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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10 stands withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 April 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 and 11-20 in the reply filed on 23 April 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite that the motor vehicle tank comprises a main tank and an auxiliary tank. In actuality, there is one tank with a partition or baffle that separates a main section from an auxiliary section, these two sections are in fluid communication with an opening or a plurality of openings allowing fuel flow. The partition wall (or baffle wall because it allows fluid overflow between the main section and the auxiliary section) is shared by the main section and the auxiliary section. The partition wall connects the main section and the auxiliary section rather than separates.
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 and 11-20 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 misrepresents the structure of the invention. It is clear from Fig. 1 and 3 that there is a single structure in the form of one tank and that the one tank has two sections, a main section and an auxiliary section. Applicant claims two separated tanks and this is inaccurate. Claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 16 and 20 are indefinite for similar reasons.
Claim 1 contains a contradiction. Claim 1, line 4 states that the auxiliary tank is connected to the main tank. In contradiction, claim 1, line 8 states that a partition wall separates the auxiliary tank from the main tank. This is inaccurate because the partition wall 6 is part of both the main section 1 and auxiliary section 3 of the one tank. There is no separation of the tanks or sections. Claim 1 is indefinite. For similar limitations and similar reasons, claims 16 and 20 are similarly 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, 7-9, 11, 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Fischerkeller et al. (US 6371153) (Fischerkeller).
Fischerkeller discloses a motor vehicle tank (see Fig. 1), comprising: a main tank (second tank portion 26) that includes at least one main extraction unit (pump 54 and fuel supply line 66) having a main flow line (66) to extract fuel from the main tank; an auxiliary tank (first tank portion 22) connected to the main tank, the auxiliary tank (22) including an auxiliary extraction unit (pump 50 and fuel supply line 62) having an auxiliary flow line (62) for extraction of fuel from the auxiliary tank, and a filler connection (filler pipe is directly above reference numeral 22) for direct filling of the auxiliary tank; and a partition wall (hump 30) which separates the auxiliary tank from the main tank by a partition wall, the partition wall having a lower partition wall region without an opening in an installation position, and an upper partition wall region having at least one opening (open interior area above hump 30) to facilitate fluid overflow between the auxiliary tank and the main tank (open interior area allows fuel to flow freely between portions 22 and 26 when fuel splashes or when the fuel level is above the hump 30).
Re claims 7-9, the main flow line 66 and the auxiliary flow line 62 are mechanically connected (by a tee connection to each other) and fluidically connected (by a tee connection to each other) outside outer delimiting walls of the motor vehicle tank.
Re claim 11, the auxiliary extraction unit comprises an auxiliary return line (crossover line 82 which returns fuel to auxiliary tank 26) for the return of extracted fuel to the auxiliary tank.
Re claim 14, the main tank does not include a filler connection to facilitate direct filling of the main tank.
Re claims 15 and 20, the main tank can only be filled via the auxiliary tank.
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 Fischerkeller in view of Tuckey et al. (US 5979485) (Tuckey).
Fischerkeller fails to disclose the valve. Tuckey teaches a similarly configured tank with main and auxiliary sections wherein a valve 88 (see column 3, lines 51-54 which state the open and closed conditions and operation of the valve) arranged in the main tank at an end of the main flow line, to close the main flow line when no fuel is present at the valve. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the valve to prevent air from entering the main flow line. When the valve actuates to a closed condition, the flow of fuel stops in the main flow line. An air-filled flow line would be inefficient because it wastes energy and fills the main flow line with air rather than fuel.
Claim(s) 3-5, 12-13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischerkeller in view of Ohlsson et al. (US 2008/0035649) (Ohlsson).
Re claims 3-5, Fischerkeller fails to disclose the metal material. Ohlsson teaches steel and stainless steel plating for the tank. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the main tank, auxiliary tank and partition/baffle to be steel or stainless steel to provide a strong, durable material to resist crushing, tears and damage and with stainless steel a corrosion resistant material to resist corrosion.
Re claims 12-13 and 18-19, Fischerkeller fails to disclose a baffle within the main tank. Ohlsson teaches two vertical baffles (4, 5) within a tank. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add baffles in a number necessary within the main tank to slow the surge of fuel or flow of fuel to prevent the fuel from harshly impacting the tank’s interior walls and interior components and to prevent fuel surge from adversely affecting vehicle handling and performance due to the forces of shifting weight and momentum.
Re claim 16, Fischerkeller fails to disclose that the partition wall has a plurality of openings forming a baffle to facilitate fluid overflow between the auxiliary and main tanks (i.e., the partition wall slows movement of fuel or surge while still allowing fuel flow through the partition wall or baffle to allow overflow between main section and auxiliary section). Ohlsson teaches baffle 4 with three openings 10, 11, 12 and each opening is spaced above a floor of the tank such that the baffle or partition has a lower region without an opening and an upper region having at least one opening (three openings) to facilitate overflow. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a baffle or partition to the region above the hump 30 of Fischerkeller, the baffle having a plurality of openings, to improve the surge resistance by slowing the movement or momentum of fuel over the hump 30 while still maintaining the passage of fuel over the hump when an overflow condition arises and the level of fuel rises over the hump.
Re claim 17, Fischerkeller discloses the main flow line 66 and the auxiliary flow line 62 are mechanically connected (by a tee connection to each other) and fluidically connected (by a tee connection to each other) outside outer delimiting walls of the motor vehicle tank.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischerkeller in view of Oliveira Capucho et al. (US 2020/0290455) (Capucho).
Fischerkeller fails to disclose a fill lever meter. Capucho teaches a fuel tank system with two fuel tanks (main and auxiliary) having a fuel level sensor 18 on the main extraction unit. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a fuel level sensor to a main extraction unit to provide the device which measures the fuel level within the main extraction unit within the tank as this is most logical placement for the more significant portion fuel level (as the auxiliary tank of Capucho is smaller).
Applicant stated “meter.” There is a significant difference between a meter (the device which measures and displays the fuel level value and the display portion of the device is commonly placed on the vehicle dashboard for the operator to have a convenient view during vehicle operation) and a sensor or measurement device (the portion of the meter that generates a value and is located inside of the tank exclusively). Since the entire meter is not located within the tank and on the main extraction unit, it is sufficient to find the sensor because that is the portion mounted within a fuel tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim interpretation in Part I. A. of the remarks submitted 16 December 2025. Applicant traverses the Office’s claim interpretation because applicant believes that stating “a partition wall which separates the auxiliary tank from the main tank” is accurate. The Office maintains that this statement is not accurate of the connected tank structure represented by Fig. 1 of applicant’s drawings.
Applicant argues against the 112 rejections in Part II.B. of the remarks submitted 16 December 2025. Applicant states that the 112 rejections for indefiniteness can’t be sustained merely because the Office believes that the claims do not correspond to the disclosure. If the structure of the claims is not properly supported by the drawings and specification, then the claims are indefinite.
Re the art rejections arguments, applicant’s rebuttal of the hump of Fischerkeller is not persuasive. The Office maintains the rejection because the hump meets the claimed partition structure word for word. The hump (1) separates the auxiliary tank from the main tank, (2) includes a lower region without an opening, and (3) includes an upper region having at least one opening.
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 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733