DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 5, 8, and 12 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 5 recites the opening providing access to at least one hydrogen tank. However, claim 1 recites the fuselage containing or configured to contain at least one tank. The phrase “configured to contain” does not provide a positive recitation of a tank, and the tank may not be present. Accordingly, it is unclear how the opening can provide access to a component not present.
Similarly for the distribution system of claim 12.
Claim 8 recites the antenna at least partially attached to, partially embedded in, or both, a panel, and included in said panel. The disclosure notes the antenna may be attached to the surface of the panel ([0025]), which would not render the antenna in the panel, as claimed. It is thus unclear how attaching would provide the antenna within the panel. See MPEP 2173.03.
Claim 12 recites the antenna arranged between two channels and containing at least a part of a transport pipe, however it is unclear as to what component contains the pipe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 108 001 685; provided translation used).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Wang discloses an aircraft comprising:
a fuselage (1) with an unpressurized aft section (aft of the nose cone) containing a hydrogen tank (“tubular container filled with hydrogen”),
wherein an antenna (5) is integrated with a roof portion of the fuselage at least partially covering the aft portion (Fig 1).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nazario-Romero (US 2016/0301130).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Nazario-Romero discloses an aircraft comprising:
a fuselage (as seen in Fig 1) with an unpressurized aft section (aft of cockpit) configured to contain a hydrogen tank,
wherein an antenna (25) is integrated with a roof portion of the fuselage at least partially covering the aft portion (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Nazario-Romero discloses the antenna at least partially countersunk (as seen in Fig 1).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Düde et al. (US 2022/0384937).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Düde discloses an aircraft comprising:
a fuselage (4) with an unpressurized aft section (Fig 1) configured to contain a hydrogen tank,
wherein an antenna (13) is integrated with a roof portion of the fuselage at least partially covering the aft portion (Fig 1).
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) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (‘685).
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Wang discloses an antenna with a fairing/skin thereover (4), and a body made of “carbon fibre cloth composite structure of the glass fiber cloth with middle coating material” (i.e. a glass and carbon fiber plastic composite), with “high tensile strength, good heat resistance, and corrosion resistance,” but does not specifically disclose the fairing/skin made of glass fiber composite.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Wang to use a glass fiber composite fairing/skin for the predictable advantage of providing high tensile strength, good heat resistance, and corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Düde et al. (US 2022/0384937) in view of Ballestero Méndez (EP 4 124 568).
Regarding independent claim 1, in the alternative:
Düde discloses a rear section configured to contain at least one hydrogen tank, but does not disclose at least one hydrogen tank.
Ballestero Méndez teaches an aircraft having hydrogen tanks (3) in the rear unpressurized section (Fig 2; [0042]) to improve efficiency when positioning and controlling the center of gravity when the aircraft is hydrogen powered ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Düde to use rear hydrogen tanks as taught by Ballestero Méndez for the predictable advantage of reducing carbon emissions (by using hydrogen as opposed to carbon jet fuel) and improving the control about the center of gravity of the aircraft.
Regarding claims 3 and 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Düde discloses a skin/fairing over the antenna, but does not disclose a glass fiber reinforced plastic.
The examiner takes Official Notice that glass fiber composites are well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Düde to use a glass fiber composite as the examiner takes Official Notice that glass fiber composites are well-known in the art, to provide high tensile strength, good heat resistance, and corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 4-9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Düde et al. (US 2022/0384937) in view of Ballestero Méndez (EP 4 124 568) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Puschmann (2023/0415907).
Regarding claim 4:
Düde discloses an antenna in a roof of an aircraft, but does not disclose the antenna integrated with a panel releasably closing an opening in the fuselage.
Puschmann teaches roof panels that open ([0054]) when there is a risk of hydrogen accumulation on the ground ([0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Düde to use roof doors as taught by Puschmann for the predictable advantage of venting accumulated hydrogen within the aft section.
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Düde as modified renders the opening providing access to the hydrogen tank and a fuel distribution system (e.g. Puschmann, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Düde as modified renders the opening configured as a tank port for selectively extracting or removing the tank (the opening permits egress of components e.g. during manufacturing).
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Düde as modified renders two tanks with an interspace in-between at least partially covered by the panel (Ballestero Méndez provides for two longitudinally arranged tanks, and the panels of Puschmann would cover them as they are also longitudinally arranged).
Regarding claim 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Düde discloses the antenna attached to sub-panels (e.g. 17, 27, etc.), and it would be obvious to render glass fiber composites in the same manner as noted above.
Regarding claim 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Düde discloses an outer surface of the rood portion at least partially formed by a portion of a shell (5) fastened to a reinforcement structure (31, 35) of the fuselage.
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
The discussion above regarding claim 10 is relied upon.
Düde discloses a hydrogen system, but does not disclose a distribution system in the roof or the antenna arranged between two channels formed in the roof and containing at least a hydrogen transport pipe.
Puschmann teaches a hydrogen distribution system in the roof with two lateral channels and transport pipes (30; Figs 2 and 3) for transporting hydrogen in the aircraft to engines or fuel cells ([0027]; [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Düde to use pipes in lateral channels as taught by Puschmann for the predictable advantage of providing hydrogen within the aircraft to the engines or fuel cells.
The modification would render the antenna between the two channels, as the channels are laterally arranged on the aircraft, and even if not, would further be obvious since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights