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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Office understands the invention of the liquid tank arrangement to be broad and will broadly and reasonably interpret the claims. The Office understands the written specification to describe a liquid tank arrangement that can be used in a variety of ways. One such manner of use would keep the volumes of the arrangement separate such that liquids held in each volume do not mix or transfer to another volume whether or not the liquid in the two or more volumes is the same or different. Such that there is no liquid connection ever in the one such manner of use. Another such manner of use would allow intermixing, commingling or transfer of at least two liquids in the two or more volumes along a liquid connection. Such that there is always a liquid connection in the another such manner of use.
If it was applicant’s intention to convey a similar interpretation to claim 1, it is the Office’s opinion that applicant’s claim language misses the mark. Claim 1 never mentions “or.” Claim 9 is more successful and meaningful is simply stating that the “tank volumes are fluidly connected to each other or fluidly disconnected from each other.”
Claim 1 comprises at least two tank individual volumes, an at least a first tank volume and a second tank volume. There is also a combined tank volume comprising of the at least first tank volume and the second tank volume. These individual volumes and the combined volume exist whether or not a liquid connection is established. Claim 1 doesn’t establish a liquid connection because there is too much language within claim 1 that contradicts a liquid connection. Claim 1 does clearly state that functionally that the “at least a first tank volume and a second tank volume fluidly connectable to each other” in lines 1-2. Functional language is not treated as a positive recitation of structure, only that it is possible to fluidly connect tank volumes. The functional language sets forth a broader interpretation than a positive recitation of structure. For similar reason, lines 6-7 of claim 1 state “wherein the at least first and second tank volumes are fluidly connectable to each other via a liquid connection.” This is interpreted as a functional recitation. When claim 1 refers to “the liquid connection” in lines 7 and 9, it has proper antecedent basis. However, it still doesn’t establish a positive recitation of a liquid connection.
The Office believes that applicant doesn’t intend for a liquid connection to be positively claimed because the liquid tank arrangement needs to be broad enough for no liquid connection. Applicant states in paragraph [5] of the specification, last sentence, “ the liquid connection between the at least two tank volumes is configured as open or as sealed when the liquid tank arrangement is installed in a vehicle.”
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 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the claim limitations contradict each other. Claim 1 states that the liquid connection is configured to be permanently open in lines 7-8, then states that the liquid connection is configured to be permanently sealed in line 9.
Claim 1, line 9 states “the liquid connection is configured to be permanently sealed when the at least first and second tank volumes form fluidly separate first and second tank volumes” which is a contradiction. A permanently sealed connection doesn’t allow liquid to pass such that there is no liquid connection. Claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 2 attempts to positively claim the fluidly connected arrangement which contradicts the statement in claim 1, lines 9-11 that the liquid connection between the at least first and second tank volumes are configured to be permanently sealed. Claim 2 contradicts claim 1. Claim 2 is indefinite.
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 (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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Mowatt et al. (US 2007/0163660) (Mowatt).
Mowatt discloses a liquid tank arrangement for a vehicle, the liquid tank arrangement comprising at least a first tank volume (volume of tank 10) and a second tank volume (volume of tank 30) fluidly connectable to each other, wherein the at least first and second tank volumes form a single combined tank volume when fluidly connected to each other and wherein the at least first and second tank volumes form fluidly separate first and second tank volumes when fluidly disconnected from each other, wherein the at least first and second tank volumes are fluidly connectable to each other via a liquid connection (either one of or both connectors 14 and 36), and wherein the liquid connection is configured to be permanently open (open when level sensing valve 16 is open) when the at least first and second tank volumes form a single combined tank volume and wherein the liquid connection is configured to be permanently sealed (sealed when level sensing valve 16 is closed) when the at least first and second tank volumes form fluidly separate first and second tank volumes.
Re claim 3, the at least first and second tank volumes are shaped to accommodate each other in a space-saving configuration. This limitation is disclosed insofar as taught by applicant’s present invention wherein tanks placed closed to each other are believed to accommodate each other in a space-saving configuration.
Re claim 4, as shown in Fig. 4, tank 30 is above tank 10.
Re claim 6, the tanks 30 and 10 abut each other therefore their respective volumes abut each other.
Re claim 7, “shaped as a seat for a user of a vehicle” is broadly interpreted such that any flat top surface which could be used by a person as a seat fulfills the limitation. The top surface of tank 30 provides sufficient area to be used by a person as a seat.
Re claim 8, the tank arrangement is specifically for a tractor or other agricultural vehicle (see title).
Re claim 9, the tank volumes are fluidly connected.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kirita et al. (US 2021/0070168) (Kirita).
Kirita discloses a liquid tank arrangement for a vehicle, the liquid tank arrangement comprising at least a first tank volume (volume of tank 32) and a second tank volume (volume of tank 34) fluidly connectable to each other, wherein the at least first and second tank volumes form a single combined tank volume when fluidly connected to each other and wherein the at least first and second tank volumes form fluidly separate first and second tank volumes when fluidly disconnected from each other, wherein the at least first and second tank volumes are fluidly connectable to each other via a liquid connection (tube 60, 64 as explained in paragraphs [33] – [40]), and wherein the liquid connection is configured to be permanently open when the at least first and second tank volumes form a single combined tank volume and wherein the liquid connection is configured to be permanently sealed when the at least first and second tank volumes form fluidly separate first and second tank volumes.
Re claim 3, the at least first and second tank volumes are shaped to accommodate each other in a space-saving configuration. This limitation is disclosed insofar as taught by applicant’s present invention wherein tanks placed closed to each other are believed to accommodate each other in a space-saving configuration.
Re claim 5, at least two sides of each of the at least first and second tank volumes are adjacent two sides of at least one other of the at least first and second tank volumes. Two sides (forward and rearward facing sides) of the at least first and second tank volumes are adjacent where the volumes abut at partition 36. Two sides (both upwardly facing and adjacent to the partition 36, see Fig. 1 and 4) of the at least first and second tank volumes are adjacent. Two sides (both downwardly facing and adjacent to the partition 36, see Fig. 1 and 4) of the at least first and second tank volumes are adjacent.
Re claim 6, the tanks 32 and 34 abut each other at the partition 36 therefore their respective volumes abut each other.
Re claim 7, “shaped as a seat for a user of a vehicle” is broadly interpreted such that any flat top surface which could be used by a person as a seat fulfills the limitation. The top surface of tank 32 provides sufficient area to be used by a person as a seat.
Re claim 8, the tank arrangement is specifically for an earth vibration roller or other work vehicle (see title).
Re claim 9, the tank volumes are fluidly connected.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Oliveira Capucho et al. (US 2020/0290455) (Capucho).
Capucho discloses a liquid tank arrangement for a vehicle, the liquid tank arrangement comprising at least a first tank volume (volume of tank 32) and a second tank volume (volume of tank 12) fluidly connectable to each other, wherein the at least first and second tank volumes form a single combined tank volume when fluidly connected to each other and wherein the at least first and second tank volumes form fluidly separate first and second tank volumes when fluidly disconnected from each other, wherein the at least first and second tank volumes are fluidly connectable to each other via a liquid connection (balancing segment 52), and wherein the liquid connection is configured to be permanently open when the at least first and second tank volumes form a single combined tank volume and wherein the liquid connection is configured to be permanently sealed when the at least first and second tank volumes form fluidly separate first and second tank volumes.
Re claim 3, the at least first and second tank volumes are shaped to accommodate each other in a space-saving configuration. This limitation is disclosed insofar as taught by applicant’s present invention wherein tanks placed closed to each other are believed to accommodate each other in a space-saving configuration. See Fig. 4.
Re claim 7, “shaped as a seat for a user of a vehicle” is broadly interpreted such that any flat top surface which could be used by a person as a seat fulfills the limitation. The top surface of tanks 32 and 12 provides sufficient area to be used by a person as a seat. See Fig. 4 which is a cross section through semi-chassis where the tanks are situated and Fig. 5 which shows the position of the tanks in elevation and in relation to the semi-cab
Re claim 8, the tank arrangement is specifically for a semi-cab or other heavy-duty truck vehicle.
Re claim 9, the tank volumes are fluidly connected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capucho.
Capucho discloses that each of the at least first and second tank volumes comprises a liquid inlet (inlets 56, 58) for filling liquid in the first volume and in the second volume, respectively, and a liquid outlet [each tank has at least two outlets for liquid (first and second fuel balancing/return segments 24 and 40 and pickup tubes 16 and 36) for dispensing liquid from the first volume and from the second volume, respectively, and wherein only one of the liquid inlets and only one of the liquid outlets are in use (when there is balancing flow, the flow in line 52 is from an outlet and to an inlet). However, Capucho fails to disclose that all other liquid inlets and liquid outlets are permanently sealed when the at least first and second tank volumes are fluidly connected to form the single combined tank volume. Official notice is taken that it is well known that (1) fuel spout inlets (such as 56 and 58) are capped closed to seal these inlets and (2) other outlets (e.g., pickup tubes 16 and 36) would be sealed by a valve, pump or other sealing device). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add sealing devices to the other inlets and outlets of the tanks to prevent fuel vapor evaporation or liquid fuel flow from an excess pressure buildup within a tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amendment of claim 1 and applicant’s remarks submitted 9 July 2025 under the 112 section, the amendments reinforce that the Office suspicion that the claim limitations are contradictory. There is no argument against the indefiniteness and the 112 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 102 rejections, applicant argues that the cited art only discloses tank arrangements which are fluidly connected to each other. This is true. These connected structures can be sealed in a manner that disconnects the fluid volumes because the claim limitation is a functional limitation. When treating functional limitations, there is no requirement that the sealed arrangement must be shown or discussed. Applicant is applying an overtly narrow interpretation, that the functional limitations must be positively recited or positively shown in the prior art. This is not true. The structures of Mowatt, Kirita and Capucho are configured to be permanently sealed and configured to form separate first and second tank volumes in a second state.
The Office maintains a position of full disagreement with applicant. All rejections have been maintained and made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 571-270-5055. 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733