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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “configured to adsorb evaporated fuel generated in a fuel tank of a vehicle” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
In this view, the ‘fuel tank’ and the ‘vehicle’ are neither positively recited or required in the claimed invention.
Therefore, the at least claim 1 has been interpreted as follows:
“A canister, the canister comprising: a plurality of lumpy adsorbents arranged to be aligned in a flow direction of the evaporated fuel in a flow path through which the evaporated fuel passes, and configured to adsorb the evaporated fuel; and an atmosphere port provided at an end of the flow path, and is open to atmosphere, the plurality of lumpy adsorbents at least including a first lumpy adsorbent and a second lumpy adsorbent adjacent to each other, the first lumpy adsorbent having at least one protrusion protruding from a surface of the first lumpy adsorbent facing the second lumpy adsorbent, and the at least one protrusion forming a gap between the first lumpy adsorbent and the second lumpy adsorbent around the at least one protrusion.”
Examiner notes that the limitations of “fuel”, which pertains to the manner in which a material or article is worked upon. However, it is well established that neither the mode of operating a disclosed device nor the material or article being processed imposes further limit an apparatus claim.
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.
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) 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenbank et al (US 20210023532; hereinafter Greenbank).
As regarding claim 1, Greenbank discloses the claimed invention for a canister (abstract, [0085]) configured to adsorb evaporated fuel generated in a fuel tank of a vehicle ([0161]), the canister comprising: a plurality of lumpy adsorbents ([0087], figs. 4, 7, 13, 15, 20, 26, 38, 40, and 42) arranged to be aligned in a flow direction of the evaporated fuel in a flow path through which the evaporated fuel passes, and configured to adsorb the evaporated fuel; and an atmosphere port ([0179], [0184]) provided at an end of the flow path, and is open to atmosphere, the plurality of lumpy adsorbents at least including a first lumpy adsorbent (figs. 4, 7, 13, 15, 20, 26, 38, 40, and 42).
Greenbank does not disclose the plurality of lumpy adsorbents at least including the first lumpy adsorbent and a second lumpy adsorbent adjacent to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the plurality of lumpy adsorbents at least including the first lumpy adsorbent and a second lumpy adsorbent adjacent to each other in order to enhance canister performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen of a second lumpy adsorbent (i.e., a duplication of the feature in part) or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen design is critical and unexpected results.
Greenbank as modified discloses the first lumpy adsorbent having at least one protrusion (210 of fig. 4) protruding from a surface of the first lumpy adsorbent facing the second lumpy adsorbent, and the at least one protrusion forming a gap (the space is formed by the valleys 220 and the backside of the “duplicated” mold 100) between the first lumpy adsorbent and the second lumpy adsorbent around the at least one protrusion.
As regarding claim 3, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one protrusion contacts the second lumpy adsorbent. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the at least one protrusion contacts the second lumpy adsorbent in order to enhance canister performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen locations (‘contact’) or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen locations are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 4, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one protrusion has a shape in which a cross-sectional area of a first cross section (fig. 15) is smaller than a cross-sectional area of a second cross section (fig. 4), the first cross section and the second cross section are cross sections perpendicular to a protruding direction of the at least one protrusion, and the first cross section is located closer to the second lumpy adsorbent than the second cross section.
As regarding claim 5, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a surface area of a surface facing the atmosphere port, of a lumpy adsorbent closest to the atmosphere port in the flow direction among the plurality of lumpy adsorbents, is smaller than a surface area of a surface of the lumpy adsorbent opposite to the surface facing the atmosphere port. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a surface area of a surface facing the atmosphere port, of a lumpy adsorbent closest to the atmosphere port in the flow direction among the plurality of lumpy adsorbents, is smaller than a surface area of a surface of the lumpy adsorbent opposite to the surface facing the atmosphere port (resulted when hills 210 / valleys 220 of mold 100 facing opposite the atmosphere port direction) in order to enhance canister performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenbank et al (US 20210023532; hereinafter Greenbank), as applied supra, and further in view of Nakagawa et al (US 20220252025; hereinafter Nakagawa).
As regarding claim 2, Greenbank as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Greenbank as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of adsorption chambers configured to adsorb the evaporated fuel in the flow path, wherein the plurality of adsorption chambers are provided to be aligned in the flow direction, the first lumpy adsorbent and the second lumpy adsorbent are arranged in an adsorption chamber closest to the atmosphere port in the flow direction among the plurality of adsorption chambers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a plurality of adsorption chambers configured to adsorb the evaporated fuel in the flow path, wherein the plurality of adsorption chambers are provided to be aligned in the flow direction, the first lumpy adsorbent and the second lumpy adsorbent are arranged in an adsorption chamber closest to the atmosphere port in the flow direction among the plurality of adsorption chambers in order to enhance canister performance, since it was know in the art as shown in Nakagawa (fig. 1). Both Greenbank and Nakagawa are directed to evaporated fuel treatment device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights