueling and transfer line Fig. 2: fuel line 30.
For claim 14, Feinberg discloses the aircraft according to claim 10, wherein the aircraft is a passenger aircraft Para 0008.
For claim 16, Feinberg discloses the aircraft according to claim 14, wherein:
the aircraft fuel tank device is fluidly connected to a fueling and transfer line Fig. 2: fuel line 30.
For claim 17, Feinberg discloses the aircraft according to claim 10, wherein the aircraft is a cargo aircraft Para 0008.
For claim 19, Feinberg discloses the cargo aircraft according to claim 17, wherein:
the aircraft fuel tank device is fluidly connected to a fueling and transfer line Fig. 2: fuel line 30.
For claim 20, Feinberg discloses the aircraft fuel tank device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the fairing is formed and configured to be replaceable, such that a size and/or form of the fairing is selectable depending on a flight distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fairing removable/replaceable in order to access the interior and to replace a damaged fairing, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Claim(s) 11, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (US 20250074618 A1) and Mora (US 20140183301 A1), in view of Dean (US 20220227497 A1).
For claim 11, Feinberg discloses the aircraft according to claim 10, comprising:
an aircraft fuselage Fig. 1: 12; and
an aircraft wing 14;
but fails to disclose that the aircraft fuel tank device is configured as a conformal fuel tank, fitted to conform to an outer skin of the aircraft fuselage and an outer skin of the aircraft wing.
However, Dean teaches a hydrogen fuel tank in a wing-to-body fairing Fig. 7: 514 in which the tank 512A/B conforms to the outer skin of the fuselage and the wing Fig. 7: the tank is nestled in the corner of the fuselage and wing, and therefore conforms to the outer skins. To conform means to comply with or “to be in accordance; fit in” (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/conform). As such, the circular shape of the fuel tank fits in with the corner shape of the fuselage-wing joint.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by using the fuel tank as a conformal fuel tank fitted to conform to an outer skin of the aircraft fuselage and an outer skin of the aircraft wing as disclosed by Dean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to optimize the use of space within the fairing by shaping/locating the fuel tank to conform to the wing and fuselage.
For claim 15, Feinberg discloses the aircraft according to claim 14, comprising:
an aircraft fuselage Fig. 1; and
an aircraft wing Fig. 1;
but fails to disclose that the aircraft fuel tank device is configured as a conformal fuel tank, fitted to conform to an outer skin of the aircraft fuselage and an outer skin of the aircraft wing.
However, Dean teaches a hydrogen fuel tank in a wing-to-body fairing Fig. 7: 514 in which the tank 512A/B conforms to the outer skin of the fuselage and the wing Fig. 7: the tank is nestled in the corner of the fuselage and wing, and therefore conforms to the outer skins. To conform means to comply with or “to be in accordance; fit in” (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/conform). As such, the circular shape of the fuel tank fits in with the corner shape of the fuselage-wing joint.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by using the fuel tank as a conformal fuel tank fitted to conform to an outer skin of the aircraft fuselage and an outer skin of the aircraft wing as disclosed by Dean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to optimize the use of space within the fairing by shaping/locating the fuel tank to conform to the wing and fuselage.
For claim 18, Feinberg discloses the cargo aircraft according to claim 17, comprising:
an aircraft fuselage Fig. 1; and
an aircraft wing Fig. 1;
but fails to disclose that the aircraft fuel tank device is configured as a conformal fuel tank, fitted to conform to an outer skin of the aircraft fuselage and an outer skin of the aircraft wing.
However, Dean teaches a hydrogen fuel tank in a wing-to-body fairing Fig. 7: 514 in which the tank 512A/B conforms to the outer skin of the fuselage and the wing Fig. 7: the tank is nestled in the corner of the fuselage and wing, and therefore conforms to the outer skins. To conform means to comply with or “to be in accordance; fit in” (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/conform). As such, the circular shape of the fuel tank fits in with the corner shape of the fuselage-wing joint.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by using the fuel tank as a conformal fuel tank fitted to conform to an outer skin of the aircraft fuselage and an outer skin of the aircraft wing as disclosed by Dean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to optimize the use of space within the fairing by shaping/locating the fuel tank to conform to the wing and fuselage.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (US 20250074618 A1) in view of Mora (US 20140183301 A1), further in view of Robert (GB 2591255 A).
For claim 5, Feinberg discloses the aircraft fuel tank device according to claim 1, comprising a pressurized container Fig. 2: tank 20, but fails to disclose that the pressurized container is configured to contain a cryogenic medium.
However, Robert teaches a fuel tank that is designed to contain a cryogenic material Para 0065. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by having the tank be designed to contain a cryogenic material as disclosed by Robert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to increase aircraft efficiency” (Robert, Para 0065) and to use an environmentally friendly fuel.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (US 20250074618 A1) in view of Mora (US 20140183301 A1), further in view of Gilmore (US 20230356856 A1) and Booth (US 2675828 A).
For claim 6, Feinberg discloses the aircraft fuel tank device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a pilot valve, a vent pressure valve, and a vent box positioned inside the fairing.
However, Gilmore teaches a fuel tank with a vent pressure valve Para 0047: “the vent and vacuum lines 34 are coupled to a gaseous hydrogen release valve” and vent box Para 0044: “coupling a hydrogen gas tank to the gaseous hydrogen outlet 124 to collect the gaseous hydrogen and possibly store it for re-use”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by providing a vent valve and vent box as disclosed by Gilmore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent over pressurization and to store the gas for safety or reuse.
Additionally, Booth teaches a fuel valve comprising a pilot valve Col 1, line 30. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by providing a pilot valve as disclosed by Booth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to control fuel flow from the fuel tank. As modified, these components would be located in the fairing.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (US 20250074618 A1) in view of Mora (US 20140183301 A1), further in view of Rouyre (US 20060065784 A1).
For claim 7, Feinberg discloses the aircraft fuel tank device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a plurality of hinges for attaching the fairing to an aircraft fuselage of the aircraft and/or an aircraft wing of the aircraft.
However, Rouyre teaches a fairing that is attached to a fuselage via hinges for pivotable movement Fig. 4a: fairing 101/102 attached to fuselage 109 via tie-rod 201/204 which are hinged at 202/205.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by attaching the fairing with hinges as disclosed by Rouyre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for movement of the fairing, for example due to temperature changes, and to therefore avoid stressing the structure.
For claim 13, Feinberg discloses the aircraft according to claim 7, wherein a position of each of the plurality of hinges corresponds to positions of hinges of conventional fairings, such that the aircraft fuel tank device is interchangeable with other aircraft modules as best understood, the hinges of Rouyre are in conventional positions and are usable with other modules.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (US 20250074618 A1) in view of Mora (US 20140183301 A1), further in view of Aull (US 20160229536 A1).
For claim 9, Feinberg discloses the aircraft fuel tank device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a fuel and air quick disconnecting element.
However, Aull teaches a fuel tank with a fuel and air quick disconnect element Fig. 24, Para 0145.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by providing a quick disconnect element as disclosed by Aull. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the tank to be connected to the aircraft quickly.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (US 20250074618 A1) in view of Mora, Robert, Gilmore, Booth, Rouyre, and Aull.
For claim 21, Feinberg discloses an aircraft fuel tank device Fig. 2: tank 20 for increasing a flight range and a wing area of an aircraft, wherein the aircraft fuel tank device comprises a fairing 18 formed and configured:
to at least partly cover an aircraft wing-aircraft fuselage intersection Fig. 1: “wing-to-body fairing”;
to store fuel tank 20.
Feinberg fails to disclose that the fairing is configured to provide lift to the aircraft.
However, Mora teaches a fairing that is configured to provide lift Para 0047, Fig. 10: increases coefficient of lift. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by configuring the fairing to provide a lifting function as disclosed by Mora. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve aerodynamics and therefore improve cargo capacity and/or range.
As modified, Feinberg discloses that the fairing is arranged at and extending between a forward section of the aircraft wing-aircraft fuselage intersection and a rear section of the aircraft wing-aircraft fuselage intersection Feinberg Fig. 1, also as modified with Mora in Fig. 1c, thereby enlarging the wing area of the aircraft the fairing extends the area, the forward section being located toward a nose of the aircraft relative to the rear section.
Feinberg fails to disclose that the pressurized container is configured to contain a cryogenic medium.
However, Robert teaches a fuel tank that is designed to contain a cryogenic material Para 0065. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by having the tank be designed to contain a cryogenic material as disclosed by Robert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to increase aircraft efficiency” (Robert, Para 0065) and to use an environmentally friendly fuel.
Feinberg fails to disclose a pilot valve, a vent pressure valve, and a vent box positioned inside the fairing.
However, Gilmore teaches a fuel tank with a vent pressure valve Para 0047: “the vent and vacuum lines 34 are coupled to a gaseous hydrogen release valve” and vent box Para 0044: “coupling a hydrogen gas tank to the gaseous hydrogen outlet 124 to collect the gaseous hydrogen and possibly store it for re-use”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by providing a vent valve and vent box as disclosed by Gilmore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent over pressurization and to store the gas for safety or reuse.
Additionally, Booth teaches a fuel valve comprising a pilot valve Col 1, line 30. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by providing a pilot valve as disclosed by Booth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to control fuel flow from the fuel tank.
Feinberg fails to disclose a plurality of hinges, by which the fairing is attached to an aircraft fuselage of the aircraft and/or an aircraft wing of the aircraft
However, Rouyre teaches a fairing that is attached to a fuselage via hinges for pivotably movement Fig. 4a: fairing 101/102 attached to fuselage 109 via tie-rod 201/204 which are hinged at 202/205.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by attaching the fairing with hinges as disclosed by Rouyre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for movement of the fairing, for example due to temperature changes, and to therefore avoid stressing the structure.
Feinberg fails to disclose a fuel and air quick disconnecting element.
However, Aull teaches a fuel tank with a fuel and air quick disconnect element Fig. 24, Para 0145.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by providing a quick disconnect element as disclosed by Aull. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the tank to be connected to the aircraft quickly.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (US 20250074618 A1) in view of Mora, Robert, Gilmore, Booth, Rouyre, Aull, and Dean.
For claim 22, Feinberg discloses an aircraft comprising:
an aircraft fuselage Fig. 1;
an aircraft wing Fig. 1; and
an aircraft fuel tank device Fig. 2: tank 20 which comprises:
a fairing 18;
wherein the aircraft fuel tank is configured for increasing a flight range and a wing area of the aircraft Fig. 1;
wherein the aircraft fuel tank device is configured to at least partly cover an intersection between the aircraft wing and the aircraft fuselage Fig. 1: “wing-to-body fairing”;
wherein the aircraft fuel tank device is configured to store fuel tank 20.
Feinberg fails to disclose that the fairing is configured to provide lift to the aircraft.
However, Mora teaches a fairing that is configured to provide lift Para 0047, Fig. 10: increases coefficient of lift. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by configuring the fairing to provide a lifting function as disclosed by Mora. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve aerodynamics and therefore improve cargo capacity and/or range.
Feinberg fails to disclose that the pressurized container is configured to contain a cryogenic medium.
However, Robert teaches a fuel tank that is designed to contain a cryogenic material Para 0065. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by having the tank be designed to contain a cryogenic material as disclosed by Robert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to increase aircraft efficiency” (Robert, Para 0065) and to use an environmentally friendly fuel.
Feinberg fails to disclose a pilot valve, a vent pressure valve, and a vent box positioned inside the fairing.
However, Gilmore teaches a fuel tank with a vent pressure valve Para 0047: “the vent and vacuum lines 34 are coupled to a gaseous hydrogen release valve” and vent box Para 0044: “coupling a hydrogen gas tank to the gaseous hydrogen outlet 124 to collect the gaseous hydrogen and possibly store it for re-use”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by providing a vent valve and vent box as disclosed by Gilmore. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent over pressurization and to store the gas for safety or reuse.
Additionally, Booth teaches a fuel valve comprising a pilot valve Col 1, line 30. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by providing a pilot valve as disclosed by Booth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to control fuel flow from the fuel tank.
Feinberg fails to disclose a plurality of hinges, by which the aircraft fuel tank is pivotably attached to an aircraft fuselage of the aircraft and/or an aircraft wing of the aircraft
However, Rouyre teaches a fairing that is attached to a fuselage via hinges for pivotably movement Fig. 4a: fairing 101/102 attached to fuselage 109 via tie-rod 201/204 which are hinged at 202/205.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by attaching the fairing with hinges as disclosed by Rouyre. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for movement of the fairing, for example due to temperature changes, and to therefore avoid stressing the structure.
Feinberg fails to disclose a fuel and air quick disconnecting element.
However, Aull teaches a fuel tank with a fuel and air quick disconnect element Fig. 24, Para 0145.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by providing a quick disconnect element as disclosed by Aull. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to allow the tank to be connected to the aircraft quickly.
Feinberg fails to disclose that the aircraft fuel tank device is configured as a conformal fuel tank, fitted to conform to an outer skin of the aircraft fuselage and an outer skin of the aircraft wing.
However, Dean teaches a hydrogen fuel tank in a wing-to-body fairing Fig. 7: 514 in which the tank 512A/B conforms to the outer skin of the fuselage and the wing Fig. 7: the tank is nestled in the corner of the fuselage and wing, and therefore conforms to the outer skins. To conform means to comply with or “to be in accordance; fit in” (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/conform). As such, the circular shape of the fuel tank fits in with the corner shape of the fuselage-wing joint.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Feinberg by using the fuel tank as a conformal fuel tank fitted to conform to an outer skin of the aircraft fuselage and an outer skin of the aircraft wing as disclosed by Dean. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to optimize the use of space within the fairing by shaping/locating the fuel tank to conform to the wing and fuselage.
As modified, Feinberg discloses that the fairing is arranged at and extending between a forward section of the aircraft wing-aircraft fuselage intersection and a rear section of the aircraft wing-aircraft fuselage intersection Feinberg Fig. 1, also as modified with Mora in Fig. 1c, thereby enlarging the wing area of the aircraft the fairing extends the area, the forward section being located toward a nose of the aircraft relative to the rear section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights