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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102023000005862 filed on 3/28/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (3/28/24) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 recites “the pumps” but should recite “the plurality of pumps”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: It recites “all the pumps” but should recite for “the plurality of pumps”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “a plane of section orthogonal to the yaw axis” but should recite for example “an orthogonal plane with respect to the yaw axis”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “basically” which should be removed or clarified with respect to shape. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 1 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvaraj et al (US PG PUB 2020/0108714) in view of Bays et al. (US PG PUB 2020/0123462).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Selvaraj discloses a motor vehicle (100) comprising: an internal combustion engine (Selvaraj discloses an omitted Ice but discloses a rear enclosure 106, see FIGS 1-2 that is placed between fuel tanks 114-115) extending along a direction parallel to a roll axis (Vehicles include the roll, pitch and yaw axis relative to the rolling surface) of the motor vehicle (100); a first and second tank (114-115) for containing a fuel for feeding the internal combustion engine (Fuel tanks inherently feed the ICE); wherein the internal combustion engine is arranged between the first and second tanks (Selvaraj discloses an omitted ICE but discloses a rear ICE enclosure 106, see FIGS 1-2 that is placed between fuel tanks 114-115) according to a pitch axis (Any desired angle can be selected based on vehicle application) of the motor vehicle (100).
-However, it fails to disclose the first tank has a first height according to a yaw (vertical) axis of the motor vehicle greater than a second height of the second tank according to the yaw axis.
-Nevertheless, Bays discloses a primary fuel tank and a small fuel tank in FIG 1 and the small fuel tank would have smaller dimensions to accommodate less fuel than the primary fuel tank e.g. a lower height.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Selvaraj to have plural tanks of different sizes as taught by Bays with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide adequate packaging space in the vehicle for housing other components therearound.
PNG
media_image1.png
812
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
762
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
687
949
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Selvaraj/Bays disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first and second tanks comprise respective sections according to a plane of section orthogonal to the yaw (vertical) axis (See claim objection to clarify this limitation), the sections comprising a tapered shape toward a rear of the motor vehicle (Selvaraj, annotated FIG 2 above illustrates an exemplary taper of the tanks toward the rear).
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Selvaraj/Bays disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the shape of the sections is basically (See claim objection for basically) triangular (Selvaraj, annotated FIG 2).
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Selvaraj/Bays disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first tank comprises a first cross-section according to a cross-sectional plane orthogonal to the yaw (Vertical) axis (Selvaraj is exemplary and shows conventional mounting which can be adapted to any desired orientation if desired for packaging in a particular vehicle application), wherein the second tank comprises a second cross-section according to the cross-sectional plane (As modified the tanks of Selvaraj/Bays may be on different planes based on size and mounting position), wherein the first cross-section comprises a tapered shape pointing rearwardly toward a rear of the motor vehicle, and wherein the second cross-section comprises a tapered shape pointing rearwardly toward the rear of the motor vehicle (Selvaraj, annotated FIG 2 shows an exemplary taper that can be modified if desired to package in a particular vehicle application).
PNG
media_image1.png
812
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Selvaraj/Bays disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the first tapered shape is triangular (Selvaraj, annotated FIG 2 illustrates the taper with a triangular tank orientation) and wherein the second tapered shape is triangular (Selvaraj, annotated FIG 2 above illustrates an exemplary taper of the tanks toward the rear which can be modified as desired to package in a particular vehicle application without altering the ability to supply fuel).
PNG
media_image4.png
742
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Selvaraj discloses a motor vehicle comprising: a chassis comprising a roll axis, a pitch axis, and a yaw axis (All vehicles have plural axis relative to the rolling surface); an internal combustion engine (Selvaraj discloses an omitted Ice but discloses a rear ICE enclosure 106, see FIGS 1-2 that is placed between fuel tanks 114-115) extending along a direction parallel to the roll axis (Selvaraj, FIGS 1-2); a first tank (Fuel tanks 114-115) configured to contain a fuel for feeding the internal combustion engine (Fuel tanks inherently feed the ICE), wherein the internal combustion engine is arranged between the first tank and the second tank according to the pitch axis (Selvaraj discloses an omitted Ice but discloses a rear ICE enclosure 106, see FIGS 1-2 that is placed between fuel tanks 114-115 and can be oriented according to any desired axis based on vehicle application).
-However, it fails to disclose the first tank has a first height according to a yaw (Vertical) axis of the motor vehicle greater than a second height of the second tank according to the yaw axis.
-Nevertheless, Bays discloses a primary fuel tank and a small fuel tank in FIG 1 and the small fuel tank would have smaller dimensions/height to accommodate less fuel than the primary fuel tank and can be done in the yaw axis if desired for a particular vehicle application.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Selvaraj to have plural tanks of different dimension/height as taught by Bays with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide adequate packaging space in the vehicle for housing other components therearound.
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Selvaraj/Bays disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 13, wherein the internal combustion engine, the first tank, and the second tank are mounted to the chassis (Selvaraj, FIG 2, all vehicle components mount to the body and/or chassis at assembly including the Ice and fuel tanks).
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Selvaraj discloses a motor vehicle comprising: a front (Selvaraj, FIG 2); a rear (Selvaraj, FIG 2); a chassis (Selvaraj, FIG 2) defining a roll axis, a pitch axis, and a yaw axis (All vehicles have roll, tip, pitch and yaw axis relative to the rolling surface); an internal combustion engine comprising a drive shaft (Selvaraj discloses an omitted Ice but discloses a rear ICE enclosure 106 and ICE inherently include a drive shaft), wherein the drive shaft defines a longitudinal engine axis (Drive shafts are conventionally longitudinally configured), and wherein the longitudinal engine axis extends toward the front of the motor vehicle and toward the rear of the motor vehicle (ICE inherently extend in the front and rear ends unless mounted transversely); a first fuel tank (Selvaraj fuel tanks 114-115) communicable with the internal combustion engine, wherein the first fuel tank has a first overall height according to the yaw axis; a second fuel tank (Selvaraj fuel tanks 114-115) communicable with the internal combustion engine (Omitted ICE in enclosure FIG 2 of Selvaraj); wherein the internal combustion engine is arranged intermediate the first fuel tank and the second fuel tank according to the pitch axis (Selvaraj, FIG 2, any desired pitch angle/axis can be employed for a particular vehicle application).
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the second fuel tank has a second overall height according to the yaw axis; and wherein the first overall height is greater than the second overall height.
-Nevertheless, Bays discloses a primary fuel tank and a small fuel tank in FIG 1 and the small fuel tank would have smaller dimensions/height to accommodate less fuel than the primary fuel tank adaptable to any desired yaw axis based on vehicle application.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Selvaraj to have plural tanks of different dimension/height as taught by Bays with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide adequate packaging space in the vehicle for housing other components therearound.
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Selvaraj/Bays disclose the motor vehicle according to claim 15, wherein the internal combustion engine, the first fuel tank, and the second fuel tank are mounted to the chassis (Selvaraj, FIG 2, all vehicle components mount to the body and chassis at assembly including the ICE and fuel tanks).
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Selvaraj et al (US PG PUB 2020/0108714) is a prior art reference similar to Applicants claims but fails to disclose the limitations of claim 2. Claims 3-8 depend from claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615