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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant’s cited CN 101122270, hereinafter Denso.
Regarding claim 1, Denso (FIG 1; translated pages 2-9) discloses “A supply pipe for vehicular gaseous fuel comprising: a main pipe (2) through which gaseous fuel supplied to an internal combustion engine mounted on a vehicle flows (page 6, “Explanation of injector 3”);
a sub tank (10) separated from the main pipe (via 1, 16); and
a coupling member (16) that couples the main pipe with the sub tank (see FIG 1), wherein the sub tank is coupled with the main pipe via the coupling member (see FIG 1).”
Regarding claim 2, Denso (FIG 1; translated pages 2-9) discloses “wherein the main pipe (2) includes an inlet portion (left side) with which a supply pipe (8) communicating with a fuel tank (7) that stores the gaseous fuel is coupled (via 10, 1, 16), and an injector attachment portion (17) to which an injector (3) that injects the gaseous fuel into the internal combustion engine is connected, and the coupling member is coupled with an end portion or a peripheral surface of the main pipe (16 is coupled with the left end).”
Regarding claim 3, Denso (FIG 1; translated pages 2-9) discloses “wherein the sub tank is formed in an elongated cylindrical shape (seen to be an elongated cylinder in FIG 1), and the coupling member (16) couples one end (left) portion of the main pipe (2) with one end portion (right) of the sub tank (10).”
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) 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denso in view of Keller (US 4770446).
Regarding claim 4, Denso (FIG 1; translated pages 2-9) discloses “wherein the sub tank (10) is formed in an elongated cylindrical shape (seen to be an elongated cylinder in FIG 1)…”
Denso is silent regarding “…and is disposed in a posture in which an axial direction of the sub tank is parallel to an axial direction of the main pipe.”
However, Keller (FIG 1) teaches it is known in the art of tanks (analogous to Denso) to orient them sideways when desired.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the shape and/or orientation of the sub tank of Denso such that it is a tank oriented sideways as taught by Keller, such that the combination teaches “…and is disposed in a posture in which an axial direction of the sub tank is parallel to an axial direction of the main pipe”, as Denso already discloses the required component of the sub tank, and changing an orientation of a component while achieving the same expected result (connections are at same spatial locations, tank is at same relative spatial location in the system) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Denso (FIG 1; translated pages 2-9) discloses “wherein a plurality of the coupling members is provided (conduit between 10 and 5, conduit between 5 and 6), and the gaseous fuel flows between the main pipe and the sub tank via a plurality of the coupling members.”
Regarding claim 6, Denso is silent regarding “wherein the coupling member includes a metallic coupling pipe with both ends opened, and at least one end portion of the coupling pipe is abutted against an abutment portion formed in the main pipe or the sub tank and is coupled with the main pipe or the sub tank via a screw structure.” However, Denso shows the coupling member 16 as a pipe (with open ends) coupled to the main pipe and 14 and clearly necessitates a specific means for coupling.
Keller (FIGs 1-2) teaches it is known in the art of fluid handling tank systems with conduit couplings to use a “coupling pipe” comprising a flexible hose 14 and metallic end 38 (Column 3 line 61) that is coupled to an “abutment portion” via a screw structure 40.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the coupling member connection(s) of Denso with the coupling assembly of Keller, such that the combination teaches “a metallic coupling pipe with both ends opened, and at least one end portion of the coupling pipe is abutted against an abutment portion formed in the main pipe or the sub tank and is coupled with the main pipe or the sub tank via a screw structure”, to provide secure coupling means as is desired in Denso.
Regarding claim 8, Keller (FIGs 1-2) as applied to claim 6 teaches “wherein the coupling pipe (14, 38) is bendable in a desired direction (see bends in FIG 1).”
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denso in view of Igami (US 20030234540).
Regarding claim 7, Denso discloses “wherein the coupling member includes… a first coupling portion (right end) formed at one end of the coupling pipe and coupled with the main pipe (connection to 2), and a second coupling portion (left end0 formed at the other end of the coupling pipe and coupled with the sub tank (via 1)”.
Denso is silent regarding “a metallic coupling pipe with both ends opened…and at least one of the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion is fixed to the main pipe or the sub tank by brazing.” However, Denso shows the coupling member 16 as a pipe (with open ends) coupled to the main pipe and 14 and clearly necessitates a specific means for coupling.
Igami (FIGs 1-4) teaches it is known in the art of fluid handling tank systems with conduit couplings to use a “coupling pipe” comprising a metallic “first coupling portion” 2 (paragraph 34) that is bonded to a fixture 1, 1a by brazing (paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the coupling member connection(s) of Denso with the coupling assembly of Igami, such that the combination teaches “a metallic coupling pipe with both ends opened…and at least one of the first coupling portion and the second coupling portion is fixed to the main pipe or the sub tank by brazing”, to provide secure coupling means as is desired in Denso.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Devices similar to the application are disclosed by Miller (US 2320636), Jackson et al (US 5307995), and Getto et al (US 20060006642).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)431-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/PATRICK C WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753