DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 puts forth the limitation “wherein the second container does not comprise a fluid inlet.” The limitation is a recitation of new matter. Claim 20 puts forth that the first and second container are connected through a fluid transfer passage, and that fluid is pushed into the second container through the fluid transfer passage. The second container would require a fluid inlet, in order to receive fluid through the fluid transfer passage. Applicant does not provide support for a device that would receive fluid through the fluid transfer passage without a fluid inlet. As such, the limitation is a recitation of new matter.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-20, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirita (US 2021/0070166).
Regarding claim 1, Kirita discloses a fluid supply system, comprising:
a first container (32);
a second container (34); and
a fluid transfer passage (33), wherein the first container and the second container are adapted to retain fluid (Paragraphs 25 and 27), wherein the first container and the second container are connected to each other through the fluid transfer passage (Figure 3), wherein the first container comprises a fluid inlet (38) to receive the fluid (Paragraph 25), wherein the first container comprises an air evacuation element (50a),
wherein the second container comprises an air vent element (50b) dimensioned to provide ambient pressure inside the second container (Paragraph 41, the element is capable of providing an environment where a generated ambient pressure may be maintained, dependent upon the structure of the device), but is silent as to whether the air evacuation element of the first container comprises a smaller cross-sectional area than the air vent element of the second container.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kirita to have the air evacuation element of the first container comprising a smaller cross-sectional area than the air vent element of the second container, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kirita would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and since the air evacuation unit is intended to function by providing venting and maintaining a consistent, uniform, flow, the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the element “may” be sized as claimed (specification, paragraph 23).
Modified Kirit provides a device wherein the air evacuation element is configured to limit a rate at which air is released from the first container when the fluid is added into the first container (the element is smaller than the container, which limits the rate air is released from the container), in order to increase inner pressure in the first container and push the fluid into the second container through the fluid transfer passage (As modified, the device includes increased pressure relative to a container with the vent having a larger or equal diameter, therefore making it capable of pushing fluid into the second container through the transfer passage).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Kirita discloses the fluid supply system according to claim 1, wherein the second container does not comprise a fluid inlet (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Kirita discloses the fluid supply system according to claim 1, wherein the air vent element (50b) is arranged at a top portion of the second container (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Kirita discloses the fluid supply system according to claim 1, wherein the air evacuation element is arranged at a top portion of the first container (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Kirita discloses the fluid supply system according to claim 1, wherein the air evacuation element is separated from the fluid inlet (The air evacuation element is connected to a piping connected to the fluid inlet 38).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Kirita discloses the fluid supply system according to claim 1, wherein the fluid transfer passage (33) is connected to a bottom portion of the first container and a bottom portion the second container (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Kirita discloses the fluid supply system according to claim 1, wherein the first container or the second container comprise a fluid outlet (43) for providing fluid to a neighboring system (Paragraph 31, engine).
Regarding claim 10, Kirita discloses a vehicle, comprising:
A fluid supply system (30), comprising:
a first container (32);
a second container (34); and
a fluid transfer passage (33), wherein the first container and the second container are adapted to retain fluid (Paragraphs 25 and 27), wherein the first container and the second container are connected to each other through the fluid transfer passage (Figure 3), wherein the first container comprises a fluid inlet (38) to receive the fluid (Paragraph 25), wherein the first container comprises an air evacuation element (50a),
wherein the second container comprises an air vent element (50b) dimensioned to provide ambient pressure inside the second container (Paragraph 41, the element is capable of providing an environment where a generated ambient pressure may be maintained, dependent upon the structure of the device), but is silent as to whether the air evacuation element of the first container comprises a smaller cross-sectional area than the air vent element of the second container.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kirita to have the air evacuation element of the first container comprising a smaller cross-sectional area than the air vent element of the second container, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kirita would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and since the air evacuation unit is intended to function by providing venting and maintaining a consistent, uniform, flow, the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the element “may” be sized as claimed (specification, paragraph 23).
Modified Kirita provides a device wherein the air evacuation element is configured to limit a rate at which air is released from the first container when the fluid is added into the first container (the element is smaller than the container, which limits the rate air is released from the container), in order to increase inner pressure in the first container and force the fluid into the second container through the fluid transfer passage (As modified, the device includes increased pressure relative to a container with the vent having a larger or equal diameter, therefore making it capable of pushing fluid into the second container through the transfer passage).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Kirita discloses the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the first container is arranged separated from the second container in the vehicle (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Kirita discloses the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the second container does not comprise a fluid inlet (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Kirita discloses the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the air vent element (50b) is arranged at a top portion of the second container (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Kirita discloses the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the air evacuation element is arranged at a top portion of the first container (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Kirita discloses the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the air evacuation element is separated from the fluid inlet (The air evacuation element is connected to a piping connected to the fluid inlet 38).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Kirita discloses the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the fluid transfer passage (33) is connected to a bottom portion of the first container and a bottom portion the second container (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Kirita discloses the vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the first container or the second container comprise a fluid outlet (43) for providing fluid to a neighboring system (Paragraph 31, engine).
Regarding claim 20, Kirita discloses a manufacturing method for a fluid supply system, comprising:
providing a first container (Paragraph 24) comprising a fluid inlet (Paragraph 25) and an air evacuation element (Paragraph 39);
providing a second container (Paragraph 24); and
connecting the first container and the second container through a fluid transfer passage (Paragraph 34), wherein the first container (Paragraph 25) and the second container are adapted to retain fluid (Paragraph 27), wherein the second container comprises an air vent element (50b) dimensioned to provide ambient pressure inside the second container (Paragraph 41, the element is capable of providing an environment where a generated ambient pressure may be maintained, dependent upon the structure of the device), but is silent as to whether the air evacuation element of the first container comprises a smaller cross-sectional area than the air vent element of the second container.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kirita to have the air evacuation element of the first container comprising a smaller cross-sectional area than the air vent element of the second container, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kirita would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and since the air evacuation unit is intended to function by providing venting and maintaining a consistent, uniform, flow, the device would function appropriately having the claimed diameter. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the element “may” be sized as claimed (specification, paragraph 23).
Modified Kirit provides a device wherein the air evacuation element is configured to limit a rate at which air is released from the first container when the fluid is added into the first container (the element is smaller than the container, which limits the rate air is released from the container), in order to increase inner pressure in the first container and push the fluid into the second container through the fluid transfer passage (As modified, the device includes increased pressure relative to a container with the vent having a larger or equal diameter, therefore making it capable of pushing fluid into the second container through the transfer passage).
Regarding claim 22, Modified Kirita discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 20, wherein the air vent element is arranged at a top portion of the second container (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 23, Modified Kirita discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 20, wherein the air evacuation element is arranged at a top portion of the first container (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Kirita discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 20, wherein the air evacuation element is separated from the fluid inlet (The air evacuation element is connected to a piping connected to the fluid inlet 38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to Applicant’s position that Examiner takes official notice in the rejection, Examiner disagrees. Examiner relies upon the positions of Gardner, and asserts that the device would not operate differently with the claimed diameter.
As to Applicant’s position that the use of a smaller diameter is critical, Applicant provides no criticality as to the claimed structure. Applicant’s specification highlights that the smaller cross section provides for an overpressure that may result in a swift transfer of the fluid. Applicant’s specification further states that the same may be accomplished with the element having the same, or a bigger cross section (Applicant’s specification, paragraph 23). Applicant’s disclosure highlights the sizing of the element as a choice of dimension. As such, Applicant highlights no criticality to the cross section being smaller.
As to Applicant’s position that the current device operates differently because the device lowers and uniformizes pressure, Applicant’s device lowers pressure in each of the containers by providing a venting element. Applicant’s device optimizes uniformity by adjusting the size of the vent elements, in a manner similar to the prior art. As such, the devices are analogous in operation. Applicant’s device optimizes the disclosures of the prior art.
As to Applicant’s positions regarding the European application, full faith and credit is not afforded to the aforementioned search process.
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 CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1505. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9am-7pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
CHRISTOPHER R. DANDRIDGE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/CHRISTOPHER R DANDRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights