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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typo in paragraphs 0048-0054. Paragraphs 0048-0054 are duplicates of paragraphs 0041-0047.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an apparent typo in paragraph 0075. In paragraph 0075, lines 11-12 & 13, “152-3, 152-4, 152-5, 152-6” should be -- 152-4, 152-5, 152-6, 152-7 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3 & 4 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.
In claim 3, line 1, both dependencies were amended from the claim. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “according to claim” in claim 3, line 1, as -- according to claim 1 --, since that would be the broader interpretation.
The term “substantially” in claim 4, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “substantially fills” in claim 4, line 2, as -- fills --.
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, 3, 4, 7-12, & 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by National Research Development Corporation (GB Patent No. 1,445,832).
Regarding claims 1 & 19
National Research Development Corporation teaches an aircraft (See page 1, lines 56-60 & figures 1 & 2) comprising an aircraft structure, (See page 1, lines 56-60, page 2, lines 3-10, 40-71, & figures 1 & 2) the aircraft structure comprising: at least one aircraft structure element (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 21) defining a volume; (See figures 1 & 2) a fuel distribution component, (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 22) arranged within the volume, configured to hold fuel internally and transport held fuel through the volume; and at least one packing element (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) formed of a reticulated foam, (See page 2, lines 8-9, 40-45, & 69-71) arranged within the volume, and at least partially surrounding the fuel distribution component. (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 22)
Regarding claim 3
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the fuel distribution component (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 22) occupying at least 20% of the volume defined by the at least one aircraft structural element. (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 21)
Regarding claim 4
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the at least one packing element (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) substantially fills an interspace of the volume between the fuel distribution component (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 22) and the at least one aircraft structural element. (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 21)
Regarding claim 7
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the at least one packing element (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) comprises a surface conformal to an exterior surface of the fuel distribution component. (See page 1, lines 56-60 & figures 1 & 2, ref # 22)
Regarding claim 8
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the at least one packing element (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) comprises a surface conformal to an interior surface of the at least one structural element (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 21) defining the volume.
Regarding claim 9
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the at least one packing element (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) is attachable to the fuel distribution component. (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 22)
Regarding claim 10
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the at least one packing element (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) is attached to the at least one aircraft structural element. (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 21)
Regarding claim 11
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the at least one packing element (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) is a plurality of packing elements, (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) the plurality of packing elements (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) at least partially surrounding the fuel distribution component. (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 22)
Regarding claim 12
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the plurality of packing elements (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) are dimensioned to tesselate with each other to fill a portion of the volume. (See figures 1 & 2)
Regarding claim 17
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the packing elements (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) are formed of polyurethane. (See page 2, lines 8-9, 40-45, & 69-71)
Regarding claim 18
National Research Development Corporation teaches wherein the packing element(s) (See figures 1 & 2, ref # 23) is dimensioned such that the volume comprises less than 10% free space. (See figures 1 & 2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over National Research Development Corporation (GB Patent No. 1,445,832) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Secretary of State for Defense (GB Patent No. 1,454,492).
Regarding claim 2
National Research Development Corporation is silent about wherein the at least one aircraft structural element are portions of an aircraft wing.
However, Secretary of State for Defense teaches wherein the at least one aircraft structural element are portions of an aircraft wing. (See page 2, lines 84-93, page 3, line 1-20, & figures 1 & 2)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an at least one aircraft structural element are portions of an aircraft wing as taught by Secretary of State for Defense in the aircraft of National Research Development Corporation, since it is known for fuel tanks/distribution components to be stored in aircraft wings.
Claim(s) 5 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over National Research Development Corporation (GB Patent No. 1,445,832) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emerson et al. (EP Pub No. 4,147,978 A1).
Regarding claim 5
National Research Development Corporation is silent about purging system operable to provide a flow of purge gas through the volume, and wherein an interspace between the fuel distribution component and the at least one aircraft structural element forms a flow path for the flow of purge gas.
However, Emerson teaches further comprising a purging system operable to provide a flow of purge gas through the volume, and wherein an interspace between the fuel distribution component (See figures 1-5, ref # 408) and the at least one aircraft structural element (See paragraph 0017 & figures 1-5) forms a flow path for the flow of purge gas. (See paragraphs 0002, 0003, 0005, 0009, 0017, & figures 1-5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a purging system operable to provide a flow of purge gas through the volume, and wherein an interspace between the fuel distribution component and the at least one aircraft structural element forms a flow path for the flow of purge gas as taught by Emerson in the aircraft of National Research Development Corporation, since hydrogen fuel is a well-known type of fuel for aircraft and to prevent unwanted ignition and flame propagation. (See paragraph 0002)
Regarding claim 16
National Research Development Corporation is silent about wherein the fuel distribution component is a hydrogen fuel distribution component.
However, Emerson teaches wherein the fuel distribution component (See paragraphs 0039-0040 & figures 1-5, ref # 408) is a hydrogen fuel distribution component. (See paragraphs 0002, 0003, 0005, 0009, 0017, & figures 1-5, ref # 408)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fuel distribution component is a hydrogen fuel distribution component as taught by Emerson in the aircraft of National Research Development Corporation, since hydrogen fuel is a well-known type of fuel for 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, & 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13-16, & 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,570,406 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the Instant Application are broader and thus fully met.
Regarding claim 1
Patent (406) teaches an aircraft structure comprising: at least one aircraft structural element defining a volume; a fuel distribution component, arranged within the volume, configured to hold fuel internally and transport held fuel through the volume; and at least one packing element formed of a reticulated foam, arranged within the volume, and at least partially surrounding the fuel distribution component. (See claims 1, 13, & 14)
Regarding claim 2
Patent (406) teaches wherein the at least one aircraft structural element are portions of an aircraft wing. (See claim 15)
Regarding claim 5
Patent (406) teaches further comprising a purging system operable to provide a flow of purge gas through the volume, and wherein an interspace between the fuel distribution component and the at least one aircraft structural element forms a flow path for the flow of purge gas. (See claim 1)
Regarding claim 6
Patent (406) teaches further comprising a flow guide member formed of a reticulated foam, arranged within the volume and externally to the fuel distribution component, and configured to guide the flow of purge gas within the volume. (See claim 1)
Regarding claim 16
Patent (406) teaches wherein the fuel distribution component is a hydrogen fuel distribution component. (See claim 16)
Regarding claim 19
Patent (406) teaches An aircraft comprising the aircraft structure. (See claim 18)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein a packing element of the plurality of packing elements is an access packing element, the access packing element being arranged proximate to an access panel in the aircraft structural element and dimensioned to be withdrawn through the access panel” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 13.
Regarding claim 15,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the plurality of packing elements are each reversibly attachable to neighbouring packing elements” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 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, 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights