Office Action 6: Final Rejection (2024-01-25)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
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:conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, and wherein clean dry gas is pumped into the chamber to aid in insulating a liquid gas fuel;
storing, using \[\[a\]\]the fuel tank comprising \[\[a\]\]the chamber between \[\[an\]\]the inner wall and \[\[an\]\]the outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the chamber is configured to insulate \[\[a\]\]the liquid gas fuel by prevention of condensation of humidity within the fuel tank of the aircraft;
fueling, using a fuel line, the 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 insulation of the fuel tank, wherein the sensor is configured to:
detect humidity within the fuel tank; and convert 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 and comprises an insulation material with a thermal conductivity less than 0.10 W/m-K.

4\. (Original) The method of claim 3, wherein the fuel tank comprises a septum.200 Clarendon St.

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.

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\. (Canceled)

20\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen.200 Clarendon St.

200 Clarendon St.

Boston, MA 02116

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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, bottom half, filed 12/28/2023, 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 US 20090090724 A1Childress; James J. et al.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090090724 A1Childress; James J. et al. in view of US 20130197791 A1 Struzik; Anthony, in view of US 20110042520 A1 Glaser; Daniel et al. and further in view of US 20230294836 A1 Paget; Darren et al.
1.	Regarding claim 1 Childress teaches, A method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises: conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall (fig. 1, element 16) and an outer wall (fig. 1, element 14) of the fuel tank, and wherein clean dry gas is pumped into the chamber to aid in insulating a liquid gas fuel (para 0024);  storing using the fuel tank  (para 0024-0025, valve allows for storing of nitrogen) comprising the chamber  between the inner wall and the outer wall of the fuel tank (fig. 1, element 10), wherein the chamber is configured to insulate a liquid gas fuel by prevention of condensation of humidity within the fuel tank of the aircraft;
Childress fails to teach, fueling, using a fuel line, the 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 insulation of the fuel tank, wherein the sensor is configured to:
detect humidity within the fuel tank; and convert 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 Childress with the fueling optimization taught by in order to reduce “fuel cost across a multi-stop route.” (Struzik, para 0015).
Paget teaches, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank (para 0026-0027 sensor, wherein leak is equal to abnormal phenomena), wherein the sensor is configured to: detect humidity within the fuel tank (para 0026); and convert the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device (para 0027 and para 0039 control unit);
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 Childress with the sensor taught by Paget, In order to prevent the negative effects of leaks (para 0005).
Glaser teaches, 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 Childress 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, Childress 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 15 Childress 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).
4.	Regarding claim 17 Childress 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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 7281682 B2 D'Auvergne; Hector A.
5.	Regarding claim 2 Childress 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 Childress 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 Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget as applied to claims above, in view of US 6123295 A Wexler; Mark Harry et al, US 20150344143 A1 Epstein; Michael Jay et al. and further in view of NPL “What is Aerogel-” by Nick Connor (hereinafter known as Conner).
6.	Regarding claim 3 Childress 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).
Epstein 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,
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 Childress with the thermal insulation taught by Epstein with a reasonable expectation of success “in order to thermally insulate the tank to reduce heat flow across the tank walls”.
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.
7.	Regarding claim 5, Childress 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Wexler and Epstein, Conner as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 6422514 B1 Clark; William James et al.
8.	Regarding claim 4, Childress as modified 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 Childress with the septum 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).
Claims 7-11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Epstein.
9.	Regarding claim 7, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Epstein teaches, 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).
10.	Regarding claim 8, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line is configured to capture gaseous hydrogen from the fuel tank (para 0068 capture gases).
11.	Regarding claim 9, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line is configured to release pressure from the fuel tank (para 0058 “maintains the tank at a desired pressure”).
12.	Regarding claim 10, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line includes a pressure regulator (fig. 3, element 39 valve equal to regulator).
13.	Regarding claim 11, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line is insulated to prevent the accumulation of frozen gases (para 0062 wing LNG, tank, and structural elements insulated).
14.	Regarding claim 13, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line further comprises a heat exchanger (para 0005, 0084 catalytic converter equal to heat exchanger).
15.	Regarding claim 14, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein 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).
16.	Regarding claim 16, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Epstein teaches, wherein the plurality of flights are 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).
17.	Regarding claim 20 Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Epstein teaches, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen (abstract).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20120119032 A1 Benassi; Eric et al.
