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 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.
Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 recites wherein the sub-devices are connected in a “non-overlapping manner” but the original disclosure shows that the sub-devices are connected side by side left to right so that they have a common area and therefore they overlap at least from the left to right. Therefore, the limitation of non-overlapping is new matter.
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 16 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 16 recites a “common longitudinal plane”. It is unclear if this plane is common to the longitudinal and transverse direction or common to the sub-devices and displacement body.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (US-5887616-A).
Ikeda discloses:
1. A fuel tank structure comprising a frame bay (1); a liner segment system for the frame bay (Fig. 8), the liner segment system comprising: a liner segment base body (13), wherein the liner segment base body is adapted to float on fuel in the fuel tank structure, a displacement body (17), wherein the displacement body is arranged next to a lowest point of the liner segment base body (Fig. 8), wherein a remaining portion of a fuel within the fuel tank structure is reduced by displacing the fuel at the lowest point of the liner segment base body (col. 6, lines 20-29), wherein the displacement body comprises a multitude of detachable (at 17a) displacement sub-devices (upper and lower 17), wherein the sub-devices are connected in a form-fit manner (Fig. 8) such that the sub-devices expand the displacement body in both longitudinal and transverse directions (the sub-devices have a height and width so they expand the body in this manner).
2. The fuel tank structure according to claim 1, wherein the liner segment base body comprises an upper side and the displacement body is arranged on the upper side of the liner segment base body (Fig. 8).
3. The fuel tank structure according to claim 1, wherein the liner segment base body comprises a lower side and the displacement body is arranged on the lower side of the liner segment base body (Fig. 8).
4. The fuel tank structure according to claim 1, wherein the displacement body is connected to the liner segment base body via integral construction (Fig. 9).
5. The fuel tank structure according to claim 1, wherein the displacement body is connected to the liner segment base body via integral construction (Fig. 9).
9. The fuel tank structure according to claim 1, wherein the displacement body comprises a layer (Fig. 8).
10. The fuel tank structure according to claim 1, wherein a density of the displacement body is less than 90% of a density of a fuel to be displaced (intended use based on the material in the tank).
11. The fuel tank structure according to claim 1, wherein the displacement body substantially follows a contour of the fuel tank structure (Fig. 14).
15. The fuel tank structure according to claim 1, wherein the sub-devices are connected in a non-overlapping manner (Fig. 8, the sub-devices are located above and below 13, so they overlap 13 not each other) .
16. The fuel tank structure according to claim 1, wherein the sub-devices are connected in the form-fit manner such that sub-devices expand the displacement body in both longitudinal and transverse directions in a common longitudinal plane(Fig. 8, the sub-devices have a length and width so they expand the displacement body in the plane the sub-devices are located in).
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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US-5887616-A) in view of Ramsay (US-20090078705-A1).
Ikeda disclose all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach wherein the displacement body comprises at least material selected from a group consisting of: polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride.
Ramsey teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture displacement bodies wherein the displacement body comprises at least material selected from a group consisting of: polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the displacement body of Ikeda with the material taught by Ramsey in order to alter the buoyancy or price of the components and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US-5887616-A) in view of Chun (US-20110278305-A1).
Ikeda disclose all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach wherein the displacement body comprises a foam, or wherein the displacement body comprises a hollow body.
Chun teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture displacement bodies with foam (par. 0037) or with a hollow body (par. 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the displacement body of Ikeda with structure taught by Chun in order to alter the buoyancy or price of the components and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US-5887616-A) in view of Crowell (US-2320913-A) and Ramsay (US-20090078705-A1).
The modified tank of Ikeda fails to teach an airplane.
Crowell teaches that it is known in the art to use a tank in an airplane (pg. 2, lines 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the tank in an airplane, since such a modification would be the use of a known tank structure in a known environment to store fuel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Ikeda does not expand the width of the supplementary plate. It is noted that without the sub-devices, the width in the plane above 17 is zero, but when a sub-device is added the structure now has a width in this plane. Therefore, the width can be considered to be expanded. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant’s remaining arguments have been addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights