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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 2/13/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/13/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The submitted IDS does not appear to have been in the proper format, or there was some issue with the submission because the IDS that is currently added to the application is listed as having zero pages and the IDS cannot be opened.
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 is ”An aircraft” that includes both fuel delivery and fuel receiving devices which interact with each other to transfer fuel, however it is not clear how this system would work on a single aircraft, and the examiner believes that these claims are meant to be directed to a system with two aircraft.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lopez et al. (US #9,085,370).
Regarding claim 1, Lopez teaches a fuel delivery device for air-to-air refuelling, the fuel delivery device comprising: a fuel outlet (204, 210, and 212 as seen in figure 2, and Column 5, lines 31-40, as can be seen there must be a fuel outlet at the rear of the drogue system where to fuel line is connected to be able to allow fuel transfer to the receiving aircraft); and an optical transceiver (220), wherein the optical transceiver is configured to: illuminate the fuel delivery device to provide visual indication to an aircraft receiving fuel (210, and 220 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, this teaches that the optical dispersive devices can include an LED to send out optical signals, and the LED of the device on the drogue system will inherently illuminate the drogue system); and transmit and receive data via optical wireless communication to the aircraft receiving fuel from the fuel delivery device (215, 220, and 230 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, and Column 7, line 58-Column 8, line 18).
Regarding claim 2, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 1,wherein the fuel delivery device is a drogue (211) comprising a frustoconical guide portion (211 as seen in figure 2); wherein the frustoconical guide portion comprises a first end and a second end (211 as seen in figure 2); and wherein the second end has a greater diameter than the first end (211 as seen in figure 2); and wherein the fuel outlet is located at the first end of the frustoconical guide portion (211, and 212 as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 2, wherein the optical transceiver is located at the second end of the frustoconical guide portion (210, and 220 as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 4 wherein the fuel delivery device comprises a plurality of optical transceivers (Column 7, lines 48-57), and wherein the plurality of optical transceivers are distributed around a circumference of the second end of the frustoconical guide portion (211, and 212 as seen in figure 2, and Column 7, lines 48-57).
Regarding claim 6, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 1, wherein the optical transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data wirelessly via electromagnetic waves in a visible light spectrum (Column 6, lines 6-53, this teaches that the optical transceiver can emit data carry light waves using an LED which will result in visible light).
Regarding claim 11, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 1, wherein data transfer is initiated by a physical connection between the fuel delivery device and the aircraft receiving fuel (Column 7, line 58-Column 8, line 18).
Regarding claim 12, Lopez teaches a fuel receiving device for air-to-air refuelling, the fuel receiving device comprising: a fuel inlet (204); and an optical transceiver (230); wherein the optical transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data via optical wireless communication to an aircraft delivering fuel to the fuel inlet (215, 220, and 230 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, and Column 7, line 58-Column 8, line 18).
Regarding claim 13, Lopez teaches an aircraft comprising a fuel delivery device (200) comprising: a fuel outlet (204, 210, and 212 as seen in figure 2, and Column 5, lines 31-40, as can be seen there must be a fuel outlet at the rear of the drogue system where to fuel line is connected to be able to allow fuel transfer to the receiving aircraft); and a first optical transceiver (220), wherein the first optical transceiver is configured to: illuminate the fuel delivery device to provide visual indication to an aircraft receiving fuel (210, and 220 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, this teaches that the optical dispersive devices can include an led to send out optical signals, and the LED of the device on the drogue system will inherently illuminate the drogue system); and transmit and receive data via optical wireless communication to the aircraft receiving fuel from the fuel delivery device (215, 220, and 230 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, and Column 7, line 58-Column 8, line 18), and a fuel receiving device comprising: a fuel inlet (204); and a second optical transceiver (230), wherein the second optical transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data via optical wireless communication to an aircraft delivering fuel to the fuel inlet (215, 220, and 230 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, and Column 7, line 58-Column 8, line 18).
Regarding claim 14, Lopez teaches an aircraft communication system for air-to-air refuelling comprising: a fuel delivery device on-board a first aircraft (200, and 210 as seen in figure 2), the fuel delivery device comprising; a fuel outlet (204, 210, and 212 as seen in figure 2, and Column 5, lines 31-40, as can be seen there must be a fuel outlet at the rear of the drogue system where to fuel line is connected to be able to allow fuel transfer to the receiving aircraft); and a first optical transceiver (220), wherein the first optical transceiver is configured to illuminate the fuel delivery device to provide visual indication to an aircraft receiving fuel (210, and 220 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, this teaches that the optical dispersive devices can include an LED to send out optical signals, and the LED of the device on the drogue system will inherently illuminate the drogue system); and a fuel receiving device on-board a second aircraft (202, and 204 as seen in figure 2), the fuel receiving device comprising; a fuel inlet (204); and a second optical transceiver (230); wherein the first optical transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data to and from the second optical transceiver so as to provide optical wireless communication between the first aircraft and the second aircraft during air-to-air refuelling (215, 220, and 230 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, and Column 7, line 58-Column 8, line 18).
Regarding claim 15, Lopez teaches a method of communicating between a first and second aircraft during air-to-air refuelling comprising the steps of: providing a fuel delivery device comprising a fuel outlet (204, 210, and 212 as seen in figure 2, and Column 5, lines 31-40, as can be seen there must be a fuel outlet at the rear of the drogue system where to fuel line is connected to be able to allow fuel transfer to the receiving aircraft) and a first optical transceiver (220); providing a fuel receiving device comprising a fuel inlet (204) and a second optical transceiver (230); illuminating the fuel delivery device using the first optical transceiver in order to provide a visual indication to the a second aircraft (210, and 220 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, this teaches that the optical dispersive devices can include an LED to send out optical signals, and the LED of the device on the drogue system will inherently illuminate the drogue system); coupling the fuel delivery device of the first aircraft to the fuel receiving device of the second aircraft in flight (Column 7, line 58-Column 8, line 18), and, communicating wirelessly between the first aircraft and the second aircraft via the first optical transceiver of the fuel delivery device and the second optical transceiver of the fuel receiving device (215, 220, and 230 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, and Column 7, line 58-Column 8, line 18).
Regarding claim 16, Lopez teaches an aircraft comprising the fuel receiving device according to claim 12 (202, 204, and 230 as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 5, wherein the optical transceivers are configured to transmit and receive data wirelessly via electromagnetic waves in a visible light spectrum (Column 6, lines 6-53, this teaches that the optical transceiver can emit data carry light waves using an LED which will result in visible light).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US #9,085,370) in view of Black et al. (PGPub #2018/0346315).
Regarding claim 3, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 2, wherein the optical transceiver includes a light (210, and 220 as seen in figure 2, and Column 6, lines 6-53, this teaches that the optical dispersive devices can include an LED to send out optical signals), but does not teach that the light is located at the first end of the frustoconical guide portion.
However, Black does teach that the light is located at the first end of the frustoconical guide portion (164 as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lights at the first end of the guide because Lopez and Black are both aerial refueling systems with lights on the delivery system. The motivation for having the lights at the first end of the guide is that it helps to more clearly highlight the location of the outlet to provide an easier connection.
Claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US #9,085,370) in view of Chang et al. (PGPub #2018/0281986).
Regarding claim 7, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 6, but does not explicitly teach that a wavelength in the visible light spectrum is in a range of from 600nm to 800nm. However, Chang does teach that a wavelength in the visible light spectrum is in a range of from 600nm to 800nm (Paragraphs 54, and 56). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light have a wavelength between 600 and 800nm because Lopez and Chang are both aerial refueling systems with lights. The motivation for having the light have a wavelength between 600 and 800nm is that it allows the light to be red which can be more easily seen while flying to assist in the connection.
Regarding claim 8, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 1, wherein the optical transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data wirelessly via electromagnetic waves (Column 6, lines 6-53), but does not teach that the waves are in an IR spectrum.
However, Chang does teach that the waves are in an IR spectrum (The Abstract, and Paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the waves be in an IR spectrum because Lopez and Chang are both aerial refueling systems with lights. The motivation for having the waves be in an IR spectrum is that it helps to improve the visibility of the light during aerial refueling.
Regarding claim 18, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 2, wherein the optical transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data wirelessly via electromagnetic waves (Column 6, lines 6-53), but does not teach that the waves are in an IR spectrum.
However, Chang does teach that the waves are in an IR spectrum (The Abstract, and Paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the waves be in an IR spectrum because Lopez and Chang are both aerial refueling systems with lights. The motivation for having the waves be in an IR spectrum is that it helps to improve the visibility of the light during aerial refueling.
Regarding claim 19, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 5, wherein the optical transceivers are configured to transmit and receive data wirelessly via electromagnetic waves (Column 6, lines 6-53), but does not teach that the waves are in an IR spectrum.
However, Chang does teach that the waves are in an IR spectrum (The Abstract, and Paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the waves be in an IR spectrum because Lopez and Chang are both aerial refueling systems with lights. The motivation for having the waves be in an IR spectrum is that it helps to improve the visibility of the light during aerial refueling.
Claims 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US #9,085,370) in view of You et al. (PGPub #2023/0283373).
Regarding claim 9, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 1, wherein the optical transceiver is configured to emit waves on a spectrum when transmitting and receiving electromagnetic waves (Column 6, lines 6-53). But does not teach that the system is configured to alternate between a visible light spectrum and an IR spectrum.
However, You does teach that the system is configured to alternate between a visible light spectrum and an IR spectrum (Paragraphs 14-7, and Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system alternate between visible light and IR emittances because Lopez and You are both visible light communication systems. The motivation for having the system alternate between visible light and IR emittances is that it can help to improve the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 20, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 1, wherein the optical transceiver is configured to emit waves on a spectrum when transmitting and receiving electromagnetic waves (Column 6, lines 6-53). But does not teach that the system is configured to alternate between a visible light spectrum and an IR spectrum.
However, You does teach that the system is configured to alternate between a visible light spectrum and an IR spectrum (Paragraphs 14-7, and Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system alternate between visible light and IR emittances because Lopez and You are both visible light communication systems. The motivation for having the system alternate between visible light and IR emittances is that it can help to improve the performance of the system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US #9,085,370) in view of Arulandu et al. (PGPub #2022/0140901).
Regarding claim 10, Lopez teaches the fuel delivery device according to claim 1, but does not teach that the optical transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data using frequency-division multiplexing and/or time-division multiplexing. However, Arulandu does teach that the optical transceiver is configured to transmit and receive data using frequency-division multiplexing (Paragraph 64) and/or time-division multiplexing. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system use frequency-division multiplexing because Lopez and Arulandu are both visible light communication systems. The motivation for having the system use frequency-division multiplexing is that it allows the system to send out multiple signals simultaneously to improve the performance of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