18.	Regarding claim 12 Childress 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 Childress 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  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 mailing date of this final action.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Claims 1-17 and 20 are pending in the present application. Claim 1 is 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.
Req
uest for Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R
Concurrently with this response, Applicant has filed a Request for Continued
Examination with the appropriate fee. Applicant respectfully request that prosecution be reopened and all prior rejections be withdrawn.
Rej
ection of claims under 35 U.S.C.
§
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget
Claims 1, 6, 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable
over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 20090090724 Al to Childress et al. (hereinafter "Childress"); in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 20130197791 Al to Struzik et al. (hereinafter "Struzik"); further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 20110042520 Al to Glaser; Daniel et al. (hereinafter "Glaser"), and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No 20230294836 Al to Paget, Darren et al. (hereinafter "Paget"). Office Action, p. 3. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 1
Claim 1 as amended recites:
A method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises:
conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner
wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the chamber includes at least one layer of reflective foil within an insulative material, and wherein clean dry gas is pumped into the
chamber to aid in insulating a liquid gas fuel;
storing, liquified gas fuel using the fuel tank comprising the chamber between the inner
wall and the outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the chamber is configured to insulate the
liquid gas fuel by prevention of condensation of humidity within the fuel tank of the
aircraft;
fueling, using a fuel line, the aircraft, wherein fueling further comprises:
filling the fuel tank with the 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 insulation of the fuel tank, wherein
the sensor is configured to:
detect humidity within the fuel tank; and
convert 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 has not asserted that Childress teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the chamber includes at least one layer of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by amended claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." Applicant respectfully submits that Childress fails to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Struzik does not cure the deficiency of Childress. The Office has not asserted that Struzik teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by amended claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Struzik does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress and Struzki, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations for at least the reasons discussed above.
Glaser does not cure the deficiency of Childress and Struzik. The Office has not asserted that Glaser teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by amended claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Glaser does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress, Struzki, and Glaser, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations for at least the reasons discussed above.
Paget does not cure the deficiency of Childress, Struzki and Glaser. The Office has not asserted that Paget teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" recited by claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Paget does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress, Struzki, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations and claim 1 as amended is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzki, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of this rejection.
Claims 6
,
15 and 17
Each of claims 6, 15 and 17 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. As noted
above, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 6, 15 and 17 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of these rejections.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/D'Auvergne
Claim 2
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 7281682 B2 D'Auvergne; Hector A. (hereinafter "D'Auvergne"). Office Action, p. 5. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 2 depends directly from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 as amended is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 2 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
D'Auvergne does not cure the deficiency of Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget. The Office has not asserted that D'Auvergne teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that D'Auvergne does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress, Struzki, Glaser, Paget and D'Auvergne, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations and claim 2 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzki, Glaser, Paget and D'Auvergne, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of this rejection.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/Epstein/Wexler/Connor
Claims 3 and 5
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget as applied to claims above, in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 6123295 Al to Wexler; Mark Harry et al. (hereinafter "Wexler"), in further view of
U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 20150344143 Al to Epstein; Michael Jay et al. (hereinafter "Epstein") and further in view of NPL "What is Aerogel" by Nick Connor (hereinafter "Conner"). Office Action, p. 5. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Each of claims 3 and 5 depend from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 as amended is
patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Epstein fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget. The Office has not asserted that Epstein teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Epstein does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations.
Wexler fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein. The Office has not asserted that Wexler teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Wexler does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein and Wexler, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations for at least the reasons discussed above.
Connor fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein and
Wexler. The Office has not asserted that Connor teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a
fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Connor does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, Wexler and Connor, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations and claims 3 and 5 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, Wexler and Connor, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of this rejection.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/Epstein/Wexler/Connor/Clark
Claim 4
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, Wexler, and Connor as applied to claims above, in view of U.S. Patent No. 6422514 B1 to Clark; William James et al. (hereinafter "Clark"). Office Action, p. 6. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 as amended is patentably
distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, Wexler and Connor, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 4 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, Wexler and Connor alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Clark fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, Wexler and Connor. The Office has not asserted that Clark teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Clark does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein
the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, Wexler, Connor and Clark, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations and claim 4 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, Wexler, Connor and Clark, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/Epstein
Claims 7-11, 13
,
,
16 and 20
Claims 7-11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly
unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Epstein. Office Action, p. 7. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claims 7-11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 as amended is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 7-11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, and Paget, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Further, as discussed above, Epstein fails to cure the deficiencies of Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget. The Office has not asserted that Epstein teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Epstein does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations, and claims 7-11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 are patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Childress/Struzik/Glaser/Paget/Epstein/Bernassi
Claim 12
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable Childress,
Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein, as applied to claims above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 20120119032 Al to Benassi; Eric et al. (hereinafter "Bernassi"). Office Action, p. 8. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 12 depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. As noted above, claim 1 as
amended is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 12 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above.
Benassi does not cure the deficiency of Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein. The Office has not asserted that Benassi teaches, suggests, or motivates "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material" as recited by claim 1 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Benassi does not teach, suggest, or motivate "conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall and an outer wall of the fuel tank, wherein the outer wall includes multiple layers of reflective foil within an insulative material." As such, Applicant respectfully submits that Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, and Benassi, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or motivate Applicant's particularly claimed method and limitations, and claim 12 is patentably distinguishable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Epstein, and Benassi, alone or in combination, for at least the reasons discussed above. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of this rejection.
Conclusion

NEXT 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090090724 A1Childress; James J. et al. in view of US 20220136656 A1 Clarke; John-Paul et al., US 20130197791 A1 Struzik; Anthony, US 20110042520 A1 Glaser; Daniel et al. and further in view of US 20230294836 A1 Paget; Darren et al.
1.	Regarding claim 1 Childress teaches, A method for fueling and using an aircraft, wherein the method comprises: conditioning a fuel tank, wherein the fuel tank comprises a chamber between an inner wall (fig. 1, element 16) and an outer wall (fig. 1, element 14) of the fuel tank,
Childress fails to teach, wherein the chamber includes at least one layer of reflective foil within an insulative material
However, Clarke teaches, wherein the chamber includes at least one layer of reflective foil within an insulative material (para 0068 superinsulation and foil),
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 Childress with the insulation material taught by Clarke in order for “the likelihood of an explosion occurring as the result of the impact of a ballistic projectile with the fuel tank is further reduced.” (para 0024)”.
Childress further teaches, and clean dry gas is pumped into the chamber to aid in insulating a liquid gas fuel (para 0024);  storing using the fuel tank  (para 0024-0025, valve allows for storing of nitrogen) comprising the chamber  between the inner wall and the outer wall of the fuel tank (fig. 1, element 10), the liquified gas fuel, wherein the chamber is configured to insulate a liquid gas fuel by prevention of condensation of humidity within the fuel tank of the aircraft; ; fueling, using a fuel line (fig. 1, element 20), the aircraft,
Childress fails to teach, wherein fueling further comprises: filling the fuel tank with the 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 insulation of the fuel tank, wherein the sensor is configured to: detect humidity within the fuel tank; and convert 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 Childress with the fueling optimization taught by in order to reduce “fuel cost across a multi-stop route.” (Struzik, para 0015).
Paget teaches, wherein a sensor connected to the fuel tank detects at least abnormal phenomena related to the fuel tank (para 0026-0027 sensor, wherein leak is equal to abnormal phenomena), wherein the sensor is configured to: detect humidity within the fuel tank (para 0026); and convert the detected at least abnormal phenomena into a signal that is then transmitted to a computing device (para 0027 and para 0039 control unit);
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 Childress with the sensor taught by Paget, In order to prevent the negative effects of leaks (para 0005).
Glaser teaches, 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 Childress 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, Childress 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 15 Childress 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).
4.	Regarding claim 17 Childress 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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 7281682 B2 D'Auvergne; Hector A.
5.	Regarding claim 2 Childress 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 Childress 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 Childress, Struzik, Glaser and Paget as applied to claims above, in view of US 6123295 A Wexler; Mark Harry et al, US 20150344143 A1 Epstein; Michael Jay et al. and further in view of NPL “What is Aerogel-” by Nick Connor (hereinafter known as Conner).
6.	Regarding claim 3 Childress 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).
Epstein 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,
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 Childress with the thermal insulation taught by Epstein with a reasonable expectation of success “in order to thermally insulate the tank to reduce heat flow across the tank walls”.
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.
7.	Regarding claim 5, Childress 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, Wexler and Epstein, Conner as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 6422514 B1 Clark; William James et al.
8.	Regarding claim 4, Childress as modified 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 Childress with the septum 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).
Claims 7-11, 13, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget, and Epstein.
9.	Regarding claim 7, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Epstein teaches, 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).
10.	Regarding claim 8, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line is configured to capture gaseous hydrogen from the fuel tank (para 0068 capture gases).
11.	Regarding claim 9, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line is configured to release pressure from the fuel tank (para 0058 “maintains the tank at a desired pressure”).
12.	Regarding claim 10, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line includes a pressure regulator (fig. 3, element 39 valve equal to regulator).
13.	Regarding claim 11, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line is insulated to prevent the accumulation of frozen gases (para 0062 wing LNG, tank, and structural elements insulated).
14.	Regarding claim 13, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein teaches, wherein the vent line further comprises a heat exchanger (para 0005, 0084 catalytic converter equal to heat exchanger).
15.	Regarding claim 14, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 7, Epstein 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).
16.	Regarding claim 16, Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Epstein teaches, wherein the plurality of flights are 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).
17.	Regarding claim 20 Childress as modified teaches, the method of claim 1, Epstein teaches, wherein the liquified gas fuel is comprised of liquid hydrogen (abstract).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress, Struzik, Glaser, Paget and Epstein as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20120119032 A1 Benassi; Eric et al.
18.	Regarding claim 12 Childress 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 Childress 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

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20090090724A1: Claims:
A fuel tank assembly comprising: a bladder defined between an exterior bladder wall and an interior bladder wall, wherein the interior bladder wall defines a volume for storing fuel, and wherein the exterior bladder wall is at least more rigid than the interior bladder wall; and an inlet opening into the bladder defined between the exterior and interior bladder walls in order to permit a pressurized gas to be introduced within the bladder.
a bladder defined between an exterior bladder wall and an interior bladder wall, wherein the interior bladder wall defines a volume for storing fuel, and wherein the exterior bladder wall is at least more rigid than the interior bladder wall; and
an inlet opening into the bladder defined between the exterior and interior bladder walls in order to permit a pressurized gas to be introduced within the bladder.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 further comprising a plurality of connectors between the exterior and interior bladder walls in order to at least partially limit expansion of the bladder.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of an elastomeric or a composite material.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 wherein the exterior bladder wall is comprised of a composite or metallic material.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of rubber and the exterior bladder wall is comprised of a composite material configured to generate fuzz if the exterior bladder wall is punctured.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 further comprising a valve through the interior bladder wall into the volume for storing fuel to permit at least some pressurized gas to enter the volume.
A fuel tank assembly comprising: a fuel tank; an expandable bladder wall disposed within and connected to the fuel tank to thereby define a bladder bounded by the fuel tank and the bladder wall, the bladder configured to transition from a deflated configuration in which the bladder wall is proximate the fuel tank to an expanded configuration in which the bladder wall is spaced from the fuel tank; and an inlet opening into the bladder in order to permit a pressurized gas to be introduced within the bladder.
an expandable bladder wall disposed within and connected to the fuel tank to thereby define a bladder bounded by the fuel tank and the bladder wall, the bladder configured to transition from a deflated configuration in which the bladder wall is proximate the fuel tank to an expanded configuration in which the bladder wall is spaced from the fuel tank; and
an inlet opening into the bladder in order to permit a pressurized gas to be introduced within the bladder.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 further comprising a plurality of connectors between the fuel tank and the expandable bladder wall in order to at least partially limit expansion of the bladder.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of an elastomeric or a composite material.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 9 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of rubber and the fuel tank is comprised of a composite material configured to generate fuzz if the fuel tank is punctured.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 wherein the fuel tank comprises a portion of an aircraft fuselage.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 wherein the fuel tank comprises an upper portion that is separable from other portions of the fuel tank to permit the expandable bladder wall to be inserted into the fuel tank.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 12 wherein the upper portion is comprised of a different material than the other portions of the fuel tank.
A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 further comprising a valve through the bladder wall to permit at least some pressurized gas to enter the fuel.
A method comprising: providing a fuel tank having an expandable bladder wall disposed within and connected to the fuel tank to thereby define a bladder bounded by the fuel tank and the bladder wall; and introducing a pressurized gas into the bladder to cause the bladder to transition from a deflated configuration in which the bladder wall is proximate the fuel tank to an expanded configuration in which the bladder wall is spaced from the fuel tank.
providing a fuel tank having an expandable bladder wall disposed within and connected to the fuel tank to thereby define a bladder bounded by the fuel tank and the bladder wall; and
introducing a pressurized gas into the bladder to cause the bladder to transition from a deflated configuration in which the bladder wall is proximate the fuel tank to an expanded configuration in which the bladder wall is spaced from the fuel tank.
A method according to claim 15 further comprising: removing an upper portion of the fuel tank in order to dispose the expandable bladder wall therewithin; and replacing the upper portion of the fuel tank after connected the expandable bladder wall to other portions of the fuel tank.
removing an upper portion of the fuel tank in order to dispose the expandable bladder wall therewithin; and
replacing the upper portion of the fuel tank after connected the expandable bladder wall to other portions of the fuel tank.
A method according to claim 15 further comprising permitting at least some of the pressurized gas to vent through the expandable bladder wall.
A method according to claim 15 further comprising providing an expandable bladder wall comprised of an elastomeric or a composite material.
A method according to claim 18 wherein providing the expandable bladder wall comprises providing an expandable bladder wall comprised of rubber and wherein providing the fuel tank comprises providing a fuel tank comprised of a composite material configured to generate fuzz if the fuel tank is punctured.
Ref US20090090724: Claims:
1. A fuel tank assembly comprising:
a bladder defined between an exterior bladder wall and an interior bladder wall, wherein the interior bladder wall defines a volume for storing fuel, and wherein the exterior bladder wall is at least more rigid than the interior bladder wall; and an inlet opening into the bladder defined between the exterior and interior bladder walls in order to permit a pressurized gas to be introduced within the bladder.
2. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 further comprising a plurality of connectors between the exterior and interior bladder walls in order to at least partially limit expansion of the bladder.
3. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of an elastomeric or a composite material.
4. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 wherein the exterior bladder wall is comprised of a composite or metallic material.
5. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of rubber and the exterior bladder wall is comprised of a composite material configured to generate fuzz if the exterior bladder wall is punctured.
6. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 1 further comprising a valve through the interior bladder wall into the volume for storing fuel to permit at least some pressurized gas to enter the volume.
7. A fuel tank assembly comprising:
a fuel tank; an expandable bladder wall disposed within and connected to the fuel tank to thereby define a bladder bounded by the fuel tank and the bladder wall, the bladder configured to transition from a deflated configuration in which the bladder wall is proximate the fuel tank to an expanded configuration in which the bladder wall is spaced from the fuel tank; and an inlet opening into the bladder in order to permit a pressurized gas to be introduced within the bladder.
8. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 further comprising a plurality of connectors between the fuel tank and the expandable bladder wall in order to at least partially limit expansion of the bladder.
9. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of an elastomeric or a composite material.
10. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 9 wherein the interior bladder wall is comprised of rubber and the fuel tank is comprised of a composite material configured to generate fuzz if the fuel tank is punctured.
11. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 wherein the fuel tank comprises a portion of an aircraft fuselage.
12. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 wherein the fuel tank comprises an upper portion that is separable from other portions of the fuel tank to permit the expandable bladder wall to be inserted into the fuel tank.
13. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 12 wherein the upper portion is comprised of a different material than the other portions of the fuel tank.
14. A fuel tank assembly according to claim 7 further comprising a valve through the bladder wall to permit at least some pressurized gas to enter the fuel.
15. A method comprising:
providing a fuel tank having an expandable bladder wall disposed within and connected to the fuel tank to thereby define a bladder bounded by the fuel tank and the bladder wall; and introducing a pressurized gas into the bladder to cause the bladder to transition from a deflated configuration in which the bladder wall is proximate the fuel tank to an expanded configuration in which the bladder wall is spaced from the fuel tank.
16. A method according to claim 15 further comprising:
removing an upper portion of the fuel tank in order to dispose the expandable bladder wall therewithin; and replacing the upper portion of the fuel tank after connected the expandable bladder wall to other portions of the fuel tank.
17. A method according to claim 15 further comprising permitting at least some of the pressurized gas to vent through the expandable bladder wall.
18. A method according to claim 15 further comprising providing an expandable bladder wall comprised of an elastomeric or a composite material.
19. A method according to claim 18 wherein providing the expandable bladder wall comprises providing an expandable bladder wall comprised of rubber and wherein providing the fuel tank comprises providing a fuel tank comprised of a composite material configured to generate fuzz if the fuel tank is punctured.
Ref US20130197791A1: Claims:
A method, executed by one or more computing devices, for reducing operational costs relating to fuel burn of aircraft, the method comprising: receiving, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device; receiving, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports; performing, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost, wherein the optimized route indicates the amount of fuel to upload at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport, wherein the optimization logic considers each of the preexisting fuel amount, a maximum takeoff fuel amount for the aircraft, a minimum reserve fuel amount for the aircraft, the payload, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport, and the price of fuel at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport; and transmitting, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, the optimized route to the client device.
receiving, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device;
receiving, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports;
performing, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost,
wherein the optimized route indicates the amount of fuel to upload at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport,
wherein the optimization logic considers each of the preexisting fuel amount, a maximum takeoff fuel amount for the aircraft, a minimum reserve fuel amount for the aircraft, the payload, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport, and the price of fuel at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport; and
transmitting, by at least one of the one or more computing devices, the optimized route to the client device.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: identifying an additional airport in the set of airports determined to be within a fuel search corridor; determining whether the additional airport has a runway compatible with the aircraft; determining whether adding a detour to the additional airport to upload fuel would reduce a total fuel cost based on an additional fuel burn required to detour to the additional airport and the price of fuel at the additional airport, and adding the additional airport and an amount of fuel to be purchased at the additional airport to the optimized route if it is determined that the runway is compatible with the aircraft and that the detour would reduce the total fuel cost.
identifying an additional airport in the set of airports determined to be within a fuel search corridor;
determining whether the additional airport has a runway compatible with the aircraft;
determining whether adding a detour to the additional airport to upload fuel would reduce a total fuel cost based on an additional fuel burn required to detour to the additional airport and the price of fuel at the additional airport, and
adding the additional airport and an amount of fuel to be purchased at the additional airport to the optimized route if it is determined that the runway is compatible with the aircraft and that the detour would reduce the total fuel cost.
The method of claim 2 , wherein the fuel search corridor is one of a time variance and a distance variance from a flight path from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport.
The method of claim 3 , further comprising receiving one of the fuel search corridor time variance and the fuel search corridor distance variance from the client device.
The method of claim 2 , further comprising receiving a time-based operating cost, wherein the step of determining whether adding the additional airport to the optimized route to purchase fuel would reduce the total fuel cost is also based on the operating cost of the detour to the additional airport.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the step of receiving operational data includes receiving a fuel price for a plurality of fixed base operators at one or more airports in the set of airports having more than one fixed base operator; the method further comprising determining a cheapest fixed base operator for each airport in the set of airports, wherein the optimization logic considers the cheapest fixed base operator for each airport, and wherein the optimized route indicates the cheapest fixed base operator at each airport having a plurality of fixed base operators.
the method further comprising determining a cheapest fixed base operator for each airport in the set of airports,
wherein the optimization logic considers the cheapest fixed base operator for each airport, and
wherein the optimized route indicates the cheapest fixed base operator at each airport having a plurality of fixed base operators.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the origin received from the client device is the origin airport.
A system for reducing operational costs relating to fuel burn of aircraft comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured for: receiving trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device; receiving operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports; performing optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost, wherein the optimized route indicates the amount of fuel to upload at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport, wherein the optimization logic considers each of the preexisting fuel amount, a maximum takeoff fuel amount for the aircraft, a minimum reserve fuel amount for the aircraft, the payload, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport, and the price of fuel at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport; and transmitting the optimized route to the client device.
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured for: receiving trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final destination, an aircraft, a payload, and a preexisting fuel amount from a client device; receiving operational data including a set of airports including an origin airport corresponding to the origin, an intermediate destination airport corresponding to the intermediate destination, and a final destination airport corresponding to the final destination, a fuel price for each airport in the set of airports, and runway specifications for each airport in the set of airports; performing optimization logic to determine an optimized route having a minimum fuel cost, wherein the optimized route indicates the amount of fuel to upload at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport, wherein the optimization logic considers each of the preexisting fuel amount, a maximum takeoff fuel amount for the aircraft, a minimum reserve fuel amount for the aircraft, the payload, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the origin airport to the intermediate destination airport, a fuel burn for the aircraft to travel from the intermediate destination airport to the final destination airport, and the price of fuel at each of the origin airport, the intermediate destination airport, and the final destination airport; and transmitting the optimized route to the client device.
receiving trip data including an origin, an intermediate destination, a final 
[Truncated to input limit]