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 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) 1, 2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR20160060895) in view of Sakano et al. (JP2001219983) and Sharples (U.S. Patent No. 4955512).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a flexible tank (Figure 7) comprising: an inner tank 300 (figure 7) having an inner space (Figure 7) and having elasticity (Figure 7 and 8); an outer tank 200 (Figure 7) in which the inner tank is disposed; and a passage part 400 (Figure 6) and passage body part passing through the inner tank in a reference direction (Figure 6), and having an outer end 430 (Figure 6) disposed outside the inner tank and an inner end (Figure 6) disposed in the inner space so that the inner space communicates with the outside of the inner tank (Figure 6); wherein the outer tank comprises: a case part 210 (Figure 7) configured to surround the inner tank; and a mouth part 211 (Figure 7) passing through the case part; wherein respective portions of the outer tank and the inner tank are fixed to be spaced apart from each other so that an interspace is defined in a state in which the inner tank is not maximally expanded (Figure 7); wherein an end of the passage part in the reference direction is disposed to be adjacent to an end of the inner tank in the reference direction (Figure 6). Lee et al. does not disclose the passage part is recessed to define a passage slit in the end of the passage part in the reference direction; and wherein the passage slit extends in a direction in which the passage part extends, wherein the outer tank further includes a tank hole through which the interspace communicates with the outside of the outer tank and disposed to surround the mouth part; wherein the tank hole has a shape that is open toward an opposite direction of the reference direction and a fitting disposed between the passage body part and the tank hole in the reference direction and configured to couple the mouth part and the passage body part; and wherein the fitting is disposed at a position at which the fitting is observable thought the tank hole when the tank hole is viewed in the reference direction from the outside of the outer tank. However, Sakano et al. teaches the passage part 4 (figure 1) is recessed to define a passage slit 17 (Figure 1) in the end of the passage part in the reference direction (Figure 1); and wherein the passage slit extends in a direction in which the passage part extends (Figure 1). Sharples teaches wherein the outer tank further includes a tank hole 30 (Figure 4) through which the interspace communicates with the outside of the outer tank and disposed to surround the mouth part (Figure 4); wherein the tank hole has a shape that is open toward an opposite direction of the reference direction (Figure 4) and a fitting 24 (Figure 4) disposed between the passage body part and the tank hole in the reference direction and configured to couple the mouth part and the passage body part (Figure 4); and wherein the fitting is disposed at a position at which the fitting is observable thought the tank hole when the tank hole is viewed in the reference direction from the outside of the outer tank (Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee et al. to include the above, as taught by Sakano et al. and Sharples, in order to allow for easy access into the passage part and allow for venting.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee et al. discloses the outer tank comprises: an outer base part 210 (Figure 7); and an outer cover 220 (figure 7) configured to surround the inner tank together with the outer base part, and detachably coupled to the outer base part.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee et al. discloses the passage part comprises: a passage body part (Figure 6) connected to the mouth part; and a passage O-ring 440 (Figure 6) disposed between the mouth part and the passage body part so as to maintain watertightness between the mouth part and the passage body part (Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee et al. discloses the passage part comprises: a passage body part 400 (Figure 6) connected to the mouth part; and tank O-rings 440 (Figure 6) disposed between the passage body part and the inner tank so as to maintain watertightness between the passage body part and the inner tank (figure 6). Lee et al. does not disclose a pair of tank O-rings however, it would have been obvious to modify Lee et al. to include a pair of tank O-rings since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee et al. discloses each of the outer tank and the inner tank has a shape extending in the reference direction (Figure 7), and the end of the inner tank in the reference direction has a curved surface (Figure 7).
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm est.
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 at (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.
/E.J.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3733 /JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights