DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 23 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 2, recites the limitation “a seal adjacent the inner surface”, which should be changed to “a seal adjacent to the inner surface”.
Claim 23, line 4, recites the limitation “an impact occurs”, which should be changed to “the impact occurs”.
Claim 23, line 4, recites the limitation “a fluid barrier”, which should be changed to “the fluid barrier”.
Claim 23, line 6, recites the limitation “an impact occurs”, which should be changed to “the impact occurs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 8, 10, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 6, the scope of the claim is unclear because it is ambiguous from which claim it depends, see related section 35 USC 112 (d) below.
Regarding claim 8, line 2, recites the limitation “the material forming the fluid barrier”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, line 2 recites the limitation “its”, however, the limitation “its” is unclear and indefinite as to what “its” refers to.
Regarding claim 16, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the inner surface of the fluid barrier”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 improperly depends from itself, which does not reference a previously presented claim and therefore fails to place the claim in proper dependent form. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora et al. WO 2019170915 A1 in view of Kleyn US 5398839 A.
Regarding independent claim 1, Arora et al. discloses [a vehicle fluid delivery system 100 comprising:
a housing 102 defining a first cavity 104,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0049) wherein [the housing includes a first side 106 and a second side 108 opposite the first side,] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0049) [the first side and the second side being separated by a continuous side wall extending around their peripheries,] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Arora et al. illustrates the first and second sides 106, 108 being separated by a continuous side wall extending around their peripheries.) and wherein [the housing is adapted to be removable from a vehicle;] (Paragraph 0063)
[a fluid reservoir 110 positioned in the first cavity of the housing;] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0049)
[a fluid port coupling 116 disposed on the first side of the housing and providing fluid access to the fluid reservoir.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0049)
Arora et al. does not disclose a fluid barrier external to and contiguous with the side wall.
Kleyn teaches [a fluid barrier 14 external to and contiguous with the side wall.] (Fig. 2; Col. 2, lines 41-51)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fluid barrier of Kleyn with the fluid delivery system of Arora et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for containment and protection of the fluid components, thus reducing fluid leakage during impact and enhancing the overall safety of the fluid delivery system.
Regarding claim 2, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the fluid barrier 14 extends across the first side of the housing.] (Fig. 2 of Kleyn; As shown in Fig. 2, Kleyn illustrates wherein the fluid barrier 14 extends across the first side of the housing 12.)
Regarding claim 3, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the fluid barrier 14 extends between the first side and the second side of the housing.] (Fig. 2 of Kleyn; As shown in Fig. 2, Kleyn illustrates wherein the fluid barrier 14 extends between the first side and the second side of the housing.)
Regarding claim 4, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the fluid barrier 14 forms a second cavity in which the housing is positioned.] (Fig. 2 of Kleyn; As shown in Fig. 2, Kleyn illustrates wherein the fluid barrier 14 forms a second cavity in which the housing is positioned.)
Regarding claim 5, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the fluid barrier 14 is a shield.] (Fig. 1 & 2 of Kleyn; Col. 2, lines 41-51; Kleyn discloses that the fluid barrier 14 is larger than the inner housing 12 and extends outwards beyond the inner housing in all direction. Therefore, having the fluid barrier act as a shield for the inner housing.)
Regarding claim 6, Arora et al., as modified, does not explicitly teach that the shield has a thickness in the range 0.75 mm to 1.5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shield of Kleyn to use a thickness within a range of 0.75 mm to 1.5 mm, so as to achieve an optimal balance between strength, flexibility, and weight reduction, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the housing is load-bearing and the fluid barrier is non-load-bearing.] (Fig. 1 & 2 of Kleyn; Col. 2, lines 41-51 of Kleyn; Kleyn discloses a fuel tank 10 comprising an inner housing 12 and a fuel barrier 14 with a fuel absorbent material 16 disposed between them. In this configuration, the inner housing 12 functions as a load-bearing housing, providing structural integrity to the tank and supporting the fuel contained within, while the fluid barrier serves does not carry the structural load of the fuel tank but instead contains the absorbent material and provides a barrier to fluid leakage.)
Regarding claim 12, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the housing 102 comprises a flexible glass fibre bonded with a flexible epoxy.] (Paragraph 0062 of Arora et al.; Arora et al. discloses that the housing 102 is preferably injection molded using a glass-fibre filled nylon composite material. The inclusion of glass fibers provides structural reinforcement, while the polymer matrix (nylon) imparts flexibility, resulting in a housing that is both strong and capable of limited deformation under load. Accordingly, the fiber-reinforced polymer material functionally corresponds to the flexible glass fiber bonded with flexible epoxy.)
Regarding claim 13, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the fluid barrier 14 comprises an absorbent material 16.] (Fig. 1 & 2 of Kleyn; Col. 3, lines 41-53 of Kleyn)
Regarding claim 14, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the fluid barrier further comprises:
an absorbent material 16 positioned in a gap between an outer surface of the housing and an inner surface of the fluid barrier] (Fig. 1 & 2 of Kleyn; Col. 3, lines 41-53 of Kleyn)
Regarding claim 15, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the absorbent material comprises a flexible foam or a fibrous matting.] (Fig. 1 & 2 of Kleyn; Col. 3, lines 41-53 of Kleyn; Kleyn discloses a fuel absorbent material 16 disposed between the inner housing 12 and the fuel barrier 14, enveloping the inner housing. The fuel absorbent material is described as being capable of taking up fuel and preventing it from escaping to the environment. The material is initially flowable as a granular bonding agent and can be consolidated and molded into shape panels that fill the space between the housing and fluid barrier.)
Regarding claim 17, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [an oil filter 128 disposed in the first cavity 122 of the housing;] (Fig. 1 & 2 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0050 of Arora et al.; As shown in Fig. 1 & 2, Arora et al. illustrates an oil filter disposed in the cavity 122 of the second housing 120.)
[a second fluid port 130 coupling disposed on the first side of the housing,] (Fig. 1 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0050 of Arora et al.; As shown in Fig. 1, Arora et al. illustrates wherein the second fluid coupling port is disposed on a first side 124 of the second housing 120.) [wherein the second fluid port coupling includes an inlet 136 to the oil filter and an outlet 134.] (Fig. 1 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0050-0052 of Arora et al.)
Regarding claim 18, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the fluid barrier 14 includes a through-hole 62, 64 through which the fluid port coupling is disposed.] (Fig. 2 of Kleyn; Col. 3, lines 30-40; Kleyn discloses that the fluid barrier consist of apertures 62. 64 that extend completely through the fluid barrier, and that the filler neck 20 and outlet neck 22 of the inner housing pass outwardly through these apertures. Additionally, gaskets 66, 68 seal the juncture where the neck penetrates the barrier. Thus, teaching a fluid barrier having a through-hole through which a fluid carry port or neck is disposed.)
Regarding claim 19, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the fluid reservoir 110 includes a fluid positioned therein, and where the fluid comprises an engine oil, a gear oil or a heat exchange fluid for an electric motor.] (Paragraph 0053 of Arora et al.)
Regarding claim 20, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [a vehicle 154] (Fig. 4 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0066 of Arora et al.) comprising:
[the vehicle fluid delivery system 100;] (Fig. 1 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0049 of Arora et al.) and
[a fluid system 156 of the vehicle in fluid communication with the housing.] (Paragraph 0069 of Arora et al.)
Regarding claim 21, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the fluid system delivers a lubricating oil to an engine of the vehicle.] (Paragraph 0053 of Arora et al.)
Regarding claim 22, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [an apparatus 156] (Fig. 4 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0069 of Arora et al.) comprising:
[the vehicle fluid delivery system 100;] (Fig. 1 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0049 of Arora et al.) and
[a fluid system 156 of the vehicle in fluid communication with the housing.] (Paragraph 0069 of Arora et al.)
Regarding claim 23, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [a method of retaining a fluid discharged from the vehicle fluid delivery system during an impact,] (Fig. 1-2 of Kleyn; Col. 1, lines 36-44) the method comprising:
[before an impact occurs, (i) providing a fluid barrier 14,] (Fig. 1-2 of Kleyn; Col. 3, lines 41-56 of Kleyn) and [(ii) associating the housing with the fluid barrier;] (Fig. 1-2 of Kleyn; Col. 2, lines 41-51 of Kleyn) and
[during an impact, retaining, by the fluid barrier, the fluid discharged from the fluid reservoir.] (Fig. 1-2 of Kleyn; Col. 3, lines 41-56 of Kleyn; Kleyn discloses that the inner housing 12 is enveloped by the fluid barrier 14 and filled with fuel absorbent material 16. The absorbent material is specifically described as being capable of taking up or immobilizing fuel and preventing it from escaping to the environment. Functionally, this configuration is designed to retain fluid if the inner housing is ruptured, such as during mechanical stress or impact.)
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arora et al. in view of Kleyn and further in view of Rosemann et al. US 20190118502 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Arora et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the fluid barrier comprises a ductile elastomer.
Rosemann et al. teaches [wherein the fluid barrier comprises a ductile elastomer.] (Fig. 1-2; Paragraph 0022-0023; Rosemann et al. discloses that a barrier layer comprises ethylene-acrylate rubber (AEM) and/or polyacrylate rubber (ACM). These materials are considered ductile elastomers, as they can withstand deformation and undergo large amounts of strain before fracturing.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the ductile elastomer barrier layer of Rosemann et al. with the fluid delivery system of Arora et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for impact absorption, flexibility, and crack resistance of the fluid barrier, thus enhancing containment performance and reducing the likelihood of fluid leakage under stress.
Regarding claim 8, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the material forming the fluid barrier has a lower elastic modulus than the housing.] (Paragraph 0062 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0022-0023 of Rosemann et al.; Arora et al. discloses that the housing 102 may be made of the same material as the reservoir 110, and that the reservoir is made of a molded high-density polyethylene (HDPE). This material is a rigid thermoplastic material that is stiff and structurally durable, thus indicating that is has a relatively higher elastic modulus. Rosemann et al. teaches a fluid barrier layer comprising ethylene-acrylate rubber (AEM) and/or polyacrylate rubber (ACM), which are elastomeric materials having significantly lower elastic modulus compared to HDPE.)
Regarding claim 9, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the material forming the fluid barrier has a higher fracture toughness than the housing.] (Paragraph 0062 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0022-0023 of Rosemann et al. Arora et al. discloses that the housing 102 may be made of the same material as the reservoir 110, and that the reservoir is made of a molded high-density polyethylene (HDPE). This material is a rigid thermoplastic material that is stiff and structurally durable but is relatively brittle and prone to cracking under high impact loads. Rosemann et al. teaches a fluid barrier layer comprising ethylene-acrylate rubber (AEM) and/or polyacrylate rubber (ACM), which as elastomeric materials are known for their ductility and high resistance to fracturing. Since rubber materials (such as AEM and ACM) generally exhibit significantly higher fracture toughness than rigid thermoplastics like HDPE, the barrier layer of Rosemann et al. would be understood to possess higher resistance to fracture than the housing material of Arora et al.)
Regarding claim 10, Arora et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the material forming the fluid barrier has a higher strain value at its yield point on a stress-strain curve than the housing.] (Paragraph 0062 of Arora et al.; Paragraph 0022-0023 of Rosemann et al.; Arora et al. discloses that the housing 102 may be made of the same material as the reservoir 110, and that the reservoir is made of a molded high-density polyethylene (HDPE). This material is a rigid thermoplastic material that exhibits limited elongation before yield and therefore has a relatively low strain value at its yield point. In contrast, Rosemann et al. teaches a fluid barrier layer comprising ethylene-acrylate rubber (AEM) and/or polyacrylate rubber (ACM), which are elastomeric materials capable of undergoing substantial elastic deformation prior to yielding, thus possessing much larger strain values at the yield point compared to rigid polymers like HDPE. Therefore, the barrier layer of Rosemann et al. would be understood to possess a higher strain value at its yield point on a stress-strain curve than the housing material of Arora et al.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 and 24-25 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 contains the limitation wherein the absorbent material comprises an open-cell foam having a seal adjacent the inner surface of the fluid barrier. The closest prior art, Kleyn US 5398839 A, discloses an absorbent material comprising a foam material but does not disclose the absorbent material comprising an open-cell foam having a seal adjacent to the inner surface of the fluid barrier.
Claim 24 contains the limitation of when the vehicle comes to rest, releasing the fluid from the fluid barrier under gravity. The closest prior art, Kleyn US 5398839 A, discloses a fluid barrier comprising an absorbent material to take up fluid, but does not disclose releasing the fluid from the fluid barrier under gravity.
Claim 25 contains the limitation of when the vehicle comes to rest, removing the housing and fluid barrier together from the vehicle. The closest prior art, Kleyn US 5398839 A, discloses a housing positioned inside a fluid barrier but does not disclose that when the vehicle comes to rest, removing the housing and fluid barrier together from the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kriesel et al. US 5372578 A – comprises a liquid delivery apparatus including a housing having internal walls that define a chamber, a support disposed within the housing and having a central portion, an edge portion circumscribing the central portion and including a liquid passageway in communication with the chamber of the housing. The liquid passageway has an inlet and an outlet.
Kleyn ‘096 US 5547096 A – comprises an electroplated, polymeric fuel tank fabricated of inner and outer shells. The outer shell is an assembly of outer shell halves joined together along peripheral flanges. A layer of copper, a layer of nickel, and a layer of chrome are successively electroplated to either or both of the interior and exterior surfaces of the outer shell halves to prevent permeation of fuel through the shell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611