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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 1/02/2026. Claims 1-15 remain pending. Claim 12 has been amended. Claims 1-11 remain withdrawn. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment to recite a pair of flats formed on opposite sides of the largest diameter cylindrical portion has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is applied to the claims below. As such, applicant's arguments with respect to the 103 rejection over Dufendach in view of Cooley have not been found persuasive. A new interpretation of Dufendach in view of Cooley as stated below in the 103 rejection teaches each and every limitation including a pair of flats formed on opposite sides of the largest diameter cylindrical portion.
In response to applicant's argument that Cooley is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is to provide a means which allows the user to use a tool to fasten and/or secure the filler neck as desired.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection, and accordingly, this action must be made Final.
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.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dufendach et al. (US 2020/0047608, hereafter “Dufendach”) in view of Cooley (US 2022/0227223).
Regarding claim 12, Dufendach discloses a funnel (40) for a fuel fill tube assembly comprising: a plurality of cylindrical portions (as shown best in Fig. 2, see the multiple cylindrical portions that are separated by the tapered portions) each separated by a respective tapered transition portion (as shown in Fig. 2, see the tapered portions that separate the cylindrical portions), the plurality of cylindrical portions decreasing in diameter along a length of the funnel from a largest diameter cylindrical portion to a smallest diameter cylindrical portion (Fig. 2), wherein the funnel includes a large opening (the opening proximal to 50 with reference to Fig. 2) at a first end (the end that is proximal to 50 with reference to Fig. 2) and a small opening (the opening that feeds fluid into 32) at a second end (the end connected to 32), a flange (Exhibit A) surrounding the large opening, but fails to disclose a pair of flats formed on opposite sides of the largest cylindrical portion.
Cooley teaches a pair of flats (102; Fig. 2) formed on opposite sides of the largest diameter cylindrical portion. (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the outer surface of the largest diameter cylindrical portion of Dufendach to include flats as taught by Cooley in order to provide a surface which allows a tool to access for installation or removal as desired by the user. (para. [0030])
Exhibit A
PNG
media_image1.png
511
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Dufendach in view of Cooley further disclose the funnel of claim 12, wherein the funnel is tubular (Figs. 1-6), but fails to disclose has a wall thickness within a range of between 0.04 in and 0.02 in.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the wall thickness to be within a range of between 0.04 in and 0.02 in since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Dufendach would not operate differently with the claimed thickness. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the claimed thickness in the specification.
Regarding claim 14, Dufendach in view of Cooley further disclose the funnel of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the wall thickness is 0.026 in.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the wall thickness is 0.026 in since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Dufendach would not operate differently with the claimed thickness. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the claimed thickness in the specification.
Regarding claim 15, Dufendach in view of Cooley further disclose the funnel of claim 14, wherein the funnel is of a unitary one-piece construction. (Figs. 1-6 show a one-piece construction)
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753