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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments filed 4/13/2026
Applicant’s Amendment is seen to significantly change the scope of the claims, necessitating new consideration over prior art. Upon consideration, the amendment is seen to be taught by prior art, including new art Takeuchi et al (US 20160245217), as explained in the new rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-2, 10-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al (US 20160245217).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “A supply pipe for vehicular gaseous fuel comprising:
a main pipe (30) through which gaseous fuel supplied to an internal combustion engine (110) mounted on a vehicle (paragraph 24) flows;
a sub tank (90) separated from the main pipe (spaced from pipe); and
a coupling member (85, 85a, 71) that couples the main pipe with the sub tank (see FIG 1) and includes a first open end (at 71, seen to have an opening) connected to the main pipe and a second open end (85a, has a bottom opening) comprising a coupling pipe (85a) connected to the sub tank, wherein
the sub tank is coupled with the main pipe via the coupling member (see FIG 1) and the coupling pipe has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the sub tank (while not detailed it is clear the diameter of 90 is greater than 85a).”
Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the main pipe (30) includes an inlet portion (right end) with which a supply pipe (21) communicating with a fuel tank (190) that stores the gaseous fuel is coupled, and an injector attachment portion (31) to which an injector (40) that injects the gaseous fuel into the internal combustion engine is connected, and the coupling member is coupled with an end (left end) portion or a peripheral surface of the main pipe spaced from the inlet portion (coupling member at left end of 30, inlet portion is near right end of 30).”
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the sub tank (90) has a volume selected to reduce pulsation of the gaseous fuel through the supply pipe (understood to occur as overpressure [read on “pulsation”] in 30 would open 71, such that 90 relieves pressure spikes in 30).”
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the sub tank is a hollow housing for storing the gaseous fuel (90 seen as a hollow housing).”
Regarding claim 12, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the sub tank is outside a fluid path from the fuel tank (190) to the main pipe (30) (located outside of 81, 21).”
Regarding claim 13, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the coupling member (85, 85a, 71) is fluidly disconnected from a flow path from the fuel tank to the main pipe (as it is not directly connected to 81, 21, it is seen as “fluidly disconnected”).”
Regarding claim 15, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “A supply pipe for vehicular gaseous fuel comprising:
a main pipe (30) including:
an inlet portion (right end) configured to be in fluid communication with a fuel tank (190, via 81, 21) for supplying gaseous fuel to an internal combustion engine (110) mounted on a vehicle (paragraph 24) flows; and
a connection portion (left end) spaced from the inlet portion (opposite end);
a sub tank (90) comprising a hollow housing (seen to be a hollow housing) for storing additional gaseous fuel and separated from the main pipe (is a separate volume from 30); and
a coupling member (85, 86, 85a, 71) that fluidly connects the connection portion of the main pipe with the sub tank (see FIG 1).”
Regarding claim 16, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the sub tank has a volume selected to reduce pulsation of the gaseous fuel through the supply pipe (understood to occur as overpressure [read on “pulsation”] in 30 would open 71, such that 90 relieves pressure spikes in 30).”
Regarding claim 17, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “wherein the coupling member is fluidly disconnected from a flow path from the fuel tank to the main pipe (as it is not directly connected to 81, 21, it is seen as “fluidly disconnected”).”
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) 3-6, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Keller (US 4770446).
Regarding claim 3, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “wherein … the coupling member couples one end portion of the main pipe with one end portion of the sub tank (left end of 30 with top end of 90).”
Takeuchi is silent regarding “the sub tank is formed in an elongated cylindrical shape”.
However, Keller (FIG 1) teaches it is known in the art of fluid handling tank systems with conduit couplings (analogous to Takeuchi) to use a cylindrical tank that is longer than it is thick.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to modify the sub tank shape of Takeuchi to be the shape of Keller, such that the combination teaches “the sub tank is formed in an elongated cylindrical shape”, as choosing an alternative shape to achieve the same expected result (cylindrical volume for fluid) would be within routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Takeuchi is silent regarding “wherein the sub tank is formed in an elongated cylindrical shape, 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 Takeuchi) to use a cylindrical tank that is longer than it is thick, and 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 Takeuchi such that it is a tank oriented sideways as taught by Keller, such that the combination teaches “wherein the sub tank is formed in an elongated cylindrical shape, 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 Takeuchi 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, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “wherein a plurality of the coupling members (85, 86) is provided, and the gaseous fuel flows in parallel flow paths (85 and 86 seen to be parallel with respect to outflow from 30 [via 40 with respect to 86]) between the main pipe and the sub tank via the plurality of the coupling members.”
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi is silent regarding “wherein at least one of the first and second open ends 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.”
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 Takeuchi with the coupling assembly of Keller, such that the combination teaches “wherein at least one of the first and second open ends 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 Takeuchi.
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).”
Regarding claim 14, Takeuchi (FIG 1) discloses “and the coupling member comprises multiple coupling pipes (85, 86) defining parallel fluid flow paths between the sub tank and the main pipe (85 and 86 seen to be parallel with respect to outflow from 30 [via 40 with respect to 86]).”
Takeuchi is silent regarding “wherein the sub tank and the main pipe extend parallel to one another”.
However, Keller (FIG 1) teaches it is known in the art of tanks (analogous to Takeuchi) 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 Takeuchi such that it is a tank oriented sideways as taught by Keller, such that the combination teaches “wherein the sub tank and the main pipe extend parallel to one another”, as Takeuchi 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Igami (US 20030234540).
Takeuchi discloses “wherein a first coupling portion (coupling of 71 to 30) is formed at the first open end of the coupling pipe and coupled with the main pipe, and a second coupling portion (coupling of 85a to 90) is formed at the second open end of the coupling pipe and coupled with the sub tank…”
Takeuchi is silent regarding “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, 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 Takeuchi with the coupling assembly of Igami, such that the combination teaches “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 Takeuchi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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:
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi (FIG 1) is silent regarding “wherein the main pipe includes … a connection portion … for receiving the gaseous fuel from the sub tank.” Takeuchi is fundamentally different as 90 is downstream of 30. In fact, 90 cannot flow to 30 via 71.
As Takeuchi teaches against this feature, claim 9 is nonobvious.
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 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
Prosecution Insights