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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/17/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B, Figs. 4-5 in the reply filed on 3/17/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sankrithi et al (US 20140339367 A1).
For claim 1, Sankrithi discloses a hydrogen-powered aircraft, comprising:
a fuselage extending in a front-rear direction Fig. 13;
a tail attached to a rear end of the fuselage Fig. 13: tail;
a wing attached to a portion of the fuselage located in front of the tail Fig. 13: wing 1318;
an accommodation chamber located in the fuselage to accommodate at least one of passengers or cargos in center where window are located; and
a hydrogen fuel tank located in front of the accommodation chamber in the fuselage and storing hydrogen fuel tank 1304.
For claim 2, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the hydrogen fuel tank is disposed at a position overlapping with the accommodation chamber in a front-rear view Fig. 13-14.
For claim 12, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 1, further comprising
an additional hydrogen fuel tank located in the rear of the accommodation chamber in the fuselage 1308.
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(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankrithi.
For claim 10, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the passenger cabin region has an operation compartment in front of the passenger chamber, and therefore is located between the hydrogen fuel tank and the accommodation chamber in the fuselage. Sankrithi only shows the outside of a conventional double-decker passenger aircraft but not explicitly what the compartments look like inside.
The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by using the forward compartment of a passenger cabin for operations (such as food preparation) which is forward of a passenger seating compartment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a separate area for crew to prepare food/drinks out of view of the passengers for privacy or safety.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankrithi in view of Lopez-Herrero et al (US 20230339593 A1).
For claim 11, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 10, but fails to disclose
a first pressure bulkhead located between the hydrogen fuel tank and the operation compartment; and
a second pressure bulkhead located in the rear of the accommodation chamber.
Sankrithi does teach a different embodiment with a rear bulkhead Fig. 4: 410 between the passenger compartment and a rear fuel tank.
Further, Lopez-Herrero teaches an aircraft with a forward compartment Fig. 11: T3 that houses hydrogen fuel tanks and has a pressure bulkhead 17 aft of the fuel tanks in front of a passenger compartment T2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Sankrithi by having a pressure bulkhead both in the rear (as taught by Sankrithi in Fig. 4) and at the front as disclosed by Lopez-Herrero. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to pressurize the compartment in which passengers/crew will be in and to further contain/separate the fuel for safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642