5DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/28/25 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-14 have been amended and claim 3 has been cancelled. New claims 15-20 have been added. In view of amendment, a new ground(s) of rejections is made under 35 USC § 103 (details below) and claims 1-2 and 4-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see ‘Remarks’; page 7; filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the first tank body 42 of David is not a tank body, the examiner disagrees. 42 is a compartment on the upper side of the tank 2 or 3, is still considered to be a tank body where plurality of components such as control unit, pump or pipes are arranged into the space created by second tank body. For the sake of compact prosecution and in view of amendment, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103 over David in view of Inaoka, details below. Furthermore, the applicant submits claim 1 to introduce “wherein the at least one second tank body is arranged below the first tank body in a state in which the fuel tank arrangement is mounted on the vehicle.” In view of amendment, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103 over David in view of Inaoka, details below. Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim 10 has 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.
For these reasons, the new limitations of claim 1 do not distinguish from the current art of record e.g. David in view of Inaoka. Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rendered obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4.Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or no obviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (US Pub. 20200361556 A1 hereinafter, “David”) in view of Inaoka (US 20100243354 A1).
Regarding claim 1, David discloses: A fuel tank arrangement (fuel tank apparatus arrangement 1; figs.1-18, [0055]) for a vehicle (“vehicle”, [0074, line 1-5]) wherein the first tank body is spaced apart (fig. 16 and annotated fig. 16 below shows space between 42 and 2 or 3 are space apart (D)) from the at least one second tank body (3) in such a way that there is a free space between (free space ‘D’ between 42 and 2 or 3 formed by carrier module 5, fig. 1) the first tank body (42) and the at least one second tank body (2 or 3) and, in which at least one further structural component (fuel pump 23 [0061] or “electronic control device”, [0012]) of the vehicle (vehicle) can be arranged, and
David teaches a first tank body and second tank body; however, argument (see ‘Remarks,’ page 7; filed 12/18/2025) is made that David first tank body is not appeared to be a ‘first tank body’ and other limitations as required by claim 1; however,
Inaoka in another fuel treatment apparatus in motorcycle similar to David teaches that
a first tank body (33; [0025]; centrally arranged and in lateral direction);
at least one second tank body (“lower portion tank half body” 32, and
at least one connecting, element (canister 40; [0027]) via which there is a fluid connection (via tube 31b) between the first tank body (33) and the at least one second tank body (32),
wherein the at least one second tank body (32) is arranged below the first tank body (33) in a state in which the fuel tank arrangement is mounted on the vehicle (motorcycle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive to an idea of staking second tank body below the first tank body where at least one connecting element connects the first and second tank bodies to establish fluid connection therein as taught by Inaoka to replace first tank body of David with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize fuel tank design configuration, such that both the first and second tank bodies are positioned space apart to each other, in which at least one further structural component, such as fuel pump or “electronic control device” of the vehicle can be arranged. The modification represents nothing more than the predictable use of known fuel tank design configuration and therefore claim does not include any feature that would have rendered the combination non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 16 of David.
Regarding claim 4, David as modified above further teaches that the free space is between a first outer surface (outer surface of 33 of Inaoka) of the first tank body (outer surface of the first tank body 33, fig. 1 of Inaoka) and at least one second outer surface (B, annotated fig. 16 below) of the at least one second tank body (2 or 3 of David).
PNG
media_image2.png
895
793
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 16 of David
Regarding claim 5, David includes all the limitations of claim1 and further teaches wherein precisely one first tank body (precisely one first tank body 33, fig. 1 of Inaoka) is present or the at least one second tank body comprises (fig. 16 of David) that precisely two (fig. 16 of David shows 2 and 3) second tank bodies (bodies of 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, David as modified above further teaches that the first tank body (tank body 33, fig. 2 of Inaoka) is arranged centrally (fig. 1 of Inaoka shows centrally arranged; see claim rejection 1 above) in the lateral direction (fig. 1 of Inaoka shows in the lateral direction) in the state in which the fuel tank arrangement (fig. 1 of Inaoka) is mounted on the vehicle [ figs. 1 and 2 of Inaoka].
Regarding claim 7, David as modified above includes all the limitations of claim 1 and further comprising at least one mounting element (43 or 44, [0066]) by means of which the fuel tank arrangement (1) can be attached to a chassis and/or a frame of the vehicle [ para, 0066 discloses: “the carrier module 5 has a first mounting surface 43, to which the distributor element 6 (element of fuel tank arrangement) can be detachably fixed, for example by means of screw connections not shown in detail. In addition, the carrier module 5 has second mounting surfaces 44, to which the tank body 2, 3 can be detachably fixed, also by means of screw connections or the like”.]
Regarding claim 8, David as modified above further teaches that the first tank body (first tank body 33, fig. 1 of Inaoka) and/or the at least one second tank body (2 or 3 of David) is produced by injection molding or blow molding [para. 0059 discloses: “ the two tank bodies 2, 3 can be manufactured by means of a cost-effective blow-molding process, and the distributor body 7 can also be manufactured by means of a cost-effective blow molding process”] as a welded sheet metal tank [para 0036 discloses: “ the tank bodies may be made of a plastic material, but may also be made of a metallic material, for example, of a sheet metal material, or have a configuration based on a composite construction”; note that: a composite is any structure made of two or more materials combined to achieve superior properties. In the motorcycle/fuel tank domain, “composite construction” often means plastic resins or metallic reinforced with fibers, typically molded into shape.]
Regarding claim 9, David as modified above further teaches that the at least one connecting element (7) is co-produced in a production process of the first tank body or the at least one second tank body [para. 0045 discloses: “an advantage of the fuel tank arrangement according to the invention is, for example, that the individual body elements of the fuel tank arrangement with volume interiors, although they can be integrated into a single assembly, as will be explained below, can be manufactured by (co-produced) means of a cost-effective blow molding process”.]
Examiner notes that although David does disclose the claimed co-production process, the underlined limitation is interpreted as being a product by process limitation where determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not the method of making the product. See MPEP 2113(1).
PNG
media_image3.png
696
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 6 of David
Regarding claim 10, David as modified above further teaches that an arrangement comprising the fuel tank arrangement according to claim 1 and at least one further structural component (11, see annotated fig. 6 below and [0061]) arranged in the free space (space at 19 location).
Regarding claim 11, David as modified above further teaches that a dimension of the at least one further structural component substantially corresponds to a distance between the first tank body (first tank body 33, fig. 1 of Inaoka) and the at least one second tank body (2 or 3 of David; [see annotated fig. 6 above and also fig. 16 where dimension of the at least one further structural component substantially corresponds to a distance between the first tank body and the at least one second tank body.])
Regarding claim 12, David as modified above further teaches that the at least one further structural component is mounted on the fuel tank arrangement [ see annotated fig. 6 below where 11 is mounted exclusively on the fuel tank arrangement].
Regarding claim 13, David as modified above further teaches that a vehicle, in particular a motorcycle (“motorcycle”), having the arrangement according to claim 10 [ see ‘Abstract’, line 7-8].
Regarding claim 14, David as modified above further teaches that the vehicle has a saddle for a rider, wherein the fuel tank arrangement is arranged in front of and/or behind the saddle in the direction of travel [‘Abstract’ discloses: “the fuel tank system is formed with receiving means (5) for arrangement on a frame of a vehicle, such as a motorcycle, having a driver's saddle”; also, para. 0003 discloses: “the fuel tank arrangement is often designed as a saddle tank, which is positioned in front of the driver's saddle”].
Regarding claim 15, David as modified above further teaches that the vehicle is a motorcycle [0021 of David], or the at least one connecting element (7 of David) forms a mechanical connection between the first tank body (33 of Inaoka) and the at least one second tank body (2 or 3 of David), or the free space (free space ‘D’ of David, see annotated fig. 16 of David above) is defined between the first tank body (33 of Inaoka), the at least one second tank body ( 2 or 3 of David) and the at least one connecting element (7 of David), in which at least one further structural component (fuel pump 23 [0061] or “electronic control device”, [0012] of David) of the vehicle (vehicle, [0010]) can be arranged.
Regarding claim 16, David as modified above further teaches that the first outer surface (A, annotated fig. 16 above) and the at least one second outer surface (B, annotated fig. 16 above) are substantially parallel to one another [fig. 16 of David shows first and second outer surfaces A and B are positioned horizontal and parallel], or the first outer surface A) is substantially horizontal (fig. 16 of David) in the state in which the fuel tank arrangement ( 1 of David) is mounted on the vehicle, or the at least one second outer surface (B of David) is substantially horizontal (fig. 16 of David) in the state in which the fuel tank arrangement (1 of David) is mounted on the vehicle. See annotated fig. 16 of David above.
Regarding claim 17, David as modified above further teaches that the at least one second tank body (2 or 3 of David) comprises one second tank body ( body of 2 or 3) arranged laterally on a left side and another second tank body arranged laterally on a right side ( see fig. 16 of David) in the state in which the fuel tank arrangement 9 1 of David) is mounted on the vehicle [0034].
Regarding claim 18, David as modified above further teaches that the at least one further structural component is a device for separating fuel vapours, a control unit, a pump, or a compensating fluid reservoir (fuel pump 23 [0061] or “electronic control device”, [0012] of David).
Regarding claim 19, David as modified above further teaches that the at least one further structural component (fuel pump 23 [0061] or “electronic control device”, [0012] of David) is mounted exclusively on the fuel tank arrangement [ see para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 20, David as modified above includes all the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches wherein the vehicle is a motorcycle (“motorcycle”; [0021]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of Inaoka and further in view of Kensuke (EP 1980478 A1).
Regarding claim 2, David as modified above further teaches that the at least one further structural component includes at least one of the following: a device for separating fuel vapors (“distributor element 6”, [0055]), a control unit (“electronic control device”, [0012]), a pump (fuel pump 23 [0061]).
David as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach a compensating fluid reservoir; however,
Kensuke is another motorcycle similar to the modified David teaches a compensating fluid reservoir (auxiliary tank 25; [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art have an auxiliary or a compensating fluid reservoir as taught by Kensuke and install it into the space created by first and second tank body of the modified David with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize fuel tank design configuration, such that the high pressure fuel coming from the fuel pump can be absorbed by the auxiliary tank, and the additional fuel can be used when needed [ 0036 of Kensuke]. The modification represents nothing more than the predictable use of known auxiliary tank and therefore claim does not include any feature that would have rendered the combination non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 221319004 U to Lyu discloses: when refueling the chassis auxiliary fuel tank, the fuel in the auxiliary fuel tank flows into the vehicle's fuel tank under the action of the power unit.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on 571-272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
March 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights