DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 09/24/2024 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 1, line 2: the term “this pipe” should be rewritten as --the pipe-- for the purpose of clarity.
b. Claim 1, line 10: the term “in that” should be rewritten as --wherein-- such that the claim conforms with current U.S. practice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-14 are 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.
7. Claim 1, line 1, recites the phrase "in particular" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
8. The term “multilayer type” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “multilayer type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to exactly what “type” is intended to convey. The examiner suggests removing the term “type” in order to obviate such indefinitess.
9. Claim 1, lines 2-3, recites the phrases "preferably" and “for example” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
10. Claim 5, lines 1-3, recites the limitation “the light system comprises two lines of radiation sources located at 180° to each other around the pipe” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to whether the two lines of radiation sources is considered to be the same as or distinct from the at least two serious of radiation sources distributed over at least lines as recited in claim 4. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting two lines to be the same as the two series of radiation sources distributed over the two lines.
11. Claim 6, lines 1-3, recites the limitation “the light system comprises three lines of radiation sources spaced apart from one another by an angle of between 60° and 120°” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to whether the three lines of radiation sources includes or is distinct from the at least two serious of radiation sources distributed over at least lines as recited in claim 4. Similarly, claim 7 is unclear for the same reasons. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting three or four lines to include the two series of radiation sources distributed over the two lines. Similarly, claim
12. Claim 10, line 2, recites the limitation “the light system is attached to an external periphery of the pipe” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly how the light system is both integrated into the textile layer and attached to an external periphery of the pipe. Per the applicant’s disclosure, the light system “may be fitted and attached, for an example by gluing, to an external periphery” (see p. 9 of the specification) which is an alternative and distinct from the claimed integration into the textile layer as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is inconsistent with the applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 2173.03.
13. Claim 13, lines 2-3, recites the phrase “such as” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Similarly, claim 14 unclear for the same reasons.
14. Claim 14, lines 1-3, recites the limitation “an aircraft comprising an in-flight refueling device according to claim 1 and/or an assembly comprising a source of fluid, such as fuel, able to be connected to the first end of the pipe” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the “able to be connected to the first end of the pipe” is required by the aircraft comprising “an assembly” that follows the term “or”. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first end of the pipe” pertaining to the assembly following the phrase “or”. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
15. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
16. Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites “the pipe is of the multilayer type and comprises … one textile layer, and in that the light system is integrated into the textile layer”. Therefore, the limitation “the light system is integrated into the pipe” does not constitute a further limitation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
17. 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.
18. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dougherty (US 5539624 A1) [cited on the IDS filed on 09/24/2025].
19. Regarding Claim 14, Dougherty discloses an aircraft (Abstract and FIGS. 4A, 6-7 and 11) comprising an assembly comprising a source of flued such as fuel, able to be connected to the first end of the pipe (Abstract and col. 7, ll. 3-7).
20. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shelly (US 2005/0145751 A1) [cited on the IDS filed on 09/24/2025].
21. Regarding Claim 14, Shelly discloses an aircraft (Abstract and FIGS. 1-2) comprising an assembly (100) comprising a source of flued such as fuel, able to be connected to the first end of the pipe (para. [0013]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dougherty (US 5539624 A) [cited on the IDS filed on 09/24/2025]), in view of Ehlers et al. (DE 1088295 B), hereinafter “Ehlers” [cited on the IDS filed on 09/24/2025, see attached translational document for reference made to the text], in view of Strasser et al. (US 2004/0200536 A1), hereinafter “Strasser”.
24. Regarding Claim 1, Dougherty discloses an in-flight refueling device (Abstract and FIGS. 4A, 6-7 and 11), in particular for a refueling aircraft, comprising:
a pipe (40) configured to transfer a fluid (col. 5, ll. 9-14), this pipe comprising a first end suitable for connection to a fluid source (col. 7, ll. 3-4), and a second end equipped with an in-flight refueling connector (42/44), and
a light system (43/47), arranged along at least a part of the pipe (FIGS. 4A-4B), capable of being connected to an energy source (86), and comprising at least one series of radiation sources (47) distributed along the part (FIGS. 4A-4B and 6-7) of the pipe (40),
wherein the pipe is of the multilayer type and comprises at least one reinforcement layer (38), one elastomer layer (col. 5, ll. 19-21; tie gum 37 is by definition an elastomer) and an outer layer (39).
Dougherty is silent regarding the multilayer type and comprises at least one metal layer and one textile layer, and in that the light system is integrated into the textile layer.
Ehlers discloses a fuel pipe (Ehlers para. [0001] and FIGS. 1-3) wherein the pipe is of the multilayer type (para. [0034) and comprises at least one metal layer (6), one elastomer layer (4) and one textile layer (7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dougherty as taught by Ehlers such that the pipe is of the multilayer type and comprises at least one metal layer, one elastomer layer and one textile layer in order to dissipate any static electricity that may be generated from the pipe in order to prevent sparking (Ehlers para. [0029]).
Modified Dougherty is silent regarding the light system is integrated into the textile layer.
Strasser discloses a pipe (Strasser Abstract, para. [0059] and FIG. 1) wherein the light system is integrated into the textile layer (pars. [0012] and [0052]; optical fibers 430 configured to provide illumination around the exterior surface of hose 416 are woven into the outer hose section 417, accordingly the optical fibers 430 are by definition integrated into a textile layer as seen in FIG. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Dougherty as taught by Strasser such that the light system is integrated into the textile layer in order to provide a more robust and integrated lighting arrangement, increasing the overall structural capacity of the pipe while maintaining the illumination function of the light system.
25. Regarding Claim 2, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) the in-flight refueling device of claim 1, wherein the radiation sources are spaced apart by a distance (lights 43 are clearly spaced apart by a distance along the hose 40 as seen in FIGS. 4A, 7 and 11).
Modified Dougherty is silent regarding wherein the radiation sources are spaced apart by a distance of between 20cm and 100cm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to modify the invention of modified Dougherty such that
the radiation sources are spaced apart by a distance of between 20cm and 100cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In doing so, the radiation sources would be distributed over the length of the pipe at intervals that augments illumination during in-flight refueling operations.
Furthermore, “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims… In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
26. Regarding Claim 3, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) the in-flight refueling device of claim 1, wherein the radiation source is chosen from a light-emitting diode, a light-emitting fibre, an optical fibre (col. 5, ln. 66 - col. 6, ln. 3; optical fibers are by definition also light0emitting fibers) and/or a piezoelectric strip.
27. Regarding Claim 4, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) the in-flight refueling device of claim 1, wherein the light system comprises at least two series of radiation sources, respectively distributed over at least two lines extending along the pipe and angularly spaced from each other around the pipe (fiber bundle 47 includes at least two lines that are angularly spaced from each other wound around the tie gum 37 as clearly seen in FIGS. 4B and 6).
28. Regarding Claim 8, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) the in-flight refueling device of claim 1.
Modified Dougherty is silent regarding the radiation sources are distributed on a straight line along the pipe.
Strasser discloses a pipe (Strasser Abstract, para. [0059] and FIG. 1) wherein the radiation sources are distributed on a straight line along the pipe (pars. [0051]; optical fibers 430 distributed alone a ling alone hose 416 as seen in FIG. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Dougherty as taught by Strasser such that the radiation sources are distributed on a straight line along the pipe in order to allow the pilot of the refueling aircraft to seamlessly maintain eye contract with the pipe during in-flight refueling operations.
29. Regarding Claim 9, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) the in-flight refueling device of claim 1, wherein the radiation sources are distributed on a line wound helically around the pipe (col. 2, ll. 20-24 and col. 5, ll. 21-23).
30. Regarding Claim 10, modified Dougherty discloses (see Strasser) the in-flight refueling device of claim 1, wherein the light system is attached to an external periphery of the pipe (see the discussion above, in view of Strasser, regarding claim 1).
31. Regarding Claim 11, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) the in-flight refueling device of claim 1, wherein the light system is integrated into the pipe (see the discussion above, regarding claim 1).
32. Regarding Claim 12, modified Dougherty discloses (see Strasser) the in-flight refueling device of claim 11, wherein the light system is integrated by weaving into the textile layer (see the discussion above, regarding claim 1).
33. Regarding Claim 13, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) an assembly comprising an in-flight refueling device of claim 1 (see the discussion above, regarding claim 1), and a source of fluid (Abstract), such as fuel, able to be connected to the first end of the pipe (col. 7, ll. 3-7).
34. Regarding Claim 14, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) an aircraft comprising an in-flight refueling device according to claim 1 and/or an assembly comprising a source of flued such as fuel, able to be connected to the first end of the pipe (see the discussion above, regarding claim 13).
35. Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dougherty (US 5539624 A), Ehlers et al. (DE 1088295 B) and Strasser et al. (US 2004/0200536 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Shelly et al. (US 2005/0017130 A1) [cited on the IDS filed on 09/24/2025].
36. Regarding Claim 5, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) the in-flight refueling device of claim 4, wherein the light system comprises two lines of radiation sources around the pipe (FIGS. 4B and 6).
Modified Dougherty is silent regarding the two lines of radiation sources located at 180° to each other around the pipe.
Shelly discloses an in-flight refueling device (Shell Abstract and FIG. 1) wherein the light system comprises two lines of radiation sources located at 180° to each other around the pipe (paras. [0017]; optical fibers 134, each by definition representing a line, are located diametrically opposite to each other with respect the longitudinal axis of house 112 and there 180o to each other around house 112 as seen in FIG. 2, see also FIG. 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Dougherty as taught by Shelly such that the two lines of radiation sources located at 180° to each other around the pipe in order to increase visibility of the pipe during in-flight refueling operations.
37. Regarding Claim 6, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) the in-flight refueling device of claim 4, wherein the light system comprises two lines of radiation sources spaced apart from one another (FIGS. 4B and 6).
Modified Dougherty is silent regarding the light system comprises three lines of radiation sources spaced apart from one another by an angle of between 60° and 120°.
Shelly discloses an in-flight refueling device (Shell Abstract and FIG. 1) wherein the light system comprises three lines of radiation sources spaced apart from one another by an angle of between 60° and 120° (paras. [0017]; optical fibers 134, each by definition representing a line, are located distributed around the entire circumference of hose 112, therefore at least two three lines much be spaced apart from another by an angle between 60° and 120° with respect the longitudinal axis of house 112 as seen in FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Dougherty as taught by Shelly such that the light system comprises three lines of radiation sources spaced apart from one another by an angle of between 60° and 120°.
38. Regarding Claim 7, modified Dougherty discloses (see Shelly) the in-flight refueling device of claim 4, modified Dougherty discloses (see Dougherty) the in-flight refueling device of claim 1, wherein the light system comprises two lines of radiation sources spaced apart from one another (FIGS. 4B and 6).
Modified Dougherty is silent regarding the light system comprises three lines of radiation sources spaced apart from one another by an angle of between 60° and 90°.
Shelly discloses an in-flight refueling device (Shell Abstract and FIG. 1) wherein the light system comprises four lines of radiation sources spaced apart at an angle of between 60° and 90° (paras. [0017]; optical fibers 134, each by definition representing a line, are located distributed around the entire circumference of hose 112, therefore at least two three lines much be spaced apart from another by an angle between 60° and 90° with respect the longitudinal axis of house 112 as seen in FIG. 2).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Corrigan (US 9765950 B2), Ubaghs et al. (US 8690385 B2), Strasser et al. (US 6257750 B2), Gelfand et al. (US 2015/0190649 A1), Demaria (US 6394625 B2), Cairo et al. (US 2009/0314097), Charboneau (US 551484 A), and Shelton et al. (US 9054504 B2) individually disclose light systems integrated into layer of textile.
Rodriguez Rosas (US 2025/0058897 A), De La Fuente Lopez et al. (US 9969502 B2), Von Thal US 7137598 B2), Enig et al. (US 6926049 B1), Jones (US 7562847 B2), Price et al. (Us 10267439 B2), Lozano (CN 108290638 A), Liu et al. (CN 112758337 A) individually disclose an in-flight refueling device for a refueling aircraft, comprising: a pipe configured to transfer a fluid, and a light system, arranged along at least a part of the pipe and comprising at least one series of radiation sources distributed along the part of the pipe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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 number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights