Office Action 3: Non-Final Rejection (2023-03-21)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
Application Serial No.: 17/841,153 Attorney Docket 1179-058USU1 LISTING OF CLAIMS This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

1\. (Currently Amended.) A method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises:
storing, using a fuel tank, liquified gas fuel;
fueling over a period of time exceeding 30 minutes, using a fuel line, an aircraft, wherein fueling further comprises:
filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus reserves, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank, wherein the sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device; and
removing, using the computing device, the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft; and
preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level; and
flying, using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel.

2\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft.

3\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi- lobe geometry.

4\. (Original.) The method of claim 3, wherein the fuel tank comprises a septum.

5\. (Previously Presented.) The method of claim 3, wherein the multi-lobe geometry provides tension for each fuel tank of the multi-lobe geometry.

6\. (Previously Presented.) The method of claim 1, wherein the fuel tank is prepared as a function of a fill datum.

Application Serial No.: 17/841,153 Attorney Docket 1179-058USU1

7\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, further comprising venting, using a vent line, the fuel tank, wherein the vent line is in fluid connection to the fuel tank.

8\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to capture gaseous hydrogen from the fuel tank.

9\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to release pressure from the fuel tank.

10\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line includes a pressure regulator.

11\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is insulated to prevent the accumulation of frozen gases.

12\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall and an outer wall wherein a void resides in between.

13\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the vent line further comprises a heat exchanger.

14\. (Original.) The method of claim 7, wherein the preparing the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the vent line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level.

15\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the preparing of the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the fuel line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level.

16\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flights are further configured to:
commence at a first refueling station; and
terminate at a second refueling station.

17\. (Previously Presented.) The method of claim 1, wherein no fueling occurs between the flights of the plurality of flights.

18\. (Canceled.)

19\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the fuel tank may comprise a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the tank.

20\. (Original.) The method of claim 1, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen.
59th Floor 59th Floor 200 Clarendon St. Boston, MA 02116 Page 2 of 8Caldwell Intellectual Property Law, LLC Page 3 of 8Caldwell Intellectual Property Law, LLC

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection.  Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.  Applicant's submission filed on 01/19/2023 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, bottom section, filed 02/22/2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.  Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.  However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Non-patent literature, pilotteacher.com, James; Rick.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150344143 A1 Epstein; Michael Jay et al., and further in view of US 20110042520 A1 Glaser; Daniel et al. and further in view of Non-patent literaturepilotteacher.com, James; Rick (hereinafter James).
1.	Regarding claim 1 Epstein teaches, A method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises: storing (para 0021 storing), using a fuel tank (fig. 3, element 22), liquified gas fuel (para 0022 jet fuel, cryogenic fuel, or liquified natural gas);
But fails to teach, fueling over a period of time exceeding 30 minutes,
However, James teaches, fueling, over a period of time exceeding 30 minutes (table for Refueling Times for 15 of the Worlds Most Common Airplanes, pages 3-4 aircraft AN-225 take up to 5h 30min for refuel),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the fueling time taught by James in order to be efficient including turnaround time to make money (heading “How are Airplanes Refueled?” James)
Furthermore, Epstein teaches, using a fuel line (fig. 3, element 32 is equal to fuel line), an aircraft (fig. 1, element 5),
Epstein fails to teach, wherein fueling further comprises: filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus reserves, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank, wherein the sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device; and removing, using the computing device, the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft; and preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level; and flying, using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel.
Examiner takes official notice it is well known to fill tanks to desired level and that the amount of fuel for more than one flight plus reserves;
Glaser teaches, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank (para 0015 sensor and where unintentional shut-off is equal to abnormal phenomena), wherein the sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device (para 0015 control device equal to computing device); and removing, using the computing device (para 0030 control device is used at end of refueling operation and line detached), the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter); and preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level fill datum; and flying , using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel (it is well know that aircraft fly, and have a plurality of flights).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the removing the fuel line as a function of fuel level taught by Glaser in order to optimize fueling times (Para 0011).
2.	Regarding claim 6, Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glasser teaches, wherein the fuel tank is prepared as a function of a fill datum (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
3.	Regarding claim 7 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, further comprising venting, using a vent line (fig. 3, element 41), the fuel tank (fig. 3, element 22), wherein the vent line is in fluid connection to the fuel tank (fig. 3).
4.	Regarding claim 8 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to capture gaseous hydrogen from the fuel tank (para 0068 capture gases).
5.	Regarding claim 9 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to release pressure from the fuel tank (para 0058 “maintains the tank at a desired pressure”).
6.	Regarding claim 10 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line includes a pressure regulator (fig. 3, element 39 valve equal to regulator).
7.	Regarding claim 11 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is insulated to prevent the accumulation of frozen gases (para 0062 wing LNG, tank, and structural elements insulated).
8.	Regarding claim 13 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line further comprises a heat exchanger (para 0005, 0084 catalytic converter equal to heat exchanger).
9.	Regarding claim 14 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Glaser teaches wherein the preparing the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the vent line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
10.	Regarding claim 15 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glaser teaches, wherein the preparing of the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the fuel line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
11.	Regarding claim 16 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glaser teaches, wherein the plurality of flights is further configured to: commence at a first refueling station; and terminate at a second refueling station (Examiner takes official notice it is well known an aircraft to takeoff and land at a fueling station).
12.	Regarding claim 17 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but does not teach, wherein no fueling occurs between the flights of the plurality of flights.
Examiner takes official notice it is well known to fill tanks to desired level and that the amount of fuel for more than one flight plus reserves.
13.	Regarding claim 20 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen (abstract).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 7281682 B2 D'Auvergne; Hector A.
15.	Regarding claim 2 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft.
However, D’Auvergne teaches, wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft (fig. 1, element 28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the blended wing body taught by D'Auvergne in order to form a large surface area (col. 2, limes 25-27).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 6123295 A Wexler; Mark Harry et al.
16.	Regarding claim 3 Epstein teaches, the method of claim 1 But fails to teach, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry.
However, Wexler teaches, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the multi-lobe fuel tank taught by Wexler in order to “optimize the amount of fuel” (col. 1, lines 18-19).
17.	Regarding claim 5, Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 3, Wexler teaches, wherein the multi-lobe geometry provides tension for each fuel tank of the multi-lobe geometry (Cols. 2-3 lines 60-6 where hoop tension is provided).
Claim(s) 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 6422514 B1 Clark; William James et al.
18.	Regarding claim 4 Epstein teaches, the method of claim 3, but fails to teach, wherein the fuel tank comprises a septum.
However Clark teaches, wherein the fuel tank comprises a septum (fig4, element 202, 204, 206).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the septum taught by Clark in order to “maximize the propellant volumetric efficiency of the fuselage.” (col. 2, lines 64-65).
19. 	Regarding claim 19 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the fuel tank may comprise a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the tank.
However, Clark teaches, wherein the fuel tank may comprise a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the tank (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the wall taught by Clark in order to “maximize the propellant volumetric efficiency of the fuselage.” (col. 2, lines 64-65).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20120119032 A1 Benassi; Eric et al.
20.	Regarding claim 12 Epstein as modified, the method of claim 7, but fails to teach, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall and an outer wall wherein a void resides in between.
However, Benassi teaches, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall (fig. 1, element 16) and an outer wall (see annotated fig. 1 outer wall) wherein a void (see annotated fig. 1 void) resides in between.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the hose walls taught by Benassi, “in order to ensure that, in the event of failure of the first hose, the second wall hose contains any leakage.” (para 0002).
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are pending in the present application. Claims 1 and 3 are
amended in this paper. No claims are canceled in this paper. No new claims are added in this paper.
In taking the foregoing actions, Applicant respectfully submits Applicant is not
necessarily conceding in this application that these claims, as originally presented, are not patentable over the references cited by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as pertinent ones of the present claim amendments and cancellations are only for facilitating expeditious prosecution. Applicant respectfully reserves the right to pursue the canceled claims and/or other claims in one or more continuing applications.
Appli
cant-Initiated Interview Summary
A telephonic interview regarding the instant matter was conducted on May 11, 2023 between Examiner Curry and Applicant's representative, Micah Drayton, Reg # 69,906, and Alexander Bost. Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was discussed in light of proposed claim amendments. Applicant thanks the Examiner for her time and consideration in conducting the interview. No agreement was reached.
Rej
ection of claims under 35 U.S.C.
&
Epstein/Glaser/James
Claims 1, 6-11, 13-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly
unpatentable over Epstein et al. (US 2015/0344143), hereinafter Epstein in view of Glaser et al. (US 2011/0042520), hereinafter Glaser, in further view of Rick James (pilotteacher.com NPL reference), hereinafter James. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 1
Claim 1 as amended recites:
A method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method
comprises:
storing, using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an
airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe,
liquified gas fuel;
fueling, using a fuel line, an aircraft, wherein fueling further
comprises:
filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein
the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus
reserves, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank, wherein the
sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a
signal that is then transmitted to a computing device; and
removing, using the computing device, the fuel line as function of
the desired level in the aircraft; and
preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level;
and
flying, using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas
fuel.
The Office asserts that Epstein teaches "storing, using a fuel tank, liquified gas fuel" in Fig. 3 and P. [0021]-[0022]. However, the above-described language of Epstein does not teach, suggest, or motivate using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that Epstein does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein.
Glaser fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein. Glaser is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that Glaser does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein and Glaser, alone or in combination. Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein and Glaser, alone or in combination.
James fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein and Glaser. James is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that James does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe."
Further, The Office takes Official Notice that "it is well known to fill tanks to a desired level and that the amount of fuel for more than one flight plus reserves." MPEP 2144.03(A) states "It would
not
be appropriate for the examiner to take official notice of facts without citing a prior art reference where the facts asserted to be well known are not beyond dispute, or are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known." [Applicant's emphasis partially added.] Applicant respectfully traverses the Official Notice. The James reference on page 2, paragraph 2 contradicts The Office's assertion, reciting "All planes are fuelled for the next flight only." Accordingly, Applicant submits that the facts asserted by The Office to be well known are not beyond dispute and respectfully requests withdrawal of the Official Notice asserted by The Office.
Further, The Office asserts that the motivation to combine the reference of Epstein with the reference of James for the purposes of teaching "fueling, over a time period of time exceeding 30 minutes" would be to "be efficient including turnaround time to make money." (Office Action, p. 3.) However, Applicant notes that the motivation asserted by The Office would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue precisely the opposite action than ensuring a fueling time was above a threshold as previously claimed. Moreover, because the relevant limitation has been removed from the claim, Applicant respectfully asserts that the James reference does not teach, suggest, or motivate claim 1 as amended.
Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Claims 6-11, 13-17, and 20
Each of claims 6-11, 13-17, and 20 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. As
noted above, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 6-11, 13-17, and 20 as amended are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least their dependency on patentably distinguishable claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of these rejections.
Epstein/Glaser/James/D'Auvergne
Claim 2
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, and James as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and in further view of D'Auvergne (US 7,281,682), hereinafter D'Auvergne. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 2 depends directly from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 is patentably
distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 2 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
D'Auvergne fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, and James. D'Auvergne is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that D'Auvergne does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and D'Auvergne, alone or in combination. Accordingly, claim 2 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and D'Auvergne, alone or in combination, for at least its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Epstein/Glaser/James/Wexler
Claims 3 and 5
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, and James as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and in further view of Wexler et al. (US 6,123,295), hereinafter Wexler. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claims 3 and 5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 is
patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 3 and 5 are
patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Wexler fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, and James. Wexler is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim
1. Applicant asserts that Wexler does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination. Accordingly, claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, for at least their dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1.
Further, claim 3 has been amended to recite "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than
W/m-K." The Office has not asserted that Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, teach, suggest, or motivate "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi- lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K" as recited by amended claim 3. Applicant asserts that Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, do not teach, suggest, or motivate "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K." Accordingly, claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, for at least this reason. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of these rejections.
Epstein/Glaser/James/Wexler/Clark
Claim 4
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Clark et al. (US 6,123,295), hereinafter Clark. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 4 depends indirectly from claim 1 and directly from claim 3. As noted above,
claims 1 and 3 are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or
in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 4 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Clark fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, James, and Wexler. Clark is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1 or "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K" as recited by amended claim 3. Applicant asserts that Clark does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" or "wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claims 1 and 3 are patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, Wexler, and Clark, alone or in combination. Accordingly, claim 4 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, Wexler, and Clark, alone or in combination, for at least its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1 and claim 3. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Epstein/Glaser/James/Clark
Claim 19
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, and James as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and in further view of Clark et al. (US 6,123,295), hereinafter Clark. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 19 depends directly from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 is patentably
distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 19 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Clark fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, and James. Clark is not asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an
airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that Clark does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Clark, alone or in combination. Accordingly, claim 19 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Clark, alone or in combination, for at least its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Epstein/Glaser/James/Benassi
Claim 12
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Epstein, Glaser, and James as applied to claim 1 above, respectively, and in further view of Benassi et al. (US 2012/0119032), hereinafter Benassi. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 12 depends indirectly from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 is patentably
distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 12 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, and James, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above and its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1.
Benassi fails to cure the deficiencies of Epstein, Glaser, and James. Benassi is not
asserted by The Office to teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe" as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that Benassi does not teach, suggest, or motivate "using a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe." Accordingly, and for at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Benassi, alone or in combination. Claim 12 is patentably distinguishable over Epstein, Glaser, James, and Benassi, alone or in combination, for at least its dependence on patentably distinguishable claim 1. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE 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 06/05/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments do not overcome current rejection on record and raise new 35 USC 112(b) issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 first paragraph, filed 06/05/2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Official Notice have been fully considered and are persuasive.  Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.  However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20130197791 A1 Struzik; Anthony which teaches the claimed subject matter.
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 1-17 and 19-20 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.
1.	Claim 1 recites the limitation “a fuel tank that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe”. It is unclear how the tank provides structural support or carries shear loads from the airframe. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150344143 A1 Epstein; Michael Jay et al., in view of US 6422514 B1 Clark; William James et al. in view of US 20130197791 A1 Struzik; Anthony, and further in view of US 20110042520 A1 Glaser; Daniel et al.
2.	Regarding claim 1 Epstein teaches, a method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises: storing (para 0021 storing), using a fuel tank (fig. 3, element 22)
Epstien fails to teach, that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft and carries shear loads from the airframe,
However, Clark teaches, that provides structural support to an airframe of the aircraft (Clark, col 3, lines 43-67) and carries shear loads from the airframe (Clark, col 4 lines 64-col 5 line 10, “The tension septums provide…, … shear load path for reacting vehicle inertial and air loads”),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the fuel tank supporting the airframe taught by Clark in order for providing support of the chambers of the tank within the interior of the aerospace vehicle (Clark col 3, lines 43-67),
Epstein further teaches, liquified gas fuel (para 0022 jet fuel, cryogenic fuel, or liquified natural gas); fueling using a fuel line (fig. 3, element 32 is equal to fuel line), an aircraft (fig. 1, element 5),
Epstein fails to teach, wherein fueling further comprises: filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus reserves, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank, wherein the sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device; and removing, using the computing device, the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft; and preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level; and flying, using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel.
However, Struzik teaches, wherein fueling further comprises: filling the fuel tank with liquified gas fuel to a desired level, wherein the desired level comprises fuel for a plurality of flights plus reserves (Struzik, fig. 5c tankering, para 0022 including reserve fuel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the fueling optimization taught by in order to reduce “fuel cost across a multi-stop route.” (Struzik, para 0015).
Glaser teaches, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank (para 0015 sensor and where unintentional shut-off is equal to abnormal phenomena), wherein the sensor converts the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device (para 0015 control device equal to computing device); and removing, using the computing device (para 0030 control device is used at end of refueling operation and line detached), the fuel line as function of the desired level in the aircraft (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter); and preparing the fuel tank for flight as a function of the desired level fill datum; and flying , using the aircraft, a plurality of flights using the liquid gas fuel (it is well know that aircraft fly, and have a plurality of flights).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the removing the fuel line as a function of fuel level taught by Glaser in order to optimize fueling times (Para 0011).
2.	Regarding claim 6, Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glasser teaches, wherein the fuel tank is prepared as a function of a fill datum (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
3.	Regarding claim 7 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, further comprising venting, using a vent line (fig. 3, element 41), the fuel tank (fig. 3, element 22), wherein the vent line is in fluid connection to the fuel tank (fig. 3).
4.	Regarding claim 8 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to capture gaseous hydrogen from the fuel tank (para 0068 capture gases).
5.	Regarding claim 9 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is configured to release pressure from the fuel tank (para 0058 “maintains the tank at a desired pressure”).
6.	Regarding claim 10 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line includes a pressure regulator (fig. 3, element 39 valve equal to regulator).
7.	Regarding claim 11 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line is insulated to prevent the accumulation of frozen gases (para 0062 wing LNG, tank, and structural elements insulated).
8.	Regarding claim 13 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, wherein the vent line further comprises a heat exchanger (para 0005, 0084 catalytic converter equal to heat exchanger).
9.	Regarding claim 14 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Glaser teaches wherein the preparing the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the vent line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
10.	Regarding claim 15 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glaser teaches, wherein the preparing of the fuel tank for flight further includes detaching the fuel line from the fuel tank as a function of the desired level (claim 17, disconnecting in response to predetermined parameter).
11.	Regarding claim 16 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Glaser teaches, wherein the plurality of flights is further configured to: commence at a first refueling station; and terminate at a second refueling station (Examiner takes official notice it is well known an aircraft to takeoff and land at a fueling station).
12.	Regarding claim 17 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but does not teach, wherein no fueling occurs between the flights of the plurality of flights.
Examiner takes official notice it is well known to fill tanks to desired level and that the amount of fuel for more than one flight plus reserves.
13.	Regarding claim 20 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen (abstract).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein, Clark, Struzik and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 7281682 B2 D'Auvergne; Hector A.
15.	Regarding claim 2 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft.
However, D’Auvergne teaches, wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body aircraft (fig. 1, element 28).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the blended wing body taught by D'Auvergne in order to form a large surface area (col. 2, limes 25-27).
Claim(s) 3-5, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein and Glaser as applied to claims above, in view of US 6123295 A Wexler; Mark Harry et al and further in view of NPL “What is Aerogel-” by Nick Connor (hereinafter known as Conner).
16.	Regarding claim 3 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry,
However, Wexler teaches, wherein the fuel tank is configured to have a multi-lobe geometry (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the multi-lobe fuel tank taught by Wexler in order to “optimize the amount of fuel” (col. 1, lines 18-19).
Epsiten further teaches, and comprises an insulation material (para 0043 “Vacuum insulation or optionally low thermal conductivity insulation material such as aerogels.”) but does not teach the value of thermal conductivity,
However, Connor teaches, with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K  (first paragraph, aerogel thermal conductivity of  0.013 W/m∙K). The motivation would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the low thermal conductivity because it reduces thermal conductivity.
17.	Regarding claim 4 Epstein teaches, the method of claim 3, Clark teaches, wherein the fuel tank comprises a septum (fig4, element 202, 204, 206).
18.	Regarding claim 5, Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 3, Wexler teaches, wherein the multi-lobe geometry provides tension for each fuel tank of the multi-lobe geometry (Cols. 2-3 lines 60-6 where hoop tension is provided).
19. 	Regarding claim 19 Epstein as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Clark teaches, wherein the fuel tank may comprise a chamber between an inner wall and an
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein, Clark, Struzik and Glaser as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20120119032 A1 Benassi; Eric et al.
20.	Regarding claim 12 Epstein as modified, the method of claim 7, but fails to teach, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall and an outer wall wherein a void resides in between.
However, Benassi teaches, wherein the vent line includes an inner wall (fig. 1, element 16) and an outer wall (see annotated fig. 1 outer wall) wherein a void (see annotated fig. 1 void) resides in between.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fueling an aircraft taught by Epstein with the hose walls taught by Benassi, “in order to ensure that, in the event of failure of the first hose, the second wall hose contains any leakage.” (para 0002).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20150344143A1: Claims:
An aircraft comprising: at least one turbine engine providing propulsive force for the aircraft; and a cryogenic fuel system comprising: a cryogenic fuel storage tank located within the aircraft; a pressure vent fluidly coupled to the cryogenic fuel storage tank and exhausting evaporated gas from the cryogenic fuel to define a natural gas vent stream; and a catalytic converter fluidly coupled to the pressure vent and receiving the natural gas vent stream and converting the natural gas vent stream into a second gas stream comprising products of oxidation.
at least one turbine engine providing propulsive force for the aircraft; and
a cryogenic fuel system comprising: a cryogenic fuel storage tank located within the aircraft; a pressure vent fluidly coupled to the cryogenic fuel storage tank and exhausting evaporated gas from the cryogenic fuel to define a natural gas vent stream; and a catalytic converter fluidly coupled to the pressure vent and receiving the natural gas vent stream and converting the natural gas vent stream into a second gas stream comprising products of oxidation.
a cryogenic fuel storage tank located within the aircraft;
a pressure vent fluidly coupled to the cryogenic fuel storage tank and exhausting evaporated gas from the cryogenic fuel to define a natural gas vent stream; and
a catalytic converter fluidly coupled to the pressure vent and receiving the natural gas vent stream and converting the natural gas vent stream into a second gas stream comprising products of oxidation.
The aircraft of claim 1 , further comprising a first mixing device fluidly coupled to the natural gas vent stream upstream of the catalytic converter and configured to mix the natural gas vent stream with air prior to reaching the catalytic converter.
The aircraft of claim 2 , further comprising a blower fluidly coupled to the mixing device and configured to provide the air to be mixed in the mixing device.
The aircraft of claim 3 wherein the blower is a high-volume, low-pressure blower.
The aircraft of claim 3 , further comprising a second mixing device fluidly coupled to the catalytic converter to receive the second gas stream and fluidly coupled to the blower and configured to mix the products of oxidation with air from the blower.
The aircraft of claim 5 , further comprising a splitter valve operably coupled to an output of the blower and configured to divide the air between the first mixing device and the second mixing device.
The aircraft of claim 1 , further comprising a heater to heat the catalytic converter to between 400° F. and 600° F.
The aircraft of claim 1 wherein the catalytic converter comprises a core having a monolith honeycomb structure, formed from ceramic or metallic foil and where catalytic materials of the catalytic converter are formed from a precious metal.
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein the catalytic converter further comprises washcoat materials configured to increase surface area of the catalytic materials.
The aircraft of claim 1 wherein the cryogenic fuel storage tank is passively cooled.
The aircraft of claim 1 wherein the cryogenic fuel is liquefied natural gas.
A method of managing evaporated cryogenic fuel in a storage tank of a cryogenic fuel system of an aircraft, comprising: venting gas in the form of evaporated cryogenic fuel from the storage tank to maintain an internal pressure in the storage tank; mixing the vented gas with air to form a vented gas and air mixture to form a first gas stream; and passing the first gas stream through a heated catalytic converter to create a second gas stream of products of oxidation.
venting gas in the form of evaporated cryogenic fuel from the storage tank to maintain an internal pressure in the storage tank;
mixing the vented gas with air to form a vented gas and air mixture to form a first gas stream; and
passing the first gas stream through a heated catalytic converter to create a second gas stream of products of oxidation.
The method of claim 12 wherein the air and natural gas are mixed to an equivalence ratio of 0.1.
The method of claim 12 , further comprising mixing the second gas stream with air to lower an exhaust temperature of the catalytic converter.
The method of any of 1 claim 12 wherein operating the catalytic converter at elevated temperatures comprises initially electrically or inductively heating the catalytic converter.
The method of claim 13 wherein operating the catalytic converter at elevated temperatures comprises initially electrically or inductively heating the catalytic converter.
The method of claim 14 wherein operating the catalytic converter at elevated temperatures comprises initially electrically or inductively heating the catalytic converter.
The aircraft of claim 2 wherein the cryogenic fuel storage tank is passively cooled.
The aircraft of claim 3 wherein the cryogenic fuel storage tank is passively cooled.
The aircraft of claim 4 wherein the cryogenic fuel storage tank is passively cooled.
Ref US20110042520A1: Claims:
- 11 . (canceled)
Aircraft tank system comprising: a tank cell for receiving fuel, a fuel line that connects the tank cell to a fuel inlet connection, and an aeration- and/or deaeration device that for aeration and/or deaeration of the tank cell connects the tank cell to the environment, wherein the aeration- and/or deaeration device comprises a shut-off valve that is adapted in an open position to open a connection between the tank cell and the environment and in a closed position to interrupt the connection between the tank cell and the environment, characterized in that the aircraft tank system further comprises a control device that is adapted during filling of the tank cell with fuel to control the shut-off valve of the aeration- and/or deaeration device into its closed position, and that there is connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device an exhaust air outlet connection, which during filling of the tank cell with fuel is connectable to an aeration- and/or deaeration connection of a storage tank of a refueling unit in order during filling of the tank cell to convey exhaust air from the tank cell into the storage tank of the refueling unit.
a tank cell for receiving fuel,
a fuel line that connects the tank cell to a fuel inlet connection, and
an aeration- and/or deaeration device that for aeration and/or deaeration of the tank cell connects the tank cell to the environment,
wherein the aeration- and/or deaeration device comprises a shut-off valve that is adapted in an open position to open a connection between the tank cell and the environment and in a closed position to interrupt the connection between the tank cell and the environment,
characterized in that the aircraft tank system further comprises a control device that is adapted during filling of the tank cell with fuel to control the shut-off valve of the aeration- and/or deaeration device into its closed position, and that there is connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device an exhaust air outlet connection, which during filling of the tank cell with fuel is connectable to an aeration- and/or deaeration connection of a storage tank of a refueling unit in order during filling of the tank cell to convey exhaust air from the tank cell into the storage tank of the refueling unit.
Aircraft tank system according to claim 12 , characterized in that the control device is adapted to control the shut-off valve) of the aeration- and/or deaeration device on the basis of sensor signals that indicate whether the exhaust air outlet connection connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system is connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration connection of the storage tank) of the refueling unit.
characterized in that the control device is adapted to control the shut-off valve) of the aeration- and/or deaeration device on the basis of sensor signals that indicate whether the exhaust air outlet connection connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system is connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration connection of the storage tank) of the refueling unit.
Aircraft tank system according to claim 12 , characterized in that the shut-off valve of the aeration- and/or deaeration device is configured as a pressure- and/or vacuum relief valve.
characterized in that the shut-off valve of the aeration- and/or deaeration device is configured as a pressure- and/or vacuum relief valve.
Aircraft tank system according to claim 12 , characterized in that the exhaust air outlet connection connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system is disposed adjacent to the fuel inlet connection of the aircraft tank system or is formed integral with the fuel inlet connection of the aircraft tank system.
characterized in that the exhaust air outlet connection connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system is disposed adjacent to the fuel inlet connection of the aircraft tank system or is formed integral with the fuel inlet connection of the aircraft tank system.
Aircraft tank system according to claim 15 , characterized in that the exhaust air outlet connection, which is connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system, and the fuel inlet connection of the aircraft tank system are configured in the than of a coaxial coupling.
characterized in that the exhaust air outlet connection, which is connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system, and the fuel inlet connection of the aircraft tank system are configured in the than of a coaxial coupling.
Method of refueling an aircraft comprising the steps: connecting a fuel outlet connection of a storage tank of a refueling unit to a fuel inlet connection of an aircraft tank system, and conveying fuel from the storage tank into a tank cell of the aircraft tank system, characterized in that a shut-off valve of an aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system that is adapted in an open position to open a connection between the tank cell of the aircraft tank system and the environment and in a closed position to interrupt the connection between the tank cell of the aircraft tank system and the environment is controlled into its closed position and that an aeration- and/or deaeration connection of the storage tank of the refueling unit is connected to an exhaust air outlet connection connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system so that during filling of the tank cell of the aircraft tank system with fuel exhaust air is conveyed out of the tank cell of the aircraft tank system into the storage tank of the refueling unit.
connecting a fuel outlet connection of a storage tank of a refueling unit to a fuel inlet connection of an aircraft tank system, and
conveying fuel from the storage tank into a tank cell of the aircraft tank system,
characterized in that a shut-off valve of an aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system that is adapted in an open position to open a connection between the tank cell of the aircraft tank system and the environment and in a closed position to interrupt the connection between the tank cell of the aircraft tank system and the environment is controlled into its closed position and that an aeration- and/or deaeration connection of the storage tank of the refueling unit is connected to an exhaust air outlet connection connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system so that during filling of the tank cell of the aircraft tank system with fuel exhaust air is conveyed out of the tank cell of the aircraft tank system into the storage tank of the refueling unit.
Method according to claim 17 , characterized in that the shut-off valve of the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system is controlled by means of a control device on the basis of sensor signals that indicate whether the exhaust air outlet connection connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system is connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration connection of the storage tank of the refueling unit.
characterized in that the shut-off valve of the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system is controlled by means of a control device on the basis of sensor signals that indicate whether the exhaust air outlet connection connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration device of the aircraft tank system is connected to the aeration- and/or deaeration connection of the storage tank of the refueling unit.
Ref US20120119032A1: Claims:
A second wall hose for an airborne vehicle, comprising: an internal layer of rubber material comprising a rubber elastomer with a carbon component forming a tubular hose configuration; a spring positioned around the tubular hose configuration; a layer of fabric around the metallic spring; and a polyamide thread around the layer of fabric.
an internal layer of rubber material comprising a rubber elastomer with a carbon component forming a tubular hose configuration;
a spring positioned around the tubular hose configuration;
a layer of fabric around the metallic spring; and
a polyamide thread around the layer of fabric.
The second wall hose of claim 1 , wherein the polyamid thread traps the layer of fabric between metallic spring coils.
The second wall hose of claim 1 , wherein the tubular hose configuration has an internal diameter of about 15 mm to about 300 mm.
The second wall hose of claim 1 , wherein the layer of fabric comprises a polyethylene terephthalate fabric coated with a fireproof dissolution and a fungus resistant rubber dissolution.
The second wall hose of claim 1 , wherein the spring comprises a metallic spring.
The second wall hose of claim 1 , further comprising a fitting positioned at one or both ends of the hose.
The second wall hose of claim 1 , where in the internal layer of rubber further comprises a fungus resistant component.
The second wall hose of claim 1 , wherein the hose is configured to withstand an internal pressure of about 8-9 psi.
An aircraft hose system, comprising (a) a second wall hose according to claim 1 , (b) an internal hose configured to be positioned within the second wall hose.
(a) a second wall hose according to claim 1 ,
(b) an internal hose configured to be positioned within the second wall hose.
The aircraft hose system of claim 9 , further comprising a fitting configured to secure the aircraft hose system to an aircraft fuel tank configured to deliver fuel through the aircraft hose system, drain fuel, or vent aircraft tanks.
A method of providing fuel to an aircraft engine, comprising: (a) providing a second wall hose according to claim 1 ; (b) providing an internal wall hose positioned within the second wall hose, in order to provide an aircraft hose system; (c) connecting a fitting of the aircraft hose system to another hose, a tank, a vent hole, a pass wall, or fuel system hardware equipment; and (d) conducting fluid through the aircraft hose system.
(a) providing a second wall hose according to claim 1 ;
(b) providing an internal wall hose positioned within the second wall hose, in order to provide an aircraft hose system;
(c) connecting a fitting of the aircraft hose system to another hose, a tank, a vent hole, a pass wall, or fuel system hardware equipment; and
(d) conducting fluid through the aircraft hose system.
The method of claim 11 , wherein the conducting fluid comprises delivering or draining fuel or venting air or fuel vapors.
A method of manufacturing a second wall hose for use on board an aircraft, comprising: (a) providing a rubber material comprising a rubber elastomer with a carbon component and a fungus resistant component; (b) wrapping the rubber material around a mandrel; (b) wrapping a metallic spring around the rubber material; (c) wrapping a layer of polyethylene terephthalate fabric around the metallic spring; (d) wrapping a polyamide thread around the layer of polyethylene terephthalate fabric; (e) curing all components in order to provide a second wall hose.
(a) providing a rubber material comprising a rubber elastomer with a carbon component and a fungus resistant component;
(b) wrapping the rubber material around a mandrel;
(b) wrapping a metallic spring around the rubber material;
(c) wrapping a layer of polyethylene terephthalate fabric around the metallic spring;
(d) wrapping a polyamide thread around the layer of polyethylene terephthalate fabric;
(e) curing all components in order to provide a second wall hose.
The method of claim 13 , further comprising wrapping rubber material around an end of the second wall hose.
The method of claim 13 , further comprising securing a fitting to an end of the second wall hose.
Ref US7281682B2: Claims:
A method for launching a spacecraft into an earth orbit, including the steps of: providing a spacecraft having a lifting body and at least one rocket engine; supporting the spacecraft on a ground-based vehicle; providing a turbojet engine to power the ground-based vehicle; operating the turbojet engine to accelerate the ground-based vehicle and spacecraft horizontally to achieve aerodynamic takeoff speed of the spacecraft; separating the spacecraft from the ground-based vehicle; said at least one rocket engine powering the spacecraft from horizontal liftoff to earth orbit; said spacecraft thereafter reentering the atmosphere and gliding back to the earth; refurbishing and reusing the spacecraft after gliding back to earth; providing the spacecraft with a removable unitary belly assembly extending to cover the bottom surfaces of the entire spacecraft, and replacing the belly assembly during refurbishing of the spacecraft.
providing a spacecraft having a lifting body and at least one rocket engine;
supporting the spacecraft on a ground-based vehicle;
providing a turbojet engine to power the ground-based vehicle;
operating the turbojet engine to accelerate the ground-based vehicle and spacecraft horizontally to achieve aerodynamic takeoff speed of the spacecraft;
separating the spacecraft from the ground-based vehicle;
said at least one rocket engine powering the spacecraft from horizontal liftoff to earth orbit;
said spacecraft thereafter reentering the atmosphere and gliding back to the earth;
refurbishing and reusing the spacecraft after gliding back to earth;
providing the spacecraft with a removable unitary belly assembly extending to cover the bottom surfaces of the entire spacecraft, and replacing the belly assembly during refurbishing of the spacecraft.
A system for launching a spacecraft into earth orbit, including: a spacecraft having a lifting body and at least one rocket engine; a ground-based vehicle for supporting said spacecraft during launch, said ground-based vehicle including a means for accelerating said spacecraft horizontally to achieve aerodynamic takeoff speed; means for separating the spacecraft from said ground-based vehicle when said spacecraft attains aerodynamic takeoff speed; said at least one rocket engine powering said spacecraft from horizontal liftoff to earth orbit; said spacecraft being capable of reentering and gliding in the atmosphere to return to earth; said spacecraft including a main body section and laterally opposed wings; a pair of vertical stabilizers, each extending from an outboard portion of each of said wings; a pair of elevons, each extending from one of said vertical stabilizer to said main body section.
a spacecraft having a lifting body and at least one rocket engine;
a ground-based vehicle for supporting said spacecraft during launch, said ground-based vehicle including a means for accelerating said spacecraft horizontally to achieve aerodynamic takeoff speed;
means for separating the spacecraft from said ground-based vehicle when said spacecraft attains aerodynamic takeoff speed;
said a
[Truncated to input limit]