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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A claims 1-10 and 13-20 in the reply filed on 18th February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 4, “…supplying the propulsion system…” should read “…suppling cryogenic fuel to the propulsion system…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 1 lines 5-6, “…carry a cryogenic fuel…” should read “…carry the cryogenic fuel…”.
In claim 8 line 4 “the two or more longitudinally spaced mounting locations…” should read “two or more longitudinally spaced mounting locations…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 14 lines 2-3 “the two or more longitudinally spaced mounting locations…” should read “two or more longitudinally spaced mounting locations…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 15 line 4, “…and lower panel…” should read “…and the lower panel…”.
In claim 17 line 6, “…and second mounting member…” should read “…and the second mounting member…”.
In claim 19 line 4, “…supplying the propulsion system…” should read “…suppling cryogenic fuel to the propulsion system…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 19 lines 5-6, “…carry a cryogenic fuel…” should read “…carry the cryogenic fuel…”.
In claim 20 line 4, “…supplying the propulsion system…” should read “…suppling cryogenic fuel to the propulsion system…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 20 lines 5-6, “…carry a cryogenic fuel…” should read “…carry the cryogenic fuel…”.
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 8-9 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.
Claim 8 recites “locations for connecting respectively to the front spar and the second spar” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is being connected to the front spar and the second spar. For the examination purpose the limitation is interpreted as “locations for connecting mounting members respectively to the front spar and the rear spar.”.
Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency on rejected claim 8.
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.
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) 1, 3, 6, 10, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 2,545,481) in view of Strange et al. (US 2017/0130900).
Regarding claim 1, Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) an aircraft (Col. 1 Lines 15-16; the tank is for an aircraft) comprising:
an airframe configured to transmit aircraft flight loads (airframe forms structure of an aircraft and transmits flight loads),
a propulsion system (Col. 1 Lines 15-16; aircraft is powered by propulsion system), and
a tank supplying fuel to the propulsion system (Col. 1 Lines 15-16, 54-56; fuel tank supplies fuel to run the propulsion system of an aircraft), the tank comprising
an outer vessel/ sections (10-12) (Col. 1 Lines 31-34),
wherein the outer vessel/ sections (10-12) of the cryogenic tank comprises an integral structural member of the airframe (Col. 1 Lines 46-52; mounting member/eyed hangers of the outer vessel connects/mounts or joins the airframe and the outer vessel, thus is an integral structural member of the airframe),
but it is silent about the aircraft comprising:
a tank as a cryogenic tank, the cryogenic tank comprising
an inner vessel defining a closed volume configured to carry a cryogenic fuel; and
an outer vessel enclosing the inner vessel to define an insulating volume therebetween, the insulating volume comprising a vacuum, and the outer vessel comprising a vessel mount structurally connecting the inner vessel to the outer vessel and configured to isolate the inner vessel from static and/or dynamic loads carried by the outer vessel.
Strange et al. ‘900 teaches (figure 3) a cryogenic storage vessel/tank (100) comprising:
an inner vessel (110) defining a closed volume configured to carry a cryogenic fuel; and
an outer vessel (130) enclosing the inner vessel (110) to define an insulating volume/space (140) therebetween, the insulating volume/space (140) comprising a vacuum, and the outer vessel (130) comprising a vessel mount/ support structures (150, 170) structurally connecting the inner vessel (110) to the outer vessel (130) and configured to constrain radial and rotational movement of inner vessel (110) with respect to outer vessel i.e., isolate the inner vessel from static and/or dynamic loads carried by the outer vessel (130) (Para 0022)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Strange et al. ‘900 to configure the aircraft comprising:
a tank as a cryogenic tank, the cryogenic tank comprising
an inner vessel defining a closed volume configured to carry a cryogenic fuel; and
an outer vessel enclosing the inner vessel to define an insulating volume therebetween, the insulating volume comprising a vacuum, and the outer vessel comprising a vessel mount structurally connecting the inner vessel to the outer vessel and configured to isolate the inner vessel from stating and/or dynamic loads carried by the outer vessel.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maintain temperature of the cryogenic fuels and stability of the cryogenic fuels by preventing loads to be transferred to the inner vessel.
Regarding claim 3, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft wherein the outer vessel comprises an outer surface, the outer surface forming an aerodynamic surface of the aircraft (portion of the outer vessel exposed to outside environment is an outer surface).
Regarding claim 6, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft wherein the outer vessel includes a stiffening member of the airframe (airframe is made up of stiffening member/structural element).
Regarding claim 10, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft wherein the outer vessel/sections (10-12) further comprises a mounting member/eyed hangers (18s) for structurally connecting the outer vessel of the tank to the airframe at two longitudinal-spaced mounting locations, the mounting member/eyed hangers (18s) configured to transfer the static and/or dynamic loads between the two longitudinally-spaced mounting locations thereby permitting transfer of the static and/or dynamic loads from the airframe through the outer vessel in a longitudinal direction (Col. 1 Lines 46-52; mounting member/eyed hangers connects the airframe and the outer vessel which enables load transfer between the airframe and the outer vessel).
Regarding claim 13, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft wherein the vessel mount comprises a fixed mount/ support structure (150) at one axial end of the inner vessel (110) and a floating mount/ support structure (170) at another axial end of the inner vessel (110) and wherein the fixed mount /support structure (150) comprises a rigid connection between the inner vessel (110) and the outer vessel (130) (as modified by Strange et al. ‘900 Para 0022; fixed mount/support structure (150) constrains axial, radial and rotational movements thus comprises a rigid connection, wherein the floating mount/support structure constrains only radial and rotational movements)
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the fixed mount comprises a rigid connection between the inner vessel and the outer vessel through which conduits of an aircraft fuel system enter the inner vessel.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to configure the aircraft wherein the fixed mount comprises a rigid connection between the inner vessel and the outer vessel through which conduits of an aircraft fuel system enter the inner vessel.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance safety by fixing the conduits in place.
Regarding claim 19, Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) an aircraft (Col. 1 Lines 15-16; the tank is for an aircraft) comprising:
an airframe configured to transmit aircraft flight loads (airframe forms structure of an aircraft and transmits flight loads),
a propulsion system (Col. 1 Lines 15-16; aircraft is powered by propulsion system), and
a tank supplying fuel to the propulsion system (Col. 1 Lines 15-16, 54-56; fuel tank supplies fuel to run the propulsion system of an aircraft), the tank comprising
an outer vessel/ sections (10-12) (Col. 1 Lines 31-34), the outer vessel comprising:
a mounting member/eyed hangers (18s) for structurally connecting the outer vessel of the tank to the airframe at two longitudinal-spaced mounting locations, the mounting member/eyed hangers (18s) configured to transfer the static and/or dynamic loads between the two longitudinally-spaced mounting locations thereby permitting transfer of the static and/or dynamic loads from the airframe through the outer vessel in a longitudinal direction (Col. 1 Lines 46-52; mounting member/eyed hangers connects the airframe and the outer vessel which enables load transfer between the airframe and the outer vessel)
but it is silent about the aircraft comprising:
a tank as a cryogenic tank, the cryogenic tank comprising
an inner vessel defining a closed volume configured to carry a cryogenic fuel; and
an outer vessel enclosing the inner vessel to define an insulating volume therebetween, the insulating volume comprising a vacuum, and the outer vessel comprising
a vessel mount structurally connecting the inner vessel to the outer vessel and configured to isolate the inner vessel from static and/or dynamic loads carried by the outer vessel.
Strange et al. ‘900 teaches (figure 3) a cryogenic storage vessel/tank (100) comprising:
an inner vessel (110) defining a closed volume configured to carry a cryogenic fuel; and
an outer vessel (130) enclosing the inner vessel (110) to define an insulating volume/space (140) therebetween, the insulating volume/space (140) comprising a vacuum, and the outer vessel (130) comprising a vessel mount/ support structures (150, 170) structurally connecting the inner vessel (110) to the outer vessel (130) and configured to constrain radial and rotational movement of inner vessel (110) with respect to outer vessel i.e., isolate the inner vessel from static and/or dynamic loads carried by the outer vessel (130) (Para 0022)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Strange et al. ‘900 to configure the aircraft comprising:
a tank as a cryogenic tank, the cryogenic tank comprising
an inner vessel defining a closed volume configured to carry a cryogenic fuel; and
an outer vessel enclosing the inner vessel to define an insulating volume therebetween, the insulating volume comprising a vacuum, and the outer vessel comprising
a vessel mount structurally connecting the inner vessel to the outer vessel and configured to isolate the inner vessel from static and/or dynamic loads carried by the outer vessel.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maintain temperature of the cryogenic fuels and stability of the cryogenic fuels by preventing loads to be transferred to the inner vessel.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 2,545,481) and Strange et al. (US 2017/0130900) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hernaiz Lopez et al. (US 2023/0035247).
Regarding claim 2, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft wherein the outer vessel further comprises a panel (outer vessel is made up of a panel) but it is silent about the aircraft comprising panel having one or more reinforcing member projecting inwardly from the panel into the insulating volume.
Hernaiz Lopez et al. ‘247 teaches (figures 1-2) a hydrogen/cryogenic tank (100) for an aircraft comprising an inner vessel (110) and an outer vessel/tank enclosing the inner vessel (110) wherein the outer vessel/tank comprises a panel/outer jacket (130a) and a reinforcing member/elements (140) projecting inwardly from the panel/outer jacket (130a) of the outer vessel/tank into the insulating volume (clearly seen in figure 2) (Para 0010, 0033-0037, 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Hernaiz Lopez et al. ‘247 to configure the aircraft comprising panel having one or more reinforcing member projecting inwardly from the panel into the insulating volume.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance structural rigidity of a tank.
Regarding claim 15, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft of claim 1 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the outer vessel comprises an upper panel and a lower panel, the upper panel comprising an outwardly extending flange porting that overlaps with a corresponding region of the lower panel to thereby join the upper panel and the lower panel and provide a flange extending outwardly from the outer vessel.
Hernaiz Lopez et al. ‘247 teaches (figures 1-4) a hydrogen/cryogenic tank (100) for an aircraft comprising an inner vessel (110) defining a closed volume and configured to carry hydrogen/cryogenic fuel, an outer vessel/tank enclosing the inner vessel (110), wherein the outer vessel/tank comprises a upper panel/outer jacket (130a) and a lower panel/outer jacket dome (120a), the upper panel/outer jacket (130a) comprising an outwardly-extending flange portion/L-shaped end (135) that overlaps with a corresponding region/L shaped end (125) of the lower panel/outer jacket dome to thereby join the upper panel/outer jacket (130a) and the lower panel/outer jacket dome (120a) and provide the flange extending outwardly from the outer vessel (clearly seen in figure 1) (Para 0010, 0033-0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Hernaiz Lopez et al. ‘247 to configure the aircraft wherein the outer vessel comprises an upper panel and a lower panel, the upper panel comprising an outwardly extending flange porting that overlaps with a corresponding region of the lower panel to thereby join the upper panel and the lower panel and provide a flange extending outwardly from the outer vessel.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would form an integral flange for mounting the cryogenic tank
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 2,545,481) and Strange et al. (US 2017/0130900) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freund (US 2014/0224927).
Regarding claim 7, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft wherein a mounting member/eyed hanger (18) structurally connects the outer vessel of the cryogenic tank to the airframe but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the airframe comprises a wing spar.
Freund ‘927 teaches fuel tanks mounted in the wing box (Para 0033; wing box has spars that run in spanwise directions and are spaced along the longitudinal direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Freund ‘927 to configure the aircraft wherein the airframe comprises a wing spar (mounting member/eyed hangers which connects to the airframe are spaced along the longitudinal direction).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would offer structural integrity as the spar is the primary load-bearing member.
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft according to claim 1 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the airframe includes a wing box having a front spar, a rear spar, an upper cover, and a lower cover, and
two or more longitudinally space mounting locations comprise locations for connecting mounting members respectively to the front spar and the rear spar.
Freund ‘927 teaches fuel tanks mounted in the wing box (Para 0033; wing box has spars that run in spanwise directions and are spaced along the longitudinal direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Freund ‘927 to configure the aircraft wherein the airframe includes a wing box having a front spar, a rear spar, an upper cover, and a lower cover, and
two or more longitudinally space mounting locations comprise locations for connecting mounting members respectively to the front spar and the rear spar (mounting member/eyed hangers which connects to the airframe are spaced along the longitudinal direction).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would offer structural integrity as the spar is the primary load-bearing member.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 2,545,481) and Strange et al. (US 2017/0130900) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arnold (US 4,790,350).
Regarding claim 14, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft wherein the outer vessel comprises a flange/eyed hangers (18s) extending outwardly from the outer vessel and comprising two longitudinal spaced mounting locations for connecting the cryogenic tank to the airframe (clearly seen in figures 1-2) (Col. 1 lines 49-50)
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the vessel comprises a flange extending longitudinally along the outer vessel.
Arnold ‘350 teaches (figures 2-4) an auxiliary fuel tank comprising a housing (22) and a strong back/flange (52) extending longitudinally along the fuel tank wherein the strong back/flange is utilized to mount the assembled housing to a pylon for mounting (clearly seen in figure 4) (Col. 8 Lines 57-60; Col. 10 lines 23-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Arnold ‘350 to configure the aircraft wherein the vessel comprises a flange extending longitudinally along the outer vessel.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would reinforce the connection between the cryogenic tank and airframe.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 2,545,481), Strange et al. (US 2017/0130900) and Hernaiz Lopez et al. (US 2023/0035247) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Allen, Jr. et al. (US 6,231,054).
Regarding claim 16, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft of claim 15 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein at least one of the flange portion and corresponding region comprises an elongate sealing channel, the elongate sealing channel configured to comprise an elastomeric elongate sealing component or an elongate bead of curable sealing material to provide a fluid-tight seal between the upper panel and the lower panel.
Allen, Jr. et al. ‘054 teaches using an elastomeric seal for maintaining a vacuum condition at the slidable mating surface (Col. 2 Lines 58-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Allen, Jr. et al. ‘054 to use elastomeric seal for maintaining a vacuum condition. This results in the aircraft wherein at least one of the flange portion and corresponding region comprises an elongate sealing channel, the elongate sealing channel configured to comprise an elastomeric elongate sealing component to provide a fluid-tight seal between the upper panel and the lower panel.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maintain vacuum condition (Col. 2 Lines 58-59).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 2,545,481) and Strange et al. (US 2017/0130900) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rozkowski (US 2008/0067854).
Regarding claim 17, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft wherein the vessel mount comprises a fixed mount/ support structure (150) at one axial end of the inner vessel (110) and a floating mount/ support structure (170) at another axial end of the inner vessel (110) (as modified by Strange et al. ‘900 Para 0022), and wherein the floating mount/ support structure (170) comprises:
a first mounting member/support bracket (200) connected to the inner vessel (110) (as modified by Strange et al. ‘900 Para 0022) and
a second mounting member/support bracket (210) and support (190) connected to the outer vessel (130) (as modified by Strange et al. ‘900 Para 0022),
the first mounting member/support bracket (200) and the second mounting member/support bracket (210) being interconnected to permit relative linear movement therebetween (as modified by Strange et al. ‘900 Para 0022), and
but it is silent about the floating mount comprises:
a bushing comprising a thermal insulating material for limiting heat transfer between the first mounting member and the second mounting member.
Rozkowski ’854 teaches a pivot bushing for insulating and reducing friction about a pivot shaft (Para 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Rozkowski ’854 to configure the floating mount comprises:
a bushing comprising a thermal insulating material for limiting heat transfer between the first mounting member and the second mounting member.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would reduce wear on mounting members.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (US 2,545,481) and Strange et al. (US 2017/0130900) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hernaiz Lopez et al. (US 2023/0035247) and Nishizaki et al. (US 2013/0200077)
Regarding claim 18, modified Maier ‘481 teaches (figures 1-6) the aircraft of claim 1 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the outer vessel is formed from a composite material and the inner vessel is formed from a metal.
Hernaiz Lopez et al. ‘247 teaches (figures 1-2) a hydrogen/cryogenic tank (100) for an aircraft comprising an inner vessel (110) and an outer vessel/tank enclosing the inner vessel wherein outer vessel/tank enclosing the inner vessel comprises domes (120a, 120b) jackets (130a, 130b) are made up of composite material (Para 0013, 0033-0038).
Nishizaki et al. ‘077 teaches (figure 1) a cryogenic tank comprising inner tank (3) constructed as a metal tank (Para 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maier ‘481 to incorporate the teachings of Hernaiz Lopez et al. ‘247 and Nishizaki et al. ‘077 to configure the aircraft wherein the outer vessel is formed from a composite material and the inner vessel is formed from a metal.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would reduce the weight of the tank without compromising confinement of fuel within metal tank.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,989. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,337,989 anticipates claim 19 of current application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Prior fails to teach a face of the outer vessel comprising propulsion system mounts to which the propulsion system is connected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642