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 .
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) 13-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,808,801 to Weil (“Weil”) in view of U.S. PGPUB 2017/0266474 A1 to Elias et al. (“Elias”).
This figure, now referred to as Weil annotated Fig. 4, used for the rejection of claims 13-15 and 17-18 has been replicated below, and the Examiner has added reference points for ease of explanation, and said reference points will be used for the rejection of claims 13-15 and 17-18 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13, Weil teaches a container assembly, comprising: a fuel container (Weil Fig. 1 shows the container) that includes one or more walls (side wall 10, bottom 11) that define a hollow tank body and a neck (the circle surrounding the opening is the neck, Weil annotated Fig. 4), wherein the neck defines an opening (Weil, pg. 1, line 57); and a flame mitigation device that comprises: a rigid portion (filling spout 15) positioned within the neck (Weil, pg. 1, lines 56-62), wherein a flange (flange 16) of the rigid portion abuts an outer portion of the neck (Weil annotated Fig. 4 shows the flange 16 abuts an outer portion of the opening of the neck) or an inner surface of the neck; and a lower portion (tube 36) composed of a sheet of permeable material (Weil, pg. 2, lines 1-10) extending from the rigid portion into an interior of the hollow tank body (Weil Fig. 1 shows the tube 36 extends into the body of the container), wherein the rigid portion is partially disposed within a top portion (top portion, Weil annotated Fig. 4) of the lower portion (Weil annotated Fig. 4 shows the filling spout 15 is partially disposed within a top portion of the tube 36) extending from a first end (Weil Fig., 4 shows the top end of the tube 36 at the lower neck 14) of the rigid portion and terminating prior to a second end (Weil Fig. 1 shows the second end at the closure 37) of the rigid portion, and wherein the top portion is disposed between the rigid portion and the neck (Weil annotated Fig. 4 shows the top portion is disposed between the filling spout 15 and the neck), and wherein an inner surface of the top portion is engaged with an outer surface of the rigid portion (Weil annotated Fig. 4 shows the inner surface of the top portion is engaged with the outer surface of the filling spout 15) and an outer surface of the top portion is engaged with the neck (Weil annotated Fig. 4 shows the outer surface of the top portion is engaged with the neck); but does not teach a flexible portion composed of a sheet of permeable material.
Elias teaches a flexible portion (permeable medium 150) composed of a sheet (flexible mesh 150-1) of permeable (perforations 160) material (Elias, pg. 3, ¶ 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flexible mesh of Elias with the container assembly as taught by Weil to provide a material with porosity sufficient to quench a flame from reaching or passing to the interior volume and sufficient to allow fluidic ingress and egress to and from the interior volume (Elias, pg. 3, ¶ 0029).
As to claim 14, Weil modified by Elias teaches the container assembly of claim 13, wherein the opening provides fluid communication between the interior of the hollow tank body and an environment surrounding the hollow tank body (Weil, pg. 2, lines 12-19).
As to claim 15, Weil modified by Elias teaches the container assembly of claim 14, wherein the flange abuts the outer portion of the neck (Weil annotated Fig. 4 shows the flange 16 abuts the outer portion of the neck at the top wall of the opening).
As to claim 17, Weil modified by Elias teaches the container assembly of claim 14, wherein the rigid portion comprises a hollow body that is positioned within the neck (Weil annotated Fig. 4 shows the filling spout 15 comprises a hollow body positioned within the neck) and comprises an opening in fluid communication with the opening defined by the neck (Weil, pg. 2, lines 26-32).
As to claim 18, Weil modified by Elias teaches the container assembly of claim 17, wherein the rigid portion further comprises one or more retention members (rivets, Weil, pg. 2, lines 1-2) extending from a sidewall of the hollow body towards an inner sidewall of the neck.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record is seen to disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 16 that wherein the inner surface is a ledge that projects from a sidewall of the neck. For example, the closest reference found, Weil, teaches a volatile liquid container but does not teach wherein the inner surface is a ledge that projects from a sidewall of the neck.
None of the prior art of record is seen to disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 18 that wherein the rigid portion further comprises one or more retention members extending from a sidewall of the hollow body towards an inner sidewall of the neck. For example, the closest reference found, Weil, teaches a volatile liquid container but does not teach wherein the rigid portion further comprises one or more retention members extending from a sidewall of the hollow body towards an inner sidewall of the neck.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the prior art of record is seen to disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 1 that the rigid portion further comprises one or more retention members and one or more barbs extending from an exterior surface of the hollow body, and wherein one or more retention members are positioned closer to the flange than the one or more barbs. For example, the closest reference found, Weil, teaches a volatile liquid container but does not teach the rigid portion further comprises one or more retention members and one or more barbs extending from an exterior surface of the hollow body, and wherein one or more retention members are positioned closer to the flange than the one or more barbs.
None of the prior art of record is seen to disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 19 that wherein the flexible portion is secured to the rigid portion by at least one barb protruding from an exterior surface of the rigid portion into at least one opening of the permeable material, the rigid portion further including one or more retention members extending from the exterior surface of the rigid portion positioned closer to the flange than the at least one barb. For example, the closest reference found, Weil, teaches a volatile liquid container but does not teach wherein the flexible portion is secured to the rigid portion by at least one barb protruding from an exterior surface of the rigid portion into at least one opening of the permeable material, the rigid portion further including one or more retention members extending from the exterior surface of the rigid portion positioned closer to the flange than the at least one barb.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-15 and 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 EST.
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.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 17 July 2026
Prosecution Insights