DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 8 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-9 and 20-30 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 20-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (US 2,060,484) in view of Holby (US 2,037,020).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Barrett fig 4
Regarding claim 1, Barrett discloses a tank body (fig 4, 11/51) for transporting a liquid (truck for carrying a liquid, pg 1 ln 50-51 right column) and spraying the liquid via a spray boom (discharge 16, pg 2 ln 3 left column; discharge 16 is depicted as an exterior pipe with a nozzle and appears to fit the plain meaning of spray boom, see annotated figure above) fed by a pump (23), the tank body comprising: a plurality of walls forming a receptacle configured to receive the liquid (fig 3, fig 4 depict walls of tank 11/51, which conventionally form a receptacle space to hold liquid of tank; in fig 4 compartments 52-55 hold liquid, 56 holds the pump pg 2, right column, ln 51-55); and a reservoir (fig 5, hydraulic reservoir 36) … configured to provide a working fluid to a motor (22, fig 5 depicts the hydraulic circuit with motor 22 and reservoir 36), the motor being configured to drive the pump (fig 2 and fig 5, motor 22 is connected to pump 23 via a drive shaft), wherein the pump comprises an impeller (hydraulic pump 23 includes gears which fit the plain meaning of impeller because they move fluid) disposed outside of the receptacle (fig 4, can-compartment 56 containing the motor and pump system 15 is the rear tank, and does not contain fluid, pg 2, right column ln 50-56).
Barrett does not disclose the reservoir positioned in direct contact with a lower region of one of the plurality of walls of the tank.
Holby teaches a tank body for transporting a liquid (tank 31 on a truck, pg 1, right column, ln 29-30, 40) with a plurality of walls (walls of tank including wrapping sheet 32 and bulkheads 33, pg 1, right column, ln 43-46) with a hydraulic oil reservoir (auxiliary oil tank, pg 2, left column, ln 1-4) positioned in direct contact with a lower region of one of eth plurality of walls of the tank (auxiliary oil tank is welded to the bottom of the tank, pg 1 right column 52 – pg 2, left column, ln 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank construction, layout and hydraulic reservoir (36) of Barrett by constructing the tank using a single wrapping sheet and bulkheads of Holby, and enabling the hydraulic reservoir (36) of Barrett with an auxiliary oil reservoir welded to the bottom wall of the tank as taught by Holby for ease of operation, and construction of a transportation tank (Holby, pg 1 left column ln 24-30).
Regarding claim 2, Barrett in view of Holby makes obvious the tank body of Claim 1, wherein the reservoir is disposed relative to the one of the plurality of walls.
Barret is silent such that the arrangement is so that heat transfer via conduction occurs between the liquid and the working fluid when the working fluid is disposed in the reservoir.
Nevertheless, conduction is a well-known scientific principle. Conduction is defined as heat transfer that occurs between two solid objects, as opposed to convention which would be heat transfer via fluid contact, or radiation which would be heat transfer via radiant energy. Heat conduction occurs inherently when solid objects are in contact with each other. Therefore, the structure which meets the claimed heat transfer via conduction between the liquid in the receptacle and the fluid in the reservoir, the only requirement is that there be a heat conduction path from the walls of the tank to the auxiliary oil reservoir.
Since Holby teaches that the auxiliary oil tank is welded to the bottom of the main tank, the two tanks have the heat conduction path due to the weld. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that conductive heat transfer occurs through the direct contact provided by the weld joint.
Regarding claim 3, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 1, wherein the reservoir is disposed in the receptacle. In Holby, the reservoir (auxiliary oil tank) is welded to the bottom of the receptacle (main tank). Since the welding makes the two tanks integral, it is reasonable to interpret the outer wall of the auxiliary oil tank as the outer wall of the combined main tank and auxiliary oil tank. Since the volume of the reservoir (auxiliary oil tank) is within the boundary of the combined main tank and auxiliary tank, when we consider the combined main tank and auxiliary tan as the receptacle, then the reservoir (volume of the auxiliary oil tank) can reasonably be interpreted as “disposed in the receptacle.”
Regarding claim 4, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 1, wherein the reservoir is disposed outside the receptacle (Holby, the auxiliary oil tank is welded to the outside of the main tank, where the main tank is the receptacle which holds the liquid of the main tank as claimed in claim 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
674
910
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation on Barrett fig 2
Regarding claim 5, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 1.
Barrett is silent on an inlet to the reservoir is aligned so that flow into the reservoir is directed towards the one of the plurality of walls.
Nevertheless, Holby teaches the reservoir is welded to the bottom of the plurality of walls of the reservoir. Since the welding makes the two tanks integral, it is reasonable to interpret the outer wall of the auxiliary oil tank as the outer wall of the combined main tank and auxiliary oil tank. Therefore, the walls of the auxiliary oil tank (reservoir) may reasonably be considered to be some of the walls of the plurality of walls of the main tank (receptacle). Therefore, since any fluid entering the reservoir would inherently flow toward a wall of the reservoir, and all walls of the reservoir may reasonably be called one of the plurality of walls, then all fluid flowing entering the reservoir would flow in a direction toward one of the plurality of walls.
Regarding claim 6, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 1. Barret is silent wherein the one of the plurality of walls also forms a wall of the reservoir. Nevertheless, Holby teaches the reservoir is welded to the bottom of the plurality of walls of the reservoir. Since the welding makes the two tanks integral, it is reasonable to interpret the wall of a receptacle welded to the reservoir to form at least a portion of the wall of the reservoir.
Regarding claim 7, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 1. Barrett is silent on the reservoir is disposed on a front head of the tank body.
Nevertheless, Holby teaches the reservoir (auxiliary oil tank) is disposed on a front head of the tank body (the oil tank is welded to the bottom of the tank and extend substantially through the length of the tank, pg 1, right column, line 52-55). Since the auxiliary tank extends to through the length of the tank, and the front head of the tank is along the length of tank, it is reasonable that the tank of Barrett in view of Holby would extend to the forward most portion of the tank and thereby meet the claim limitation.
PNG
media_image3.png
451
978
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Barrett fig 4
Regarding claim 8, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 1, further comprising an inlet line (Barrett, fig 2 and fig 4, portion of fluid circuit 17 going into tank 11/51) and a return line (portion of fluid circuit 17 leaving tank 11/51), and wherein the inlet line and the return line are configured to provide a flow path for the working fluid to pass between the reservoir and inside the receptacle (fluid from 17 goes from reservoir 36 to the motor 22 within tank 11/51, pg 2 left column ln 29-31).
Regarding claim 9, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 8, wherein the inlet line and the return line pass through the at least one of the plurality of walls (Barrett, inlet and outlet of hydraulic circuit 17 must pass through walls of tank 11/51 to reach motor 22 on the inside of the tank).
Barrett is silent on the circuit lines passing through the walls (of tank 11/51) at a location of the reservoir (36).
Nevertheless, the location of where the hydraulic circuit (17) passes through the wall of tank (11/51) in order to reach motor (22) is an obvious rearrangement of parts. A rearrangement of parts is obvious when the change in position would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) ). In this case, the function of the hydraulic circuit is to carry pressurized working fluid to the motor on the interior of tank (11/51), and return less pressurized working fluid back to the reservoir (37). The location of where the circuit penetrates the wall of tank (11/51) does not modify the operation of the device, because the circuit (17) is a closed circuit. There should reasonably be no pressure interaction occurring between the fluid in circuit (17) and the fluid in tank (11/51), therefore whether or not circuit (17) passed into tank (11/51) near the location of reservoir (36), would cause no change in the operation of the circuit. Therefore, the limitation, “the circuit lines passing through the walls (of tank 11/51) at a location of the reservoir (36),” is obvious under Barrett.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that when modifying Barrett using the tank construction of Holby, to continue to provide the inlet line and return line and flow path for the fluids as found in the references individually for the predictable result of maintaining the functions of the individual references. Furthermore, the combination of Barrett in view of Holby produces a predictable result because the secondary reference Holby does not reasonably relate to the configuration of inlet lines, return lines, and the flow path of the tanks because Holby is concerned primarily with tank construction. Furthermore, it is within the general skill of a worker in the mechanical arts to lay a fluid path of pipe in the combination as it was described in the references individually because installing pipe work involves no more than ordinary pipe working skill, such as pipe cutting, joining, and penetrating walls of the tank receptacles. Therefore, the limitation under the combination is also a predictable result of the combination.
Regarding claim 20, Barrett discloses a tank body (fig 4, 11/51) for transporting a liquid (truck for carrying a liquid, pg 1 ln 50-51 right column) and spraying the liquid via a spray boom (discharge 16, pg 2 ln 3 left column; discharge 16 is depicted as an exterior pipe with a nozzle and appears to fit the plain meaning of spray boom, see annotated figure above) fed by a pump (23), the tank body comprising: a plurality of walls forming a receptacle configured to receive the liquid (fig 3, fig 4 depict walls of tank 11/51, which conventionally form a receptacle space to hold liquid of tank; in fig 4 compartments 52-55 hold liquid, 56 holds the pump pg 2, right column, ln 51-55); and a reservoir (36) configured to provide a working fluid to a motor (22, fig 5 depicts the hydraulic circuit with motor 22 and reservoir 36), the motor being configured to drive the pump (fig 2 and fig 5, motor 22 is connected to pump 23 via a drive shaft), , wherein the pump comprises an impeller (hydraulic pump 23 includes gears which fit the plain meaning of impeller because they move fluid) disposed outside of the receptacle (fig 4, can-compartment 56 containing the motor and pump system 15 is the rear tank, and does not contain fluid, pg 2, right column ln 50-56).
Barrett does not disclose the reservoir positioned in direct contact with a lower region of one of the plurality of walls …
so that heat transfer via conduction occurs between the liquid and the working fluid when the working fluid is disposed in the reservoir.
Holby teaches a tank body for transporting a liquid (tank 31 on a truck, pg 1, right column, ln 29-30, 40) with a plurality of walls (walls of tank including wrapping sheet 32 and bulkheads 33, pg 1, right column, ln 43-46) with a hydraulic oil reservoir (auxiliary oil tank, pg 2, left column, ln 1-4) positioned in direct contact with a lower region of one of eth plurality of walls of the tank (auxiliary oil tank is welded to the bottom of the tank, pg 1 right column 52 – pg 2, left column, ln 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank construction and layout of Barrett by constructing the tank using a single wrapping sheet and bulkheads 33 with an auxiliar oil reservoir welded to the bottom wall of the tank as taught by Holby for ease of operation, and construction of a transportation tank (pg 1 left column ln 24-30).
Furthermore, conduction is a well-known scientific principle. Conduction is defined as heat transfer that occurs between two solid objects, as opposed to convention which would be heat transfer via fluid contact, or radiation which would be heat transfer via radiant energy. Heat conduction occurs inherently when solid objects are in contact with each other. Therefore, the structure which meets the claimed heat transfer via conduction between the liquid in the receptacle and the fluid in the reservoir, the only requirement is that there be a heat conduction path from the walls of the tank to the auxiliary oil reservoir.
Since Holby teaches that the auxiliary oil tank is welded to the bottom of the main tank, the two tanks have the heat conduction path due to the weld. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that conductive heat transfer occurs through the direct contact provided by the weld joint.
Regarding claim 21, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 20, wherein the reservoir is disposed in the receptacle. In Holby, the reservoir (auxiliary oil tank) is welded to the bottom of the receptacle (main tank). Since the welding makes the two tanks integral, it is reasonable to interpret the outer wall of the auxiliary oil tank as the outer wall of the combined main tank and auxiliary oil tank. Since the volume of the reservoir (auxiliary oil tank) is within the boundary of the combined main tank and auxiliary tank, when we consider the combined main tank and auxiliary tan as the receptacle, then the reservoir (volume of the auxiliary oil tank) can reasonably be interpreted as “disposed in the receptacle.”
Regarding claim 22, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 20, wherein the reservoir is disposed outside the receptacle (Holby, the auxiliary oil tank is welded to the outside of the main tank, where the main tank is the receptacle which holds the liquid of the main tank, see claim 20).
Regarding claim 23, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 20. Barrett is silent on an inlet to the reservoir is aligned so that flow into the reservoir is directed towards the one of the plurality of walls.
Nevertheless, Holby teaches the reservoir is welded to the bottom of the plurality of walls of the reservoir. Since the welding makes the two tanks integral, it is reasonable to interpret the outer wall of the auxiliary oil tank as the outer wall of the combined main tank and auxiliary oil tank. Therefore, the walls of the auxiliary oil tank (reservoir) may reasonably be considered to be some of the walls of the plurality of walls of the main tank (receptacle). Therefore, since any fluid entering the reservoir would inherently flow toward a wall of the reservoir, and all walls of the reservoir may reasonably be called one of the plurality of walls, then all fluid flowing entering the reservoir would flow in a direction toward one of the plurality of walls.
Regarding claim 24, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 20. Barret is silent wherein the one of the plurality of walls also forms a wall of the reservoir. Nevertheless, Holby teaches the reservoir is welded to the bottom of the plurality of walls of the reservoir. Since the welding makes the two tanks integral, it is reasonable to interpret the wall of a receptacle welded to the reservoir to form at least a portion of the wall of the reservoir.
Regarding claim 25, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 20. Barrett is silent on the reservoir is disposed on a front head of the tank body.
Nevertheless, Holby teaches the reservoir (auxiliary oil tank) is disposed on a front head of the tank body (the oil tank is welded to the bottom of the tank and extend substantially through the length of the tank, pg 1, right column, line 52-55). Since the auxiliary tank extends to through the length of the tank, and the front head of the tank is along the length of tank, it is reasonable that the tank of Barrett in view of Holby would extend to the forward most portion of the tank and thereby meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 26, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 20, wherein the working fluid is a hydraulic fluid (Barrett, fluid functions as a hydraulic fluid used by a hydraulic motor and pump, pg 2, left column, ln 70-71) or a food grade oil.
Regarding claim 27, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 20, further comprising an inlet line (Barrett, fig 2 and fig 4, portion of fluid circuit 17 going into tank 11/51, See claim 8) and a return line (portion of fluid circuit 17 leaving tank 11/51, See claim 8), and wherein the inlet line and the return line are configured to provide a flow path for the working fluid to pass between the reservoir and inside the receptacle (fluid from 17 goes from reservoir 36 to the motor 22 within tank 11/51, pg 2 left column ln 29-31, See claim 8).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that when modifying Barrett using the tank construction of Holby, to continue to provide the inlet line and return line and flow path for the fluids as found in the references individually for the predictable result of maintaining the functions of the individual references. Furthermore, the combination of Barrett in view of Holby produces a predictable result because the secondary reference Holby does not reasonably relate to the configuration of inlet lines, return lines, and the flow path of the tanks because Holby is concerned primarily with tank construction. Furthermore, it is within the general skill of a worker in the mechanical arts to lay a fluid path of pipe in the combination as it was described in the references individually because installing pipe work involves no more than ordinary pipe working skill, such as pipe cutting, joining, and penetrating walls of the tank receptacles.
Regarding claim 28, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 27, wherein the inlet line and the return line pass through the at least one of the plurality of walls (Barrett, inlet and outlet of hydraulic circuit 17 must pass through walls of tank 11/51 to reach motor 22 on the inside of the tank).
Barrett is silent on the circuit lines passing through the walls (of tank 11/51) at a location of the reservoir (36).
Nevertheless, the location of where the hydraulic circuit (17) passes through the wall of tank (11/51) in order to reach motor (22) is an obvious rearrangement of parts. A rearrangement of parts is obvious when the change in position would not have modified the operation of the device (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) ). In this case, the function of the hydraulic circuit is to carry pressurized working fluid to the motor on the interior of tank (11/51), and return less pressurized working fluid back to the reservoir (37). The location of where the circuit penetrates the wall of tank (11/51) does not modify the operation of the device, because the circuit (17) is a closed circuit. There should reasonably be no pressure interaction occurring between the fluid in circuit (17) and the fluid in tank (11/51), therefore whether or not circuit (17) passed into tank (11/51) near the location of reservoir (36), would cause no change in the operation of the circuit. Therefore, the limitation, “the circuit lines passing through the walls (of tank 11/51) at a location of the reservoir (36),” is obvious under Barrett.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that when modifying Barrett using the tank construction of Holby, to continue to provide the inlet line and return line and flow path for the fluids as found in the references individually for the predictable result of maintaining the functions of the individual references. Furthermore, the combination of Barrett in view of Holby produces a predictable result because the secondary reference Holby does not reasonably relate to the configuration of inlet lines, return lines, and the flow path of the tanks because Holby is concerned primarily with tank construction. Furthermore, it is within the general skill of a worker in the mechanical arts to lay a fluid path of pipe in the combination as it was described in the references individually because installing pipe work involves no more than ordinary pipe working skill, such as pipe cutting, joining, and penetrating walls of the tank receptacles. Therefore, the limitation under the combination is also a predictable result of the combination.
Regarding claim 29, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 27, further comprising a pump (Barrett, fig 4 and fig 5, pump 23, inlet 14 outlet 16) system supported by the plurality of walls (fig 4 show pump 23 supported by tank 11/51), and wherein a least one of the inlet line or the return line pass through the pump system which itself passes through the plurality of walls (fig 1 and fig 4 show pump 23 inside tank 11/51 and discharge 16 outside tank 11/51; since pump 23 is inside tank 11/51 and discharge 16 is outside tank 11/51, they pump system inherently passes through the tank walls).
Regarding claim 30, Barrett in view of Holby teaches the tank body of Claim 29, wherein the pump system comprises a liquid end (Barrett, fig 2, 23, impeller gears) and a power frame (22, hydraulic motor), at least a portion of the power frame being disposed in the receptacle (fig 2 shows motor 22 within tank 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 20-28 on 8 December 2025 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Holby does not cure Barrett disclosing the reservoir position in direct contact with a lower region of one of the plurality of the walls of the tank because Holby’s two auxiliary tanks 35’, 36’ are purely auxiliary tanks and not used to store a working fluid used by the tank truck (pg 3 of Remarks). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the use of the auxiliary oil tank to hold the working fluid is taught by Barrett tank (36, fig 1, fig 4). Barrett’s auxiliary oil tank is present in both embodiments of Barret (fig 1 and fig 4, See annotated fig 4 drawing above). Holby is cited for teaching welding an auxiliary oil tank to the bottom of the main tank; when combining the references, the function of Barrett’s auxiliary oil tank (37) from the reference individually is retained in the combination and therefore, the use of the auxiliary oil tank to hold working fluid is a predictable result of the combination.
Applicant further argues (page 3-4) that under Barrett when the tank truck includes a plurality of compartments (52, 53, 54, 55) that none of the compartments are welded to the bottom wall of the tank, and rather are arranged in a side-to-side manner. Applicant is overlooking that Barrett’s fig 4 embodiment includes the auxiliary oil tank on the side of tank (51) in the same position that the auxiliary oil tank is depicted in fig 1 (See annotated drawing at claim 1 above). Since Barrett’s auxiliary oil tank (37) is outside of and lower than Barret’s tank (fig 4, 51) compartments (52, 53, 54, 55), auxiliary oil tank (37) is not limited by the same “side-to-side” restriction on the construction identified by applicant. Therefore it is reasonable that the combination of Barret’s arrangement of tank (51) and its sub-compartments (52-55) combining with welding an auxiliary oil tank (35’ 36’) taught by Holby beneath tank (51) can retain its principles of operation because the Holby auxiliary oil tank (35’ 36’) is analogous to the Barrett auxiliar oil tank (37).
Applicant further argues that neither Barrett nor Holby teach or suggest “an impeller disposed outside of the receptacle.” The rejection has been modified to show how the combination meets the new amendment.
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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746