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 .
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation “wherein the reinforcement structure is connected to either: the inner hull at one or more connection points...; along one or more connection lines…; or both”. This is indefinite because the scope is generally unclear. For example, how can the reinforcement structure be connected to “along one or more connection lines”. Examiner notes there appears to be a grammatical error in the limitation, rending the scope unclear. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Immel et al. (US 20040195246 A1), hereafter Immel, in view of Abdi et al. (US 20160114952 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Immel discloses a fuel tank (20, Fig. 1) of or for an aircraft (para. [0005], “mobile platforms (i.e. vehicles)”), the fuel tank comprising:
an inner hull bordering a tank space (22, Fig. 1 and para. [0017]) to be filled with a fuel (para. [0017]);
an outer hull encasing the inner hull (28, Fig. 1);
a vacuum insulation layer separating the outer hull from the inner hull (para. [0015]), and
Immel is silent about a reinforcement structure extending from the inner hull into the tank space, the reinforcement structure comprising at least one truss with a plurality of beams which include at least three beams connected at a node having longitudinal directions which span a three-dimensional space.
Abdi teaches a reinforcement structure extending from a similar inner hull into a similar tank space (300, Fig. 3), the reinforcement structure comprising at least one truss (elements of Fig. 3) with a plurality of beams (all beams/components of Fig. 3) which include at least three beams connected at a node (305C, Fig. 3) having longitudinal directions which span a three-dimensional space (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel tank of Immel with the reinforcement structure of Abdi, whereby Abdi’s reinforcement structure extends from Immel’s inner hull into Immel’s tank space, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the safety of the fuel tank in the event of a collision, accident, or impact (Abdi, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Immel teaches the fuel tank according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcement structure comprises at least one anti-sloshing wall (Abdi, para. [0050], “…additional walls comprising…dampening against slosh during transportation, collision, or impact..”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Immel teaches the fuel tank according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of beams comprises at least one beam which is at least partially hollow (Abdi, 305C, Fig. 3 is a hollow tube, for example).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Immel teaches the fuel tank according to claim 1, wherein with regard to a designated orientation of the fuel tank in the aircraft, the reinforcement structure connects a ceiling of the inner hull with a bottom of the inner hull, or a front portion of the inner hull with a rear portion of the inner hull, or both (Immel as modified by Abdi, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Immel teaches the fuel tank according to claim 1, wherein the fuel tank is configured as a pressure vessel for containing liquefied hydrogen (Immel, para. [0017], “…the fluid stored will be hydrogen”.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Immel teaches the fuel tank according to claim 2, wherein the anti-sloshing wall is arranged so as to at least partially fill a respective interspace between respective of the plurality of beams of the at least one truss (Abdi, para. [0050], “…additional walls comprising…dampening against slosh during transportation, collision, or impact..”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Immel teaches the fuel tank according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of beams comprises at least one portion having an angled cross section (Abdi, angled elements of Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Immel teaches the fuel tank according to claim 1, wherein the at least three beams connected at the node span first and second planes which are orthogonal to one another (Abdi, elements of Fig. 3 that connect at 305C span at least first and second planes due to their 3D shape).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Immel as applied above, in view of Robinson et al. (US 3951362 A) and Jones et al. (EP 138120 A), hereafter Jones.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Immel teaches the fuel tank according to claim 1.
Modified Immel is silent about a tank-side support system which is configured to support the fuel tank in a shell of the aircraft,
wherein the reinforcement structure is connected to either:
the inner hull at one or more connection points which face the tank- side support system with a respective gap, or energy absorption structure in-between, or both;
along one or more connection lines which face the tank-side support system with a respective gap, or energy absorption structure in-between, or both;
or both.
Robinson teaches a tank-side support system configured to support a similar fuel tank in a shell of an aircraft (32, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fuel tank of modified Immel with a tank-side support system as taught by Robinson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to support the tank in the shell of the aircraft and effectively carry the tank loads and distribute them safety to the aircraft shell (Robinson, Col. 4, line 61 – Col. 5, line 12).
Jones teaches a similar reinforcement structure connected to a similar inner hull at one or more connection points (31a,, 31b, Fig. 5, for example.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fuel tank of modified Immel with one or more connection points, as taught by Jones, whereby modified Immel’s reinforcement structure is connected to the inner hull at one or more of said connection points which face the tank-side support system with a respective gap, in order to supplement the support of the reinforcement structure (Jones, Pg. 10, lines 1-26).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Immel as applied above, in view of Grip et al. (US 20240418318 A1), hereafter Grip.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Immel teaches at least one fuel tank according to claim 1.
Modified Immel is silent about an aircraft comprising: a shell; and, the at least one fuel tank according to claim 1 supported in the shell.
Grip teaches an aircraft comprising a shell with a similar fuel tank supported in the shell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to support the at least one fuel tank of modified Immel in an aircraft shell, as taught by Grip, with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner notes Immel discloses that the tank may be used in vehicles ([0005], “mobile platforms (i.e. vehicles)), and it would be obvious to use the tank in an aircraft as a fuel source.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Immel as applied above, in view of Robinson et al. (US 3951362 A), hereafter Robinson.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Immel teaches the aircraft according to claim 8, wherein the outer hull of the at least one fuel tank has a tubular wall (Immel, 28, Fig. 1) with opposite ends closed by respective domes (Immel, 70, Fig. 1), and,
Modified Immel is silent about wherein the aircraft further comprises: a shell-side support system supporting the at least one fuel tank at a center region of at least one of the domes, or at an exterior region of at least one of the domes, or at several positions along the tubular wall of the outer hull, or at any combination thereof.
Robinson teaches a tank-side support system supporting a similar fuel tank at several positions along a similar tubular wall (32, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fuel tank of modified Immel with a tank-side support system as taught by Robinson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to support the tank in the shell of the aircraft and effectively carry the tank loads and distribute them safety to the aircraft shell (Robinson, Col. 4, line 61 – Col. 5, line 12).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Immel as applied above, in view of Jones et al. (EP 138120 A), hereafter Jones.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Immel teaches the aircraft according to claim 9.
Modified Immel is silent about wherein the reinforcement structure is connected to the inner hull at one or more points, or along one or more lines, or both respectively facing the shell-side support system.
Jones teaches a similar reinforcement structure connected to a similar inner hull at one or more points (31a, 31b, Fig. 5, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fuel tank of modified Immel with one or more connection points, as taught by Jones, whereby modified Immel’s reinforcement structure is connected to the inner hull at one or more of said connection points which face the tank-side support system, in order to supplement the support of the reinforcement structure (Jones, Pg. 10, lines 1-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642