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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18846742, filed on 9/13/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, and 5-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12319430. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader than the Patent claims. In other words, the Patent claims anticipate the application claims. The claims map as shown below:
Application claim
12319430 claim
1
1
2
2
4
4
6
5
7
6
8
7
9
8
10
9
11
10
12
11
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are allowed. Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-12 are rejected over Double Patenting but are allowable with regards to prior art.
Regarding claim 1, closest art Clark (US 3088592) (FIG 1) discloses “…a cryogenic distributor (20)… supplied with liquid, second controlled all-or-nothing valves (60) connected to the cryogenic distributor in parallel, … buffer reservoirs (24), supplied with liquid, each by one of said second controlled valves…,
third controlled valves (66), mounted at the output of each buffer reservoir …
a collector (26) downstream of the third controlled valves...”
Clark is silent regarding at least “An aeronautical device for distributing gas in an aircraft between at least one source of liquefied gas and at least one gas-consumer member, comprising at least one first controlled all-or-nothing valve at an output of each source of liquefied gas,
… two-phase buffer reservoirs, supplied with liquid, each by one of said second controlled valves, and supplying gas,
third controlled valves, mounted at the output of each buffer reservoir, for supplying gas, and
a collector supplied by the third controlled valves to supply said at least one gas-consumer member.”
Even if physically possible, remedying these deficiencies in Clark would dramatically alter the intended design and function of Clark. Therefore claim 1 is nonobvious.
Claims 2-8 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, similar to claim 1, closest art Clark is silent regarding at least “An aeronautical method for distributing gas in an aircraft between at least one source of liquefied gas and at least one gas-consumer member, comprising
a step of filling with liquefied gas one buffer reservoir from at least two buffer reservoirs, via at least one from at least one first controlled all-or-nothing valve … and a step of emptying said buffer reservoir, said second controlled valve being closed and said third controlled valve being open, the gas flowing via said third controlled valve for supplying said third controlled valve for supplying said at least one gas-consumer member.”
Remedying these deficiencies in Clark would dramatically alter the intended design and function of Clark. Therefore claim 9 is nonobvious.
Claims 10-12 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A device similar to the application is disclosed by Lambert et al (US 20240043135).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights