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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,338,781. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the instant claims are encompassed in the patent claims.
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 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida et al. (US 2009/0320685 A1).
Yoshida et al. ‘685 teach a fuel vapor canister comprising adsorbent chambers (17, 18) inside a housing (15), inflow, outflow, and atmospheric ports (23,24,25) at one end of the housing, and linear, tapering protrusions (42,42a) integral with an inner wall of the housing and extending linearly from the one end of the housing in a flow direction. The protrusions can be arranged around the inner wall to surround an adsorbent chamber. The housing cross section is tapered with a reduced (smallest cross section) area at the one end where the protrusions are located (see figures 1-12, paragraphs 27, 34, 43).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2015086847 A.
JP ‘847 teaches a fuel vapor canister comprising adsorbent chambers (11,12) inside a housing (2), inflow, outflow, and atmospheric ports (4,5,6) at one end of the housing, and linear, tapering protrusions (41,41e) integral with an inner wall of the housing and extending linearly from the one end of the housing in a flow direction. The protrusions can be arranged around the inner wall to surround an adsorbent chamber. The housing cross section is tapered with a reduced (smallest cross section) area at the one end where the protrusions are located (see figures 1-6, abstract).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hara et al. (US 5,632,808).
Hara et al. ‘808 teach a fuel vapor canister comprising adsorbent chambers (29,30) inside a housing (17), inflow, outflow, and atmospheric ports (37,38,39,40) at one end of the housing, and linear, tapering protrusions (211-9) integral with an inner wall of the housing and extending linearly from the one end of the housing in a flow direction. The protrusions can be arranged around the inner wall to surround and adsorbent chamber (see figures 1-11, col. 3, lines 21-50, col. 4, lines 3-38, col. 6, lines 47-61).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of JP ‘847 or Yoshida et al. ‘685 in view of JP 2022040806 A.
Any one of JP ‘847 or Yoshida et al. ‘685 discloses all of the limitations of the claim except that the case is arranged in an outer case. JP ‘806 discloses a fuel vapor canister including an adsorbent volume (22) in a case (51) that is arranged in an outer case (31) (see figure 2, abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the housing of the primary references by using an inner adsorbent case inside of an outer case in order to provide for a cartridge arrangement that allows for easy installation adsorbent volumes having different length:diameter ratios depending the requirements of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose fuel vapor adsorbent canister arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl
Prosecution Insights