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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on May 8, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 8, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on May 8, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopiec (U.S. 2014/0246440) in view of Beysel (U.S. 2020/0114754).
Regarding claim 1, Kopiec teaches a toolbox supporting transfer fuel tank 1 comprising a tank body (formed by 2a, 2b) comprising a vertical portion (shown at lead line 1 in figure 2) and a toolbox supporting portion (shown at lead line 8 in figure 3A), the tank body 1 having an inner volume a fill tube 4 coupled to a top surface of the tank body, a strengthening channel (shown adjacent lead line 5 in figure 1) formed in the top surface of the tank body, the strengthening channel is sized and shaped to receive a pipe fitting for a transfer pump (capable of receiving an appropriately sized pipe fitting), wherein the strengthening channel runs alongside the fitting and the pump to provide rigidity to this area of the tank body to support the transfer pump, and a lower baffle at 7 in figure 3B extending from a rear surface of the tank body and contacting the toolbox supporting portion of the tank body adjacent a transition point from the vertical portion to the toolbox supporting portion (figures 3A and 3B).
Kopiec discloses the claimed invention except for the kiss-off feature. Beysel teaches that it is known to provide a container with a kiss-off feature (see paragraph [0034]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tank of Kopiec with the kiss-off feature, as taught by Beysel, in order to increase resistance to vibrations, as disclosed in paragraph [0034] of Beysel.
Note that the claims are drawn to the subcombination of the tank and not the combination of the tank, fitting, pick up tube and pump. Regarding the limitation that the lower baffle is formed by a first mold part that extends past a parting line of a two-part mold to contact the toolbox supporting portion formed by a second mold part, wherein the kiss-off feature bridges plastic material between the lower baffle and a seating surface of the toolbox supporting portion to prevent sagging, this limitation is process limitation within a claim drawn to the product. It has been held that "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 2, a pickup tube support formed in a bottom surface of the tank body (can be considered recess formed in 2b adjacent lead lines 19, 20, to the degree set forth in the claim).
Regarding claim 3, the pickup tube support is a half cylinder (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, the pickup tube support receives the pickup tube within the half cylinder and inhibits movement of the pickup tube in at least three directions (capable of receiving an appropriately sized pickup tube).
Regarding claim 5, the weight of the transfer pump is applied in an axial direction down the pickup tube coupled within the pickup tube support to stabilize the transfer pump and inhibit the transfer pump from vibrating loose (the tank of Kopiec is capable of performing as set forth in claim 5). Note that the claims are drawn to the subcombination of the tank and not the combination of the tank, fitting, pick up tube and pump.
Regarding claim 6, at least one baffle support at 14, 7 extending from a side of the tank body into the inner volume of the tank body.
Regarding claim 7, the baffle support a 14, 7 inhibits fuel slosh of fuel within the inner volume and provides a multi-tier support to the tank body.
Regarding claim 8, Kopiec teaches a toolbox supporting transfer fuel tank 1 comprising a tank body (formed by 2a, 2b) comprising a vertical portion (shown at lead line 1 in figure 2) and a toolbox supporting portion (shown generally at lead lines 8 in figures 3A, 3B), the tank body having an inner volume, a fill tube 4 coupled to a top surface of the tank body, at least one baffle support 14 extending from a side of the tank body into the inner volume of the tank body, a pickup tube support formed in a bottom surface of the tank body (can be considered recess formed in 2b adjacent lead lines 19, 20, to the degree set forth in the claim), a strengthening channel (shown adjacent lead lines 5 in figure 1) formed in the top surface of the tank body, the strengthening channel is sized and shaped to receive a pipe fitting for a transfer pump (capable of receiving appropriately sized transfer pump), wherein the strengthening channel runs alongside the fitting and the pump to provide rigidity to this area of the tank body to support the transfer pump, and at least one lower baffle 7 extending from a rear surface of the tank body and contacting the toolbox supporting portion of the tank body adjacent a transition point from the vertical portion to the toolbox supporting portion.
Kopiec discloses the claimed invention except for the kiss-off feature. Beysel teaches that it is known to provide a container with a kiss-off feature (see paragraph [0034]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tank of Kopiec with the kiss-off feature, as taught by Beysel, in order to increase resistance to vibrations, as disclosed in paragraph [0034] of Beysel.
Note that the claims are drawn to the subcombination of the tank and not the combination of the tank, fitting, pick up tube and pump. Regarding the limitation that the at least one lower baffle is formed by a first mold part that extends past a parting line of a two-part mold to contact the toolbox supporting portion formed by a second mold part, wherein the kiss-off feature bridges plastic material between the at least one lower baffle and a seating surface of the toolbox supporting portion to prevent sagging, this limitation is process limitation within a claim drawn to the product. It has been held that "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 9, the pickup tube support is a half cylinder (figure 1 adjacent 19, 20).
Regarding claim 10, the pickup tube support receives the pickup tube within the half cylinder and inhibits movement of the pickup tube in at least three directions (capable of receiving tube and limiting movement when the tube is received therein).
Regarding claim 11, the weight of the transfer pump is applied in an axial direction down the pickup tube coupled within the pickup tube support to stabilize the transfer pump and inhibit the transfer pump from vibrating loose (the tank of Kopiec is capable of performing as set forth in claim 11). Note that the claims are drawn to the subcombination of the tank and not the combination of the tank, fitting, pick up tube and pump.
Regarding claim 12, baffle support 14, 7 inhibits fuel slosh of fuel within the inner volume and provides a multi-tier support to the tank body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kopiec does not teach that the at least one lower baffle is formed by a first mold part that extends past a parting line of a two-part mold to contact the toolbox supporting portion formed by a second mold part, wherein the kiss-off feature bridges plastic material between the at least one lower baffle and a seating surface of the toolbox supporting portion to prevent sagging. The secondary reference of Beysel (U.S. 2020/0114754) has been added to the rejection for the teaching of providing a tank with a kiss-off. The teachings of Beysel are used to modify the tank of Kopiec. Beysel teaches that it is known to provide a kiss-off in the area of the tank where walls and baffles are joined together (paragraph [0054] of Beysel). It is the examiner’s position that the limitation regarding the first mold part and the second mold part is a limitation directed to the process of forming the container. The claims are drawn to the product and the not the method of making the product. It has been held that "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The claims do not recite structural limitations regarding the kiss off and the baffle with define them over the modified structure of Kopiec.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights