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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application; claims 1, 7 and 15 have been amended. Applicant’s amendment and corresponding arguments, see pages 7-14, with respect to claim 1 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The rejection of the claim(s) has been maintained. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the non-Final Office action previously mailed on 12/22/2025.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted claims 1-19 are directed to a component for a plastic tank for a motor vehicle; hence, the limitations pertaining to the parison (i.e., claims 1, 3-4, 6-8 and 13-14) are only given patentably weight insomuch as when said limitations impart structural limitations to the component.
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) 1-6, 8-13, 15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuhn (DE102014221567; of record, further translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuhn teaches a component (5 in Figures 1-4) for a plastic tank for a motor vehicle (paragraph 0004, Components such as fuel pumps, valves, or baffles are required in fuel tanks), said component configured to be inserted into a parison during a manufacture of the plastic tank for the motor vehicle (paragraph 0004, components can be…integrated into the hollow body during the extrusion blow molding process), the component comprising:
a frame (5d) including a first deflection means (5a, 5b, 5c), the first defection means includes at least one surface configured to contact with and guide a movement of the parison when the components is inserted in to the parison (ends of 5a, 5b, 5c; paragraph 0050, inserts 5a , 5b and the connecting piece 5c, were pressed into the molten plastic of the hollow body 8),
wherein the component has at least one dimension, in at least one plane perpendicular to a direction of extrusion of the parison (5a, 5b, 5c extend perpendicular from nozzle head 20 (nozzle head 20 being in direction of extrusion of preform 3), which is substantially equal to or greater than a minimum distance between two opposing points located on a solid inner wall of the parison in said at least one perpendicular plane (as shown in Figures 3-4, ends of components 5a, 5b, 5c are substantially equal to opposing walls of preform 3).
Regarding claim 2, Kuhn further discloses the first deflection means is located offset from the frame (as shown in Figures 3-4, 5a, 5b, 5c is offset from 5d).
Regarding claim 3, Kuhn further discloses the first deflection means comprises at least two surfaces suitable for coming into contact with and guiding the travel of the parison when the component is inserted into the parison (Figure 3-4, 5 comprises two surfaces (i.e., on opposing sides of 6) which contacts/guides preform 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 3 and further discloses the at least two surfaces suitable for coming into contact with and guiding the travel of the parison have areas for contact with the parison that are substantially equal (as shown in Figures 3-4, two surfaces of 5 on opposing sides of 6 are substantially equal).
Regarding claim 5, Kuhn further discloses the first deflection means has, on all or part of its surface suitable for coming into contact with and guiding the travel of the parison, a curved shape facing the frame (upper portion of 5c and /or bottom portion of 5a in Figures 3-4, is cylindrical (i.e., curved radially)).
Regarding claim 6, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 5 and further discloses the first deflection means comprises at least two surfaces suitable for coming into contact with and guiding the travel of the parison, each of the surfaces having, on all or part, a curved shape facing the frame (upper portion of 5c and /or bottom portion of 5a in Figures 3-4, is cylindrical (i.e., curved radially) and having two opposing parts).
Regarding claim 8, Kuhn further discloses a second deflection means (Figures 3-4, two surfaces of 5 on opposing sides of 6) including a surface suitable for coming into contact with and guiding the travel of the parison when the component is inserted into the parison (Figures 3-4, 5 comprises two surfaces (i.e., on opposing sides of 6) which contacts/guides preform 3; ends of 5a, 5b, 5c; paragraph 0050, inserts 5a, 5b and the connecting piece 5c, were pressed into the molten plastic of the hollow body 8).
Regarding claim 9, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 8 and further discloses the second deflection means is located offset from the frame (Figures 3-4, as shown in Figures 3-4, opposing sides of 5a, 5b, 5c are offset from 5d).
Regarding claim 10, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 8 and further discloses the first and second deflection means are located opposite one another with respect to the frame (Figures 3-4, opposing sides of 5a, 5b, 5c are opposite each other with respect to 5d).
Regarding claim 11, Kuhn further discloses the frame (5d in Figures 3-4) comprises at least one device selected from an internal reinforcement element, an anti-noise baffle or anti-slosh baffle, a valve, a ventilation or liquid line, a temperature sensor, a level sensor and a quality sensor (Figures 3-4, components 5a, 5b, 5c support/reinforce walls of preform 3; paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 12, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 11 and further discloses the frame (5d) comprises at least one internal reinforcement element, said at least one internal reinforcement element being suitable for securing at least two walls of the plastic tank for a motor vehicle (Figures 3-4, components 5a, 5b, 5c support/reinforce walls of preform 3; paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claim 13, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 11 and further discloses a distance between the frame (5d) and the [at least one] surface (110) suitable for coming into contact with and guiding the travel of the parison of the first deflection means is substantially equal to a distance between the frame (5d) and an outer surface of the at least one device furthest from the frame (Figures 3-4, each of 5a, 5b, 5c are substantially equal in distance from 5d, wherein any of one of 5a, 5b, 5c is the first deflection means and another one of 5a, 5b, 5c is the device).
Regarding claim 15, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 8 and further discloses at least one of the first deflection means, the second deflection means and a device selected from an internal reinforcement element, an anti-noise baffle or anti-slosh baffle, a valve, a ventilation or liquid line, a temperature sensor, a level sensor and a quality sensor are fastened to the frame by clipping (paragraphs 0009, 0050, discloses the clamping the components, which satisfies ‘clipping’ under broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 17, Kuhn further discloses the frame (10) comprises a receiving member suitable for receiving an insertion means (Figures 1-4, 5d receives retaining element 6).
Regarding claim 18, Kuhn further discloses the frame comprises a plurality of through-holes (paragraph 0045, 5a, 5b, 5c are sieve inserts (i.e., having holes therethrough).
Regarding Claim 19, Kuhn teaches a method for manufacturing a plastic tank for a motor vehicle (Figures 3-4; paragraph 0004), comprising at least the following steps in series:
extruding a parison having an internal section and a free end (preform 3 in Figures 3-4; paragraph 0049); and
inserting into the extruded parison, by the free end, the component according to claim 1 (reference claim 1 rejection; paragraph 0004, components can be inserted or integrated into the hollow body during the blow molding process; paragraph 0021, the growing preform is placed over the at least one component protected by the hollow cylinder).
Regarding claim 20, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 19 and further discloses
at a beginning of extruding the parison, the free end of the parison is at an initial height (Figure 1) and, at an end of the extrusion of extruding the parison, the free end of the parison is at a final height (Figures 3-4),
wherein, during the extruding the parison, the free end of the parison moves from the initial height to the final height by crossing a distance referred to as the final length of the parison and, wherein, the component (5a, 5b ,5x) is inserted into the extruded parison, by the free end, when the free end of the extruded parison has travelled at least 40 % of the final length of the parison (Figures 3-4, showing components 5a, 5b, 5c inserted in preform 3 after preform has traveled at least 40% of final extrusion length (i.e., Figures 3-4)).
Regarding Claim 21, Kuhn teaches a plastic tank for a motor vehicle comprising the component according to claim 1 (Figures 3-4; claim 1 rejection; paragraphs 0004, fuel tank).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn.
Regarding claim 7, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose a size of the component increases according to a slope comprised between 20° and 40° by separating the [at least one] surface of the first deflection means facing the parison with respect to the frame. However, while patent drawings are not necessarily to scale, Figures 3-4 of Kuhn appears to show the slope of component 5c having a slope with respect to frame part 5d of less than 30°. Hence, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art a size of the component increases according to a slope comprised between 20° and 40°. Likewise, Kuhn discloses the component 5c serves to support the preform (3) during blow molding. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the angle of the component to maintain the shape of the preform during blow molding.
Regarding claim 14, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the first deflection means is based on a material having a melting temperature that is greater than a temperature of the parison at an outlet of an extrusion head. However, Kuhn discloses the component is inserted into the preform (i.e., parison) during the blow molding (Figures 3-4; paragraph 0004). Hence, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art the component (having the first deflection means) has a melting temperature greater than a temperature of the preform in order to retain its structure during the blow molding.
Regarding claim 16, Kuhn teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the first deflection means and/or the second deflection means have rounded edges. However, while patent drawings are not necessarily to scale, Figures 3-4 of Kunz appears to show the edges of component 5c being rounded at an edge. Further, component 5c serves to support the internal surface of preform (3) during blow molding into the hollow body (8). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have provide the component(s) Kunz with rounded edges to prevent damage to the hollow body during blow molding.
Regarding Claim 22, Kuhn teaches a method for inserting into the parison the component according to claim 1 (Figures 1-4; paragraph 0004), wherein: the travel of the parison when the component is inserted into the parison is guided by the surface of the first deflection means (Figures 3-4; paragraphs 0049-0050, contact may occur at individual points between preform 3 and installation parts 5, in particular between preform 3 and the outer surfaces of the sieve inserts 5a, 5b).
Kuhn does not disclose the parison comes into contact with the first deflection means when starting to insert the component into the parison. However, Kuhn discloses contact between the preform (3) and the components (5a 5b, 5c) is made after the hollow cylinder (4) is removed to minimize unwanted contact with the components (paragraphs 0014-0016). However, Kuhn does disclose the preform does may contact the outer surfaces of the components (paragraph 0049). Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have rearranged the steps to have the components contact the preform during insertion therein. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). One would have been motivated to contact the preform with the component(s) to provide support to the preform during blow molding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues, see pages 7-14, Kuhn fails to disclose "a frame including a first deflection means, the first defection means includes at least one surface configured to contact with and guide a movement of the parison when the components is inserted in to the parison, wherein the component has at least one dimension, in at least one plane perpendicular to a direction of extrusion of the parison, which is substantially equal to or greater than a minimum distance between two opposing points located on a solid inner wall of the parison in said at least one perpendicular plane".
Specifically, Applicant contends the components (5a, 5b,5c) do not extend in one plane perpendicular to the direction of extrusion (i.e. perpendicular to nozzle head 20) and having at least one dimension substantially equal to or greater than a minimum distance between two opposing points on an inner wall of the parison as the components (5a,5b,5c) are arranged in the hollow cylinder (4) and are necessarily smaller r than the parison (30).
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the feature upon which Applicant relies (i.e., the dimension of the components in one plane perpendicular to the direction of extrusion being equal to or greater than opposing points of the parison wall) is not recited in the rejected claim. Claim 1 merely requires "the dimension of the component in one plane perpendicular to the direction of extrusion being substantially equal to or greater than opposing points of the parison wall". As noted by Applicant, paragraph 0015 of Kuhn states "the diameter of the preform only needs to be slightly larger than the diameter of the at least one installing part (i.e., the component)". In other words, the diameter of the preform is substantially equal, albeit slightly larger, to the dimension of the component in the perpendicular plane. Hence, the rejection of the claim is maintained.
Applicant further argues Kuhn fails to disclose "a frame including a first deflection means, the first defection means includes at least one surface configured to contact with and guide a movement of the parison when the components is inserted in to the parison". Specifically, Applicant contends, Figure 4 does not show a step where the component is inserted into the parison; hence, the surface of the component does not contact with and guide the parison.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the limitations pertaining to the parison are only given patentably weight insomuch as when said limitations impart structural limitations to the component. The deflection means guiding movement of the parison when the component is inserted into a parison is intended use of the component. In the instant case, Kuhn discloses the ends of 5a, 5b, 5c are configured to or suitable for contacting and guiding a parison thereon. Hence, the rejection of the claim is maintained.
Applicant further argues the component is disclosed by Kuhn is implemented to manufacture an ion exchange resin tank and not a fuel tank. However, it is noted the feature in Applicant relies (i.e., fuel tank) is not rejected in the rejected claim. Claims 1 merely requires "a component for a plastic tank for a motor vehicle". Said component of Kuhn is suitable for a plastic tank of a motor vehicle.
With respect to claim 19, Applicant argues the components 5a, 5b, 5c are not inserted into the extruded preform due to being inside the hollow cylinder inside the extruded preform. However, it is noted Kuhn discloses the “components can be inserted or integrated into the hollow body during the blow molding process”; hence, the components may be inserted into the hollow cylinder which is inside the extruded preform.
With respect to claim 22, Applicant argues Kuhn does not disclose the limitations as recited; however, relies on the similar arguments above. As said arguments above have been considered not persuasive, the rejection of the claim is maintained.
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 Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights