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 Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendments, drawings and Specification, filed on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged and entered. By this Amendment, the Applicant amended Claims 11-12, and added Claims 14-20. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The corrected drawings filed 27 April 2026 are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: In light of the amended Claims 11-12, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-20, filed 27 April 2026 with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 -13 have been fully considered, and are partially persuasive, as detailed below.
Applicant argues that Schoenbauer (US 5,964,258) does not disclose the elements of Applicant's former claim 1, notably a “second, inflowing pipe of the first tank”. Examiner agrees, but notes for the record that the single pipe of Schoenbauer performs the same function as the first and second pipes of the present application; that is to receive fresh cooking oil from a first associated source, and discharge the fresh cooking oil to an associated container. Additionally, the pump of Schoenbauer is configured to perform both directions of fluid transfer into and out of the first tank.
Regardless, new prior art teaching “an inflowing pipe of the first tank”, “an outflowing pipe of the first tank”, “an inflowing pipe of the second tank”, and “an outflowing pipe of the second tank” is provided below, and the present Office Action is released as Non-Final, replacing the previous Office Action.
Applicant makes additional arguments against the rejection of Claims 2, 5-6, and 11, stating 1) it would be “very inconvenient” to store one tank above another in Schoenbauer, since they “must likewise be large in size”, and 2) Schoenbauer’s tanks are cylindrical, while Vandersteen’s frame is rectangular, and therefore incompatible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Shoenbauer explicitly teaches “the containers 110,114…are mounted in a vertical direction” within the transport vehicle. Examiner further notes that Shoenbauer doesn’t specifically specify the size of said containers, nor does Applicant either claim or teach any particular container size. Examiner further disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that placing and securing a round container sitting on a rectangular shelf or within a rectangular frame is “non-obvious”; this is routinely done when storing a container of any shape. Applicant’s arguments with regards to Claims 2, 5-6, and 11 are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections of the claims utilizing the rationales presented in the previous Office Action stand.
Applicant additionally makes several related arguments drawn to the “footprint” of the tanks, and the related housing of the tanks, stating the previous art relied upon does not teach the “generally upright and columnar” housing of the present application, wherein said first tank is located above said second tank. This configuration is generally claimed at dependent Claims 2-6, and independent Claim 11 and its dependent Claims 16-17.
However, Examiner again notes (see previous Office Action, pg 10) that Applicant has not disclosed any particular reason for this configuration (which essentially described stacked tanks stored within a vertically-oriented housing), or detailed any unexpected or novel results in arranging the tanks in this fashion. Applicant instead merely echoes the claim verbiage within the Specification.
Applicant is reminded that the courts have held that, with regards to the prior art, changes in shape (e.g., a vertical orientation of components), rearranging of parts (into a vertical orientation), using one-piece construction (e.g., placing separate components into a single housing), and/or making transportable, are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.04. In the present case, Applicant’s claims directed to the orientation of the components and its related single-piece housing would have the predictable result of consolidating components and possibly making the apparatus transportable by a hand cart.
The prior art relied upon in the present Office Action provides teachings of square or rectangular (and therefore stackable) housings for first and second tanks; Examiner asserts it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the separate housings into a single housing if desired; doing so would be a mere matter of design choice.
Applicant’s arguments against Claims 2-6, and independent Claim 11 and its dependent Claims 16-17 are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections of the claims utilizing the rationales presented in the previous Office Action stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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 16 is 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 16 is dependent upon Claim 11. Claim 11 establishes, in part “…a housing, said housing being generally upright and columnar, said first and second tanks being configured within the housing, with the first tank being above the second tank.”
Claim 16, in its entirety, reads “The article of claim 11, wherein said housing encloses said first and second tanks.”
Since antecedent Claim 11 requires “first and second tanks being configured within the housing”, Claim 16 fails to further limit the requirements of antecedent Claim 11. The two claims limitations are essentially the same.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sherratt (US 4,646,793).
Regarding Claim 1, Sherratt discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, the article comprising:
- a first tank (Fig 3, dispensing tank 110, introduced at Col 5, line 42), said first tank selectively receiving fresh cooking oil (fresh cooking oil received from a truck, per Col 6, lines 8-12);
- an inflowing pipe (114) of the first tank for receiving the fresh cooking oil from a first associated source (the aforementioned truck);
- an outflowing pipe (120) of the first tank for discharging the fresh cooking oil to an associated container (fryer 20);
- a pumping mechanism (the combination of pump 120 and the pump of the truck; truck pumps are well known to the art, according to Col 3, lines 42-61) of the first tank for pumping the fresh oil from the first associated source through the inflowing pipe and for pumping the fresh oil to the associated container through the outflowing pipe;
- a second tank (Fig 3, holding tank 112, also introduced at Col 5, line 42) , said second tank selectively receiving used cooking oil (from fryer 20);
- an inflowing pipe (126) of the second tank for receiving the used cooking oil from the associated container (fryer 20);
- an outflowing pipe (116) of the second tank for discharging the used cooking oil to a second associated source (the aforementioned truck. Sherratt teaches that it is known to use multiple trucks commonly equipped with pumps and hoses. The pipe 116 of Sherratt is capable of connecting to a single, or multiple trucks); and
- a pumping mechanism (the combination of pump 124 and the pump of the truck; truck pumps are well known to the art, according to Col 3, lines 42-61) of the second tank for pumping the used oil from the associated container through the inflowing pipe and for pumping the used oil to the second associated source through the outflowing pipe.
PNG
media_image1.png
922
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2-4, the claims are drawn to the placement of the first and second tanks, requiring (Claim 2) the first tank located above the second tank, (Claim 3) the tanks having “essentially the same configuration”, and (Claim 4) the tanks having footprints that are “coincident” (expressly defined by Applicant in “Arguments” filed 27 April 2026 as “occupying the same area in space.”
Examiner notes for the record that Applicant’s disclosure merely echoes the claim language of Claims 2-4, and provides no rationale for, nor teachings of novel or unexpected results in sizing and arranging the first and second tanks to meet this configuration.
As shown above in the rejection of Claim 1, Sherratt discloses first and second tanks 110 and 112, and further teaches (see Fig 3 and Col 5, line 50) “The tanks 110 and 112 may be positioned at any convenient location inside or outside the structure 10. The tanks 110 and 112 are preferably above 14.5 inches in diameter and about 46 inches in height.”
Sherratt therefore discloses a system with tanks having “essentially the same configuration”, with footprints that are “coincident”, said tanks being capable of being “positioned at any convenient location inside or outside the structure 10”, which would include the first tank being located above the second tank.
Sherratt therefore discloses the limitations of Claims 2-4.
Regarding Claim 7, Sherratt discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, further comprising a fresh oil conduit and a used oil conduit (from a servicing truck) in a conduit network to respectively transport fresh oil and used oil between the first and second tanks and the associated container. Sherratt teaches "dispensing and distribution station 42 is preferably located outside the building 10 so that a vehicle such as a tank truck (not shown) may connect a hose (not shown) to the hose coupling 52 to pump new cooking oil into the dispensing tank 24 and to connect a hose (not shown) to the hose 50 coupling to pump the used cooking oil from the storage tank 36. Tank trucks having such pumps, hoses and suitable couplings are well known in the art and are not discussed in further detail herein." See Col 3, lines 42-56. Although this teaching mentions storage tank 36, shown at the embodiment presented in Fig 1, distribution station 42 is also present in the embodiment of Fig 3, and is capable of connecting to the known hoses of a servicing truck as taught above.
Regarding Claim 8, Sherratt discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, wherein the outflowing pipe (120) of the first tank is connected to the fresh oil conduit (of the servicing truck, known to have pipes; see the rejection of Claim 7 above) for transporting fresh oil from the first tank (110) to the associated container (fryer 20), and wherein the inflowing pipe (126) of the second tank (112) is connected to the used oil conduit (of the servicing truck, known to have pipes; see the rejection of Claim 7 above) for transporting used oil from the associated container (20) to the second tank (112).
Regarding Claim 9, Sherratt discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, further comprising a connection (dispensing and distribution station 42) of the conduit network for enabling the fresh oil conduit (of the servicing truck, known to have pipes; see the rejection of Claim 7 above) to connect to the first associated source (the servicing truck), and for enabling the used oil conduit (of the servicing truck, known to have pipes; see the rejection of Claim 7 above) to connect to the second associated source (the aforementioned truck. Sherratt teaches that it is known to use multiple trucks commonly equipped with pumps and hoses. The pipe 116 and dispensing and distribution station 42 of Sherratt are both capable of connecting to a single, or multiple trucks. See the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 10, Sherratt discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, wherein the associated container (fryer 20) is at least one fryer for frying a food item in cooking oil, and wherein at least one of the first and second associated sources (the aforementioned truck as described above in the rejection of Claim 1) is a transport vehicle for cooking oil.
Regarding Claim 20, Sherratt discloses an article for transporting cooking oi, further comprising a first vent (air valve 113) in said first tank (110); and a second vent (another 113) in said second tank (112). See Fig 3 and Col 5, line 61.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherratt.
Regarding Claim 18, Sherratt discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, further comprising a first sensor for sensing an oil level in said first tank; and a second sensor for sensing an oil level in said second tank. Sherrat teaches a "a pair of sensors 72 and 74 are placed in the tank 66", wherein "the sensor 72 outputs a warning signal to warn an operator that the tank 66 is nearly full, and the sensor 74 indicates when the liquid level in the tank 66 has reached the upper limit." Although tank 66 is further taught to be a tank separate from the first and second tanks 110 and 112, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to duplicate sensors 72 and 74 and place them in the first and second tanks if desired, in order to achieve the predictable and advantages outcome of receiving warnings if or when those tanks become full. In the present case, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 19, Sherratt discloses an article for transporting cooking oil, further comprising a first backup sensor for sensing the oil level in said first tank; and a second backup sensor for sensing the oil level in said second tank. Sherrat teaches a "a pair of sensors 72 and 74 are placed in the tank 66", wherein "The sensor 72 outputs a warning signal to warn an operator that the tank 66 is nearly full, and the sensor 74 indicates when the liquid level in the tank 66 has reached the upper limit." Although tank 66 is further taught to be a tank separate from the first and second tanks 110 and 112, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to duplicate sensors 72 and 74 and place them in the first and second tanks if desired, in order to achieve the predictable and advantages outcome of receiving warnings if or when those tanks become full. This would include further duplication to have "backup" sensors. In the present case, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 5, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherratt, in view of Palazzo (US 2008/0277412).
Regarding Claim 5, Sherratt teaches the disclosed invention, to include first and second tanks “positioned at any convenient location inside or outside the structure 10” (see Col 5, line 50). Sherratt’s disclosure is primarily drawn the components and related fluid flow of the invention, does not explicitly mention housing, and therefore does not explicitly teach “a housing, said housing being generally upright and columnar, said first and second tanks being configured within the housing, with the first tank being above the second tank”, as required by Claim 5.
Examiner notes for the record that Applicant’s disclosure merely echoes the claim language of Claim 5 and provides no rationale for, nor teachings of novel or unexpected results in providing housing of any kind for the first and second tanks. It appears that the apparatus of Sherratt would function the same as the claimed apparatus, and Applicant’s claim(s) directed to housing would be a simple matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04. Examiner further asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would, if desired, know to construct appropriate “housing” for the components of Sherratt (to include first and second tanks), with the simple motivations of aesthetics, security, and/or convenience within the workspace of a restaurant.
Regardless, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner additionally presents the teachings of Palazzo, who teaches a housing, said housing being generally upright and columnar, said first and second tanks being configured within the housing, with the first tank being above the second tank.
Specifically, the Palazzo reference teaches that it is known to house a dispensing apparatus, to include a pump 22, entering and exiting tubing, and related components, within a "housing" (paras 61-62 and FIg 1). Figs 2-11 of the Palazzo reference teach a generally upright, columnar housing 42 with a flat top 52. Although the Palazzo reference does not explicitly teach "first and second tanks being configured within said housing", Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would know to size the housing 42 of the Palazzo reference to hold both tanks, if so desired. Doing so would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts, which the court has held has no patentable significance absent a teaching of novel or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
The Sherratt and Palazzo references each teach the transfer of fluids utilizing tanks and associated equipment. The Palazzo reference additionally teaches “housing” said tanks and associated equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to “house” the tanks of Sherrat in the manner taught by Pallazzo, if only for the simple advantages of aesthetics, security, and/or convenience within the workspace of a restaurant.
Regarding Claim 11, Sherratt discloses an article for transporting cooking oil and storing cooking oil, said article comprising:
- a first tank (110), said first tank having a first width and first depth and extending upward with a first height to create a first volume, said first tank selectively receiving and holding cooking oil;
- a second tank (112), said second tank having a second width and second depth and extending upward with a second height to create a second volume, said second tank selectively receiving and holding cooking oil, said first and second tanks having essentially the same configuration (shown in Fig 3).
Further regarding Claim 11, Sherratt teaches the disclosed invention, to include first and second tanks “positioned at any convenient location inside or outside the structure 10” (see Col 5, line 50). Sherratt’s disclosure is primarily drawn the components and related fluid flow of the invention, does not explicitly mention housing, and therefore does not explicitly teach “a housing, said housing being generally upright and columnar, said first and second tanks being configured within the housing, with the first tank being above the second tank”, as required by Claim 5.
Examiner notes for the record that Applicant’s disclosure merely echoes the claim language of Claim 11 and provides no rationale for, nor teachings of novel or unexpected results in providing housing of any kind for the first and second tanks. It appears that the apparatus of Sherratt would function the same as the claimed apparatus, and Applicant’s claim(s) directed to housing would be a simple matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04. Examiner further asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would, if desired, know to construct appropriate “housing” for the components of Sherratt (to include first and second tanks), with the simple motivations of aesthetics, security, and/or convenience within the workspace of a restaurant.
Regardless, and in the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner additionally presents the teachings of Palazzo, who teaches a housing, said housing being generally upright and columnar, said first and second tanks being configured within the housing, with the first tank being above the second tank.
Specifically, the Palazzo reference teaches that it is known to house a dispensing apparatus, to include a pump 22, entering and exiting tubing, and related components, within a "housing" (paras 61-62 and FIg 1). Figs 2-11 of the Palazzo reference teach a generally upright, columnar housing 42 with a flat top 52. Although the Palazzo reference does not explicitly teach "first and second tanks being configured within said housing", Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would know to size the housing 42 of the Palazzo reference to hold both tanks, if so desired. Doing so would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts, which the court has held has no patentable significance absent a teaching of novel or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
The Sherratt and Palazzo references each teach the transfer of fluids utilizing tanks and associated equipment. The Palazzo reference additionally teaches “housing” said tanks and associated equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to “house” the tanks of Sherrat in the manner taught by Pallazzo, if only for the simple advantages of aesthetics, security, and/or convenience within the workspace of a restaurant.
Regarding Claim 16, Sherratt as modified above teaches an article for transporting cooking oil and storing cooking oil, wherein said housing encloses said first and second tanks (see the rejection of Claim 11 above, to include Examiner's rationale of placing the tanks of Sherratt into “housing” as taught by Palazzo).
Claims 6 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherratt as modified by Palazzo, and in further view of Vandersteen (2014/0053950).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Scherratt, as modified above, teaches the claimed invention, to include first and second tanks (Scherratt, 110 and 112) capable of being placed such that the first tank is above the second tank, and a “housing” (Palazzo, 42) as detailed in the rejections of Claims 1, 5, 11, and 16 above. The Palazzo reference does not explicitly recite a “corner guide” as required by Claims 6 and 17, and interpreted by Examiner as “any support along a wall or within a frame or housing capable of providing structural support to a tank”. This would include shelf structures, shelf supports, brackets, and other items commonly used to support containers off of the ground.
Vandersteen teaches at least one corner guide, said at least one corner guide supporting and holding said first tank above said second tank. See Fig 2, item 18 as annotated by Examiner, and para 57, wherein the support frame 18 is shown to have “guides” that provide support to any tank placed within it.
Scherratt, Palazzo, and Vandersteen each teach the transfer of fluids utilizing tanks and associated equipment. The Vandersteen reference additionally teaches structural support, in the form of “corner guides” as annotated by Examiner in Fig 2, to aid in storing tanks off of the ground. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the “corner guides” of Vandersteen to the housing of Palazzo in use to store the tanks of Scherratt, if only to gain the simple advantage of additional structural support.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenbauer (US 5,964,258).
Regarding Claim 12, Schoenbauer discloses a method of delivering fresh cooking oil to a restaurant, and taking away used oil from the restaurant, the method comprises steps of:
(a) providing an article (see at least Fig 1 and Col 3, line 47 - Col 4, line 44) having a first tank (Fig 3, supply station 30, with associated container 18) for receiving fresh oil and a second tank (waste station 20, with a second associated container 18) for receiving used oil, said first and second tanks having first and second sensors (level sensor 38), respectively, capable of reporting oil levels within the tanks;
Although Schoenbaur does not specifically teach a second level sensing device 38 for a second container 18 within waste station 20, Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so if desired, as the courts have held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the present case, the duplication of level sensor 18 would have the predictable effect of monitoring levels in multiple tanks. See MPEP 2144.04.
PNG
media_image2.png
702
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(b) providing a delivery vehicle (120) having a first container containing fresh oil (110), a second container for receiving used oil (114), and a third container containing associated non-oil supplies for the restaurant (Schoenbauer discloses tranpsort vehicle 120 as "a delivery truck, a trailer coupled with a vehicle, or other delivery vehicles" at Col 5, lines 4-7. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known across the arts to use such vehicles to store and transport additional containers that have different purposes);
(c) sensing an oil level in said first tank (via the first level sensor 38);
(d) sending a signal from said sensor, calling for additional fresh oil (Shoenbauer discloses "The level sensor 38 is operative to deliver a signal to a control device 140 on the transport vehicle 120 (FIG 2), indicating the sufficient oil has been delivered to the container 18" at Col 4, lines 10-26. Since this teaching of Schoenbauer indicates an ability to stop oil delivery, Examiner broadly interprets the passage as also indicating an ability to "call for" oil delivery, and/or "continue delivery");
(e) receiving said first signal at an associated source of fresh oil (via control device 140 as explained above);
(f) sending said delivery vehicle to the restaurant in response to receipt of said first signal (the normal operation of the system of Schoenburg which is explicitly drawn to delivering and removing oil from a restaurant);
(g) delivering fresh oil from said first container (110) to said first tank (18, within supply station 30); and
(h) transporting used oil from said second tank (18, within waste station 20) to said second container (114).
Regarding Claim 13, Schoenbauer discloses a method of delivering fresh cooking oil to a restaurant, and taking away used oil from the restaurant, wherein said delivery vehicle has a third container containing other restaurant supplies that are not cooking oil (Schoenbauer discloses transport vehicle 120 as "a delivery truck, a trailer coupled with a vehicle, or other delivery vehicles" at Col 5, lines 4-7. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known across the arts to use such vehicles to store and transport additional containers that have different purposes).
Regarding Claim 14, Schoenbauer discloses a method of delivering fresh cooking oil to a restaurant, and taking away used oil from the restaurant, further comprising the steps of:
(i) sensing an oil level in said second tank (via the second level sensor 38);
(j) sending a second signal from said second sensor, calling for removal of used oil (Shoenbauer discloses "The level sensor 38 is operative to deliver a signal to a control device 140 on the transport vehicle 120 (FIG 2), indicating the sufficient oil has been delivered to the container 18" at Col 4, lines 10-26. Applicant additionally admits that "typical, prior art oil delivery system requires one delivery vehicle 60B to bring fresh oil to the restaurant, and then a second delivery vehicle 60C, to remove the used oil and take it away from the restaurant; see para 48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Shoenbauer to contact the delivery vehicle, or even a second delivery vehicle as needed (since doing so is "typical of the art" as admitted by Applicant) for the purposes to removing used oil.
(k) receiving said second signal at said associated source (via control device 140 as explained above); and
(l) sending said delivery vehicle to the restaurant in response to receipt of said second signal (the normal operation of the system of Schoenburg which is explicitly drawn to delivering and removing oil from a restaurant);
wherein step (h) is performed after step (l). Here, the transporting of used oil from the second tank (step h) would have to occur after arrival of the delivery vehicle (step l).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenbauer, in views of Sherratt and Palazzo.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is drawn first and second pumping mechanisms, and a housing enclosing said pumping mechanisms and the first and second tanks. As shown above, Schoenbauer teaches first and second tanks 18 as part of both waste station 20 and supply station 30. The Schoenbaur reference additionally teaches “a first pump in fluid communication with the first oil conduit system whereby the first oil conduit system may deliver cooking oil to the using location; and a second pump in fluid communication with the second oil conduit system, whereby the second oil conduit system may remove waste oil from the using location” (see at least Claim 1), but does not explicitly disclose the requirements of Claim 15, namely “a first pumping mechanism for pumping the fresh oil into the first tank; a second pumping mechanism for pumping the used oil from the second tank”. Schoenbaur is also silent on “a housing enclosing the first tank, the second tank, the first pumping mechanism, and the second pumping mechanism”.
However, these features are known to the prior art, as shown above in the rejections of Claims 1 and 11.
Sherratt teaches a first pumping mechanism (120) for pumping the fresh oil into the first tank and a second pumping mechanism (124) for pumping the used oil from the second tank, as shown in Fig 3 and the above rejections of Claims 1 and 11.
Palazzo additionally teaches a housing enclosing the first tank, the second tank, the first pumping mechanism, and the second pumping mechanism Specifically, the Palazzo reference teaches that it is known to house a dispensing apparatus, to include a pump 22, entering and exiting tubing, and related components, within a "housing" (paras 61-62 and Fig 1). Figs 2-11 of the Palazzo reference teach a generally upright, columnar housing 42 with a flat top 52. Although the Palazzo reference does not explicitly teach "first and second tanks being configured within said housing", Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would know to size the housing 42 of the Palazzo reference to hold both tanks, if so desired. Doing so would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts, which the court has held has no patentable significance absent a teaching of novel or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
The Schoenbauer, Sherratt, and Palazzo references each teach the transfer of fluids utilizing tanks and associated equipment. Sherratt additionally teaches necessary equipment (known to the art) to actually move cooking oil into and out of the fryer, while the Palazzo reference additionally teaches “housing” said tanks and associated equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the pumping mechanisms as taught by Sherratt to the supply and waste station containers 18 of Shoenbauer in order to actually move cooking oil into and out of the fryer. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also “house” the aforementioned tanks, stations, and pumping mechanisms in the manner taught by Pallazzo, if only for the simple advantages of aesthetics, security, and/or convenience within the workspace of a restaurant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0168282 teaches “a material transfer unit” featuring a mobile cart with a housing, said mobile cart supporting tanks and pumping equipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights