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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed December 24th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 5th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 5, “…the cylindrical structure…” should read “…the at least one cylindrical structure…” for the purpose of consistency.
In claim 10 lines 2-3, “…a longitudinal arrangement…” should read “…the longitudinal arrangement…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odle et al. (US 2011/0121130) in view of Luther (US 2012/0025006).
Regarding claim 1, Odle et al. ‘130 teaches (figures 1-14) a system for a blended wing body aircraft (1400) with built-in, non-removable tanks (Para 0067), the aircraft comprising:
a blended wing body (clearly seen in figure 3); and
at least one polygonal structure extending vertically within the blended wing body, wherein the at least one polygonal structure comprises at least a tank (1402, 1404) permanently attached to the blended wing body, and configured to store fuel (Para 0067; tanks are polygonal in shape and are fixed within the body; fuel tank stores fuel to be used by an engine of the aircraft),
an upper mold line/upper surfaces of the blended wing body aircraft and a lower mold line/lower surfaces of the blended wing body aircraft (aircraft has upper and lower mold lines), and
the at least one polygonal structure is configured to provide structural support the blended wing body by connecting at least an upper skin and at least a lower skin of the blended wing body (clearly seen in figure 3) (polygonal structure connects and extends in between skins and thus reinforces the blended wing body).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the aircraft comprising:
polygonal structure as a cylindrical structure and at least a tank configured to store liquified gas fuel, wherein the at least a tank further comprises:
a first end cap attached to and capping at least a cylindrical wall at a top of the at least a tank, wherein the first end cap is inset from an upper mold line of the blended wing body; and
a second end cap attached to and capping the at least a cylindrical wall at a bottom of the at least a tank, wherein the second end cap is inset from a lower mold line of the blended wing body.
Luther ‘006 teaches (figures 1a-1o) the aircraft/flight vehicle (100) (Para 0047) comprising:
a cylindrical structure comprising at least a tank (194a-194c, 195a-195b) configured to store liquified gas fuel/rocket and jet fuel (Para 0075-0076; rocket uses combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as a fuel; tanks are cylindrical in shape), wherein the at least a tank further comprises:
a cylindrical wall with end caps (clearly shown in the figure below) (tanks (194a-194c, 195a-195b) are cylindrical in shape and has a cylindrical wall; end caps are on two ends of the cylindrical fuel tank which encloses the cylinder).
PNG
media_image2.png
510
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Odle et al. ‘130 to incorporate the teachings of Luther ‘006 to configure the aircraft comprising:
polygonal structure as a cylindrical structure and at least a tank configured to store liquified gas fuel, wherein the at least a tank further comprises:
a first end cap attached to and capping at least a cylindrical wall at a top of the at least a tank, wherein the first end cap is inset from an upper mold line of the blended wing body (the open upper end of the tank is enclosed by a first end cap and is not connected to/with clearance from the structure that supports the skin); and
a second end cap attached to and capping the at least a cylindrical wall at a bottom of the at least a tank, wherein the second end cap is inset from a lower mold line of the blended wing body (the open lower end of the tank is enclosed by a second end cap and is not connected to/with clearance from the structure that supports the skin).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enclose the fuel within a fuel tank and a cylindrical shape ensures uniform stress distribution on the tank.
Regarding claim 4, modified Odle et al. ‘130 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein:
the blended wing body further comprises a cabin comprising a passenger cabin (Para 0034; blended wing body is applicable to blended wing body passenger aircraft); and
the at least a tank comprises two tanks (1402, 1404) located laterally from the passenger cabin on either side of the passenger cabin (Para 0034; clearly seen in figures 10-14; the area occupied by the pallets in figures 10-12 is the area that is occupied by the passenger cabin in blended wing body passenger aircraft).
Regarding claim 5, modified Odle et al. ‘130 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein the two tanks are each separated from the passenger cabin by an interior structural wall (clearly shown in the figure below)
PNG
media_image3.png
248
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Odle et al. ‘130 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein the cabin further comprises a fore passenger cabin located in front of the passenger cabin (clearly shown in the figure below), and
wherein the two tanks are located aft of the fore passenger cabin (clearly shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
257
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odle et al. (US 2011/0121130) and Luther (US 2012/0025006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Childress et al. (US 2009/0090724).
Regarding claim 3, modified Odle et al. ‘130 teaches (figures 1-14) the system of claim 1 but it is silent about the system wherein an insulation of the at least a tank includes a chamber located between an inner wall and an outer wall of the at least tank.
Childress et al. ‘724 teaches (figures 1-4) fuel tank assembly (10) an inlet (20) that opens into the bladder/chamber defined between the exterior/outer (14) and interior/inner (16) bladder walls wherein the pressurized inert gas is supplied continuously into the bladder (12) via the inlet (20) (Para 0024-0025; inert gases provide optimum insulation performances)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Odle et al. ‘130 to incorporate the teachings of Childress et al. ‘724 to configure the system wherein an insulation of the at least a tank includes a chamber located between an inner wall and an outer wall of the at least tank.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would control temperature of fuel and pressure inside fuel tank.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odle et al. (US 2011/0121130) and Luther (US 2012/0025006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clark et al. (US 6,422,514).
Regarding claims 8-10, modified Odle et al. ‘130 teaches (figures 1-14) the system wherein the at least a tank comprises a longitudinal arrangement of a vertical axis tank, a lateral arrangement of a vertical axis tank, and both a lateral arrangement of a vertical axis tank and the longitudinal arrangement of the vertical axis tank (clearly seen in the figure 14) (tanks have vertical axis in a vertical direction; tank 1402 is within an aircraft and has both lateral position/arrangement in the lateral direction of an aircraft and longitudinal position/arrangement in the longitudinal direction of an aircraft)
but it is silent about the system wherein a vertical axis tank is a vertical axis air mattress tank.
Clark et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-5) the aerospace vehicle (10) comprising a multi-chamber/lobe fuel tank (100) wherein each of a plurality of containers or chambers/lobes (112, 114, 116, 118) have upper and lower surfaces with a common center point (clearly seen figures 2A-2D) (Col. 3 lines 3-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Odle et al. ‘130 to incorporate the teachings of Clark et al. ‘514 to configure the system wherein a vertical axis tank is a vertical axis air mattress tank.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would conform to interior space of an aircraft and maximize the space occupied by the tank in an aircraft by enable the tank to occupy narrower spaces within the aircraft.
Regarding claim 21, modified Odle et al. ‘130 teaches (figures 1-14) the system of claim 1 but it is silent about the system wherein the at least a tank comprises a multi-bubble tank.
Clark et al. ‘514 teaches (figures 1-5) the aerospace vehicle (10) comprising a multi-chamber/bubble fuel tank (100) (clearly seen figures 2A-2D) (Col. 3 lines 3-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Odle et al. ‘130 to incorporate the teachings of Clark et al. ‘514 to configure the system wherein the at least a tank comprises a multi-bubble tank.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would conform to interior space of an aircraft and maximize the space occupied by the tank in an aircraft by enable the tank to occupy narrower spaces within the aircraft.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,1681521. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,1681521 explicitly recites all of the limitation of claim 1 except:
“at least one cylindrical structure extending vertically within the blended wing body, wherein the cylindrical structure comprises at least a tank” and
“the at least one cylindrical structure is configured to provide structural support to
the blended wing body by connecting at least an upper skin and at least a
lower skin of the blended wing body”.
However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,1681521 recites “the at least a tank further comprises: at least a cylindrical wall arranged with at least an axis of the at least a cylindrical wall running vertically;” in lines 51-53, which implies that the at least a tank is a cylindrical structure extending vertically and since the tank/cylindrical structure runs vertically, the tank/cylindrical structure is between upper skin and lower skin and reinforces the blended wing body i.e., provides structural support to the blended wing body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 24th, 2025, with respect to the amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are explained in the rejection above.
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 ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642