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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 03/31/2026
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination
This action is Final
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) 1-4 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lafrate (US 2015/0144079).
Claims 1, 10. Lafrate discloses an automotive surge tank, comprising:
a tank body 10 defining an interior volume, the tank body including a first tank portion 12 and a second tank portion 14; and
a coolant inlet 26 and a coolant outlet 30 provided on the tank body;
wherein the interior volume of the tank body is subdivided into an inlet chamber @F3, and outlet chamber @F6, and at least one intermediate chamber @F5 interposed between the inlet chamber and the outlet chamber so that an inflow of coolant enters the inlet chamber, passes through the at least one intermediate chamber, and then directly enters the outlet chamber from the at least one intermediate chamber ([0041]; fig. 3); and
wherein the coolant inlet:
i) directs the inflow of coolant into the inlet chamber at a level that is below the minimum operable fluid level of the surge tank [0047] and
ii) is configured to create a swirling action of the coolant upon entering the inlet chamber ([0046-0047]; fig. 3).
Claims 2, 12. Lafrate discloses the automotive surge tank according to claim 1, wherein each of the inlet chamber, the outlet chamber and the intermediate chamber are delineated by at least a portion of an interior wall structure 60, 70, wherein the inlet chamber is separated at least in part from the intermediate chamber by a first wall segment, and wherein the intermediate chamber is separated at least in part from the outlet chamber by a second wall segment [0044].
Claims 3, 11. Lafrate discloses the automotive surge tank according to claim 2, wherein each of the first and second wall segments include a fluid passage hole @F4 that permits coolant to flow from the inlet chamber through to the outlet chamber via the intermediate chamber (fig. 3).
Claim 4. Lafrate discloses the automotive surge tank according to claim 2, wherein the inlet is arranged to deliver an incoming coolant stream at an impingement angle relative to the first wall segment ([0040]; fig. 3).
Claim 7. Lafrate discloses the automotive surge tank according to claim 2, wherein the first wall segment 60 is presented in a largely planar wall structure (fig. 3).
Claim 8. Lafrate discloses the automotive surge tank according to claim 2, wherein the first wall se47gment is presented with a contoured surface to promote the swirling action of the coolant upon impingement ([0044], [0050]).
Claim 9. Lafrate discloses the automotive surge tank according to claim 8, further comprising an inlet extension @F2 that extends from the inlet within the inlet chamber, the inlet extension serving to release incoming coolant in closer proximity to the contoured surface provided in the first wall segment (fig. 3).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafrate (US 2015/0144079).
Claims 5-6. Lafrate discloses the automotive surge tank according to claim 4, wherein the impingement angle is between 20 to 80° [0040].
Lafrate discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention (85 degrees) except for the express disclosure of an angle of less than 80 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incline the interior walls to be at most 80 degrees, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lafrate (US 2015/0144079) in view of Victory et al. (US 2016/0186549).
Claim 13. Lafrate discloses the automotive surge tank according to claim 12, wherein the second sub-chamber portion having a fluid passage hole to then discharge the coolant into the input chamber (fig. 3) but fails to disclose a weir. Victory teaches wherein the inlet sub-chamber is subdivided by a weir 211, 212 into a first sub-chamber portion 242 and a second sub-chamber portion 243 [0030], and wherein the inflow of coolant is first received within the first sub-chamber portion, flows over the weir into the second sub-chamber portion [0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wall so f Lafrate to include the weir of Victory to provide additional storage for over liquid.
Claim 14. Lafrate-Victory discloses the automotive surge tank according to claim 13, wherein the weir is provided in a configuration (Victory; fig. 2).
Lafrate-Victory discloses the claimed invention except for a serpentine configuration of the interior walls. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reconfigure the wall arrangement in order to create a desired look and flow of liquid. Victory performs the same function whether located in a linear formation or serpentine. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and applied, and a new rejection has been made.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm 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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights