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 Status
Claims 1-4 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 2012/0304865 A1) hereinafter Sugiura, Iwamoto (US 2022/0062813 A1) hereinafter Iwamoto, and Scardino et al. (US 5,718,209) hereinafter Scardino.
Claim 1:
Sugiura discloses an evaporated fuel treatment device comprising: a hollow case including an inner wall that defines an inner space of the hollow case, the hollow case comprising an end portion [Fig. 1, Items, 1, 7, 38]; an outer case [2] having an inner circumferential surface that covers an outer circumferential surface of the hollow case [7]; a filter [14]; and the outer case including a charge port [3, 4] and an atmosphere port [5], the outer case forming therein a flow passage from the charge port to the atmosphere port for a gas containing the evaporated fuel flowing in from the charge port [¶43], the filter being arranged inside the outer case, outside the hollow case, and in a vicinity of the atmosphere port, the filter covering the atmosphere port [14].
Sugiura doesn’t explicitly disclose an adsorbent agglomerate arranged in the inner space that is surrounded by the inner wall of the hollow case, the adsorbent agglomerate being configured to adsorb an evaporated fuel flowing into the inner space; an elastic sealing member being interposed between the outer circumferential surface of the hollow case and the inner circumferential surface of the outer case; the hollow case being formed as a separate member from the outer case, the hollow case being arranged so that the end portion in a vicinity of the filter is located on a side closer to the charge port with respect to the filter in the flow passage for the gas, the (filter) adsorbent agglomerate being arranged in the inner space in a state in which a peripheral part of the adsorbent agglomerate is at least partially embedded in the inner wall of the hollow case, the elastic sealing member sealing a gap between the inner circumferential surface of the outer case and the outer circumferential surface of the hollow case, and the elastic sealing member fixing the hollow case inside the outer case by exertion of an elastic force.
However, Iwamoto does disclose an adsorbent agglomerate arranged in the inner space that is surrounded by the inner wall of the hollow case, the adsorbent agglomerate being configured to adsorb an evaporated fuel flowing into the inner space [¶41; Fig. 3, Items 61]; an elastic sealing member being interposed between the outer circumferential surface [inside of 31] of the hollow case [51] and the inner circumferential surface of the outer case [31]; the hollow case [15] being formed as a separate member from the outer case, the hollow case being arranged so that the end portion [by 36] in a vicinity of the filter [14] is located on a side closer to the charge port [3, 4] with respect to the filter in the flow passage for the gas, [¶¶41-42; Figs. 2-3; the bottom of the hollow case 51b is further along the flow path towards the charge port 23], the elastic sealing member sealing a gap between the inner circumferential surface of the outer case [31] and the outer circumferential surface of the hollow case [71], and the elastic sealing member fixing the hollow case inside the outer case by exertion of an elastic force [¶45; an elastic force would be necessary for proper sealing].
Further, Scardino discloses the (filter) adsorbent agglomerate being arranged in the inner space in a state in which a peripheral part of the adsorbent agglomerate is at least partially embedded in the inner wall of the hollow case, [col. 2, line 55 to col. 3, line 18]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel treatment device of Sugiura with the seal and inner canister of Iwamoto to prevent leaks within the canister and provide a containment device for the adsorbent material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the fuel treatment device of Sugiura and Iwamoto with the insert molded filter configuration of Scardino to eliminate leakage attributable to the screen being shaken loose from the plastic frame and provide a serviceable element thus increasing durability.
Claim 2:
Sugiura, Iwamoto, and Scardino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sugiura doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the adsorbent agglomerate has a surface with porosity, and is embedded in the inner wall in a state in which a material forming the inner wall has entered a plurality of pores contained in the surface of the adsorbent agglomerate.
However, Scardino does disclose wherein the adsorbent agglomerate has a surface with porosity, and is embedded in the inner wall in a state in which a material forming the inner wall has entered a plurality of pores contained in the surface of the adsorbent agglomerate. [col. 2, line 55 to col. 3, line 18]
Claim 3:
Sugiura, Iwamoto, and Scardino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sugiura doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the adsorbent agglomerate is arranged in the inner space of the hollow case such that the peripheral part of the adsorbent agglomerate is at least partially embedded in the inner wall of the hollow case by forming the hollow case including the adsorbent agglomerate by insert molding.
However, Scardino does disclose wherein the adsorbent agglomerate is arranged in the inner space of the hollow case such that the peripheral part of the adsorbent agglomerate is at least partially embedded in the inner wall of the hollow case by forming the hollow case including the adsorbent agglomerate by insert molding. [col. 2, line 55 to col. 3, line 18]
Claim 4:
Sugiura, Iwamoto, and Scardino, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sugiura doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the adsorbent agglomerate has a circumferential edge arranged along the inner wall, and the circumferential edge is embedded in the inner wall.
However, Scardino does disclose wherein the adsorbent agglomerate has a circumferential edge arranged along the inner wall, and the circumferential edge is embedded in the inner wall. [col. 2, line 55 to col. 3, line 18]
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 KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747