DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request for continued examination (RCE) filed 8 April 2026 has been entered. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-15, and 19-24 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
The phrase “the track system” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what constitutes “the track system”.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
an upender comprising a latch (claims 1, 9, and 15). The drawings merely point to a feature (144) alleged to be a latch. The drawings do not show a latch structure as an integral part of an upender. Nor do they show a latch that can be “engaged with the fuel transfer cart” (claim 1) and “prevent the fuel transfer cart from moving” (claim 1).
a cable attached to a track system (claim 22).
The drawings are further objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show an upender comprising a latch, especially an upender latch with a configuration that can both: (1) engage with a fuel transfer cart; and (2) prevent the fuel transfer cart from moving. A showing of this structural detail is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention, and to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. Thus, upender latch structural detail (associated with a fuel transfer cart) must be shown in the drawings. MPEP § 608.02(d). No new matter will be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-15, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification does not describe, nor do the drawings show, an upender comprising a latch in a manner that enables the latch to engage with a fuel transfer cart and prevent the fuel transfer cart from moving. Nor would the skilled artisan understand how to provide an upender with a latch to produce such a result. A detailed description and a drawing of a linking relationship (which allows for the result) involving the upender, the latch, and the cart is absent. The skilled artisan would not be able to make/use the recited invention. The claims are non-enabling.
Furthermore, Applicant's specification implies that the upender pivots, but the fuel transfer cart does not pivot. Thus, it is unclear how the upender, while pivoting (e.g., independent claims), can be latched to a stationary fuel transfer cart.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not all persuasive.
The arguments are not convincing with regard to a needed showing of the claimed upender latch structure associated with a fuel transfer cart. As Applicant indicates “the drawings must show the location and cooperation of the latch and upender with sufficient clarity that a skilled artisan can understand the invention” (Remarks at page 8). This drawing burden has not been met by Applicant.
Upon further review, Johnson employs a latch that “engages the cart with the track” (section 3.3.2.4). That is, the latch engagement is between the cart and the track. Thus, Johnson does not teach (the recited features of) an upender latch that engages with a fuel transfer cart.
The claims recite that the upender latch is engaged with the fuel transfer cart while the upender is pivoting. However, as best understood, Applicant's specification implies that the upender pivots, but the fuel transfer cart does not pivot. Thus, it is unclear how the upender, while pivoting, can remain latched to a stationary fuel transfer cart. The skilled artisan is not able to make/use the recited invention.
If the recited arrangement of the upender, latch, and fuel transfer cart is known in the art, then Applicant should admit such on the record. However, if said recited arrangement is considered to be novel by Applicant, then said arrangement must be shown in the drawings. No new matter will be entered.
Additional Comments
No claim has been rejected based on prior art.
Applicant is cautioned against claiming a different invention.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights