DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on December 8, 2025, the claim objections and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 11/03/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended,
Claims 2-4, 6 and 11 were previously presented,
Claims 7, 12 and 13 have been cancelled, and
Claims 8-10 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 11 are currently pending.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 20, the phrase, “…to an extent…” which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term "to an extent" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 21, the phrase, “…can bear…” is unclear, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is unclear if the limitation following the term “can” are required or optional. For examination purposes the recitation following the term “can” are consider to be optional limitations.
As for claims 2-4 and 6, due to their dependencies from claim 1, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (US 20090206081 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Snyder) and further in view of JP S6227275 Y2 and Iskierka (US 7017768 B2; hereinafter Iskierka).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 6, Snyder teaches an equipment embodiment (as shown in Fig. 2 - for storing a liquid (i.e. fuel (6)) comprising:
a transparent plastic storage tank (2; storage tank hereinafter - for the liquid) having a bottom from which a cylindrical wall closed by a ceiling (i.e. in the form of a cap (15)), and with at least one liquid supply inlet (i.e. input orifice (5)) and at least one liquid outlet (i.e. output passage (4));
a cover (16, 18 and 20) having a lower face and an upper face, mounted inside the storage tank and arranged to float on the liquid present in the storage tank, and able to come into abutment with the washing nozzles;
wherein the cover is mounted in the storage tank to delimit with the cylindrical wall, a communication space (9) on either side of the cover, configured to allow the vertical displacement of the cover when the level of the liquid changes in the storage tank (Snyder [0021-0028]).
Examiner’s note: with respect to the following limitation, “…a cover….able to come into abutment with the washing nozzles…” is considered to be functional or intended-use limitation(s) to which no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Applicant is reminded of the following regarding functional or intended-use limitation(s): a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114
With this in mind, when the storage tank (of Snyder) is filed to its max capacity, the cover will come in contact with the ceiling and the nozzles protruding from the ceiling. Therefore, the cover (of Snyder) is capable of performing the intended use; emphasis added.
However, Snyder fails to teach the storage tank being provided with washing nozzles protruding from the ceiling; and wherein the washing nozzles are spaced apart from each other when protruding from the ceiling, each washing nozzle being positioned on the ceiling so as to face spaced apart portion of the upper face of the cover, each washing nozzle protruding from the ceiling to an extent that each washing nozzle can be on the cover so that the upper face of the cover is both spaced from the ceiling and completely immersed for washing.
JP S6227275 Y2 is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a cleaning system for a storage tank. JP S6227275 Y2 teaches a storage tank (1; for a liquid) comprising:
a bottom from which a cylindrical wall closed by a ceiling (1c) rises, the storage tank being provide with washing nozzles (i.e. in the form of spray balls (2); as shown in Fig. 1);
wherein the washing nozzles are spaced apart from each other when protruding from the ceiling, each washing nozzle being positioned on the ceiling so as to face spaced apart portion of the upper face of the cover (JP S6227275 Y2 pg. 1 and Fig. 1).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ceiling of the storage tank (of Snyder) with similar protruding washing nozzles into the storage tank (as taught by JP S6227275 Y2) to allow the user to easily and efficiently remove any undesirable residue with the overall storage tank.
By doing so, the resultant structure (of modified Snyder) will have each washing nozzle protruding from the ceiling to an extent that each washing nozzle can be on the cover so that the upper face of the cover is both spaced from the ceiling and completely immersed for washing; emphasis added.
Lastly, Snyder fails to teach a system for bearing the cover on the bottom of the storage tank protruding either from the bottom of the storage tank or from the lower face of the cover, and wherein the system for bearing the cover comprises feet carried by the cover to bear on the bottom of the storage tank when the cover stops floating.
Iskierka is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Snyder, which is a floating cover. Iskierka teaches a cover or barrier embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-6) having a lower face (14) and an upper face (12), mounted inside a beverage container (16) having a cylindrical wall (20) and arranged to float on a liquid present in the beverage container; the cover is mounted in the beverage container to delimit with the cylindrical wall, a communication space (30; as shown in Iskierka Figs. 5-6) on either side of the cover, configured to allow the vertical displacement of the cover, when the level of liquid changes in the beverage container and includes a system of bearing (i.e. in the form of protuberances (44, 46 and 48) – which examiner equates to the claimed feet that bear on the bottom of the beverage container when the cover stops floating) protruding from the lower face of the cover (Iskierka Col. 4 ln. 3 – Col. 5 ln. 43).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover (of Snyder) to have a similar system of bearing (i.e. feet; as taught by Iskierka) in order to assist in raising and initiating the buoyancy action of the floatable barrier when there is no liquid content within the storage tank (see Iskierka Col. 6 ln. 37-43).
Regarding claim 2, modified Snyder as above further teaches wherein the upper face of the cover is conical in shape (see Snyder Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Snyder as above further teaches wherein the lower face of the cover is conical in shape (see Snyder Fig. 2).
Claims 5 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (US 20090206081 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Snyder), and further in view of JP S6227275 Y2, Iskierka (US 7017768 B2; hereinafter Iskierka) and Evans et al. (US 20090080978 A1; hereinafter Evans).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Snyder teaches an equipment embodiment (as shown in Fig. 2 - for storing a liquid (i.e. fuel (6)) comprising:
a storage tank (2; for the liquid) having a bottom from which a cylindrical wall closed by a ceiling (i.e. in the form of a cap (15)), and with at least one liquid supply inlet (i.e. input orifice (5)) and at least one liquid outlet (i.e. output passage (4));
a cover (16, 18 and 20) having a lower face and an upper face, mounted inside the storage tank and arranged to float on the liquid present in the storage tank, and able to come into abutment with the washing nozzles;
wherein the cover is mounted in the storage tank to delimit with the cylindrical wall, a communication space (9) on either side of the cover, configured to allow the vertical displacement of the cover when the level of the liquid changes in the storage tank (Snyder [0021-0028]).
Examiner’s note: with respect to the following limitation, “…a cover….able to come into abutment with the washing nozzles…” is considered to be functional or intended-use limitation(s) to which no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Applicant is reminded of the following regarding functional or intended-use limitation(s): a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114
With this in mind, when the storage tank (of Snyder) is filed to its max capacity, the cover will come in contact with the ceiling and the nozzles protruding from the ceiling. Therefore, the cover (of Snyder) is capable of performing the intended use; emphasis added.
However, Snyder fails to teach the storage tank being provided with washing nozzles protruding from the ceiling.
JP S6227275 Y2 is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a cleaning system for a storage tank. JP S6227275 Y2 teaches a storage tank (1; for a liquid) comprising:
a bottom from which a cylindrical wall closed by a ceiling (1c) rises, the storage tank being provide with washing nozzles (i.e. in the form of spray balls (2); as shown in Fig. 1) (JP S6227275 Y2 pg. 1 and Fig. 1).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ceiling of the storage tank (of Snyder) with similar protruding washing nozzles into the storage tank (as taught by JP S6227275 Y2) to allow the user to easily and efficiently remove any undesirable residue with the overall storage tank.
Further, Snyder fails to teach a system for bearing the cover on the bottom of the storage tank protruding either from the bottom of the storage tank or from the lower face of the cover.
Iskierka is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Snyder, which is a floating cover. Iskierka teaches a cover or barrier embodiment (10; as shown in Figs. 1-6) having a lower face (14) and an upper face (12), mounted inside a beverage container (16) having a cylindrical wall (20) and arranged to float on a liquid present in the beverage container; the cover is mounted in the beverage container to delimit with the cylindrical wall, a communication space (30; as shown in Iskierka Figs. 5-6) on either side of the cover, configured to allow the vertical displacement of the cover, when the level of liquid changes in the beverage container and includes a system of bearing (i.e. in the form of protuberances (44, 46 and 48) – which examiner equates to the claimed feet that bear on the bottom of the beverage container when the cover stops floating) protruding from the lower face of the cover (Iskierka Col. 4 ln. 3 – Col. 5 ln. 43).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover (of Snyder) to have a similar system of bearing (i.e. feet; as taught by Iskierka) in order to assist in raising and initiating the buoyancy action of the floatable barrier when there is no liquid content within the storage tank (see Iskierka Col. 6 ln. 37-43).
Lastly, Snyder fails to teach wherein the cover has a periphery that includes studs for cooperation with the cylindrical wall of the storage tank to ensure the centering of the cover during its vertical displacement, and the studs are spaced apart along the periphery.
Evans is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Snyder, which is a floating cover. Evans teaches a storage tank embodiment (20; as shown in Figs. 1-5 – for storing a liquid) having a bottom from which a cylindrical wall rises;
a floating cover (32) having a lower face and an upper face, mounted inside the storage tank and arrange to float on a liquid present in the storage tank;
the cover is mounted in the storage tank and configured to allow the vertical displacement of the cover when the level of the liquid changes in the storage; and
wherein the storage tank has a periphery that include studs (i.e. in the form of bumpers (34); as shown in Figs. 1-4) for cooperation with the floating cover to ensure the centering of the cover during its vertical displacement and provides or forms a clearance ‘C’ between the floating cover and an inside surface of the cylindrical wall of the storage tank (Evans [0054-0075]).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the periphery of the cover (of Snyder) with similar studs along the periphery (as taught by Evans) to form a clearance between the floating cover and the cylindrical wall of the storage tank.
Further, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant' s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights