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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendment stating that the operation compartment is “a chamber for a pilot”, does not distinguish over the prior art. This additional limitation is an intended use limitation and only further limits the compartment in that it can be used by a pilot in some way. It is claimed as a compartment in which operations may take place, and which can be used by a pilot. The specification does not give this term a special definition. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant’s traversal of the official notice taken in the non-final of 4/1/26 is inadequate. Applicant only argues that the “operation compartment” should be narrowly read to only refer to a cockpit and does not address the facts of the official notice. The official notice did not make any claims as to where a cockpit should be located. As such, the official notice statement is taken to be admitted prior art. However, this argument is somewhat moot as an additional reference has been introduced to read on the new limitations, as presented below.
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) 1-2, 12, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankrithi et al (US 20140339367 A1) in view of Movsesian et al (US 20200115029 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 1302/1304;
and an operation compartment which is a chamber for a pilot located between the hydrogen fuel tank and the accommodation chamber in the fuselage.
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. This is taken as admitted prior art.
Further, Movsesian teaches an operation compartment which is chamber for a pilot located at the front portion of an accommodation chamber intermediate cabin area forward of main cabin area 302. It is “a chamber for a pilot” (an intended use limitation) as the pilot may use it. 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 an operation compartment in front of the main cabin area as disclosed by Movsesian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a secure and private area for the crew to use for operations, such as food preparation and using the lavatory.
As modified, the operation compartment is at the front of the accommodation chamber and therefore aft of the forward fuel tank in Sankrithi.
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.
For claim 15, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 1, further comprising:
a partition located between the operation compartment and the accommodation chamber as modified by Movsesian.
For claim 16, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 15, wherein:
the partition includes an openable and closable door to allow the accommodation chamber and the operation compartment to communicate with each other Movsesian, door 101.
For claim 17, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 1, wherein:
the accommodation chamber includes a cabin and a main cargo section located below the cabin Fig. 13: cabin at upper deck and main cargo at lower deck.
For claim 18, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 17, further comprising:
a sub cargo section located in front of the main cargo section and below the operation compartment Fig. 13: front section of lower deck is considered a sub cargo section, which is also below the operation compartment.
For claim 19, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 18, wherein:
the main cargo section and the sub cargo section are continuous in the front-rear direction without a partition on a boundary between the main cargo section and the sub cargo section Fig. 13: lower section is continuous but considered as divided into the sections.
For claim 20, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 17, further comprising:
a horizontal wall Fig. 13: floor of upper deck,
wherein the main cargo section and the cabin are adjacent to each other in an up-down direction via the horizontal wall Fig. 13.
For claim 21, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 1, wherein:
the hydrogen fuel tank is accommodated in a front tank chamber located in a front end of the fuselage Fig. 13-14: 1302 in portion 1306.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankrithi and Movsesian in view of Lopez-Herrero et al (US 20230339593 A1).
For claim 11, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 1, 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.
For claims 13-14, Sankrithi discloses the hydrogen-powered aircraft according to claim 1 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights