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 .
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Keller (US 4796777). With respect to claim 15, Keller discloses the claimed fuel fill with a cap 10, a flange (at the outer edge of the cap), at least one pressure regulating valve (including 20), the valve having a top side (Figure 4), a mounting pad affixed to the top side with a sealing ring 46 and biassing means 32, a gasket 56 defining an upper and a lower channel (Figure 4), a fuel throat body 14, a mouth (at 12), an atrium (at the upper most portion of the throat; Figure 4), with the pressure regulating valve extending through the mouth into the atrium. With respect to the intended use with a deck of a vehicle, it is noted that intended use defines no patentable structure and the fuel fill cap of Keller is capable of being use as a deck fill cap for a vehicle. With respect to claims 18, 20, note Keller, Figure 4.
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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 4796777) in view of Xu et al (US 6293609). With respect to claim 17, Keller does not disclose the gasket Young’s Modulus. Xu et al teach a gasket with a Young’s Modulus greater than 14.7 (note the claim). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Keller with the gasket having a Young’s Modulus of greater than 14.7 as taught by Xu et al with a high likelihood of success for improved sealing. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing sealing fuel caps would have some years of experience and would be familiar with various sealing gasket and the qualities of various sealing materials and would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
Claims 16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Donahue et al (EP 1895145 A2) show a fuel vent cap.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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, Samuel J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615