Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/775,559

Fuel Tank Floating Suction Line

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 17, 2024
Examiner
VOLZ, ELIZABETH J
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
TopFlo, LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
722 granted / 1082 resolved
-3.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1140
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.3%
+1.3% vs TC avg
§102
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1082 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "with fluid outlet aperture" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the suction tube assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pregno (U.S. Patent No. 3381709). Regarding Claim 1, Pregno discloses a suction tube system for a tank (Figure 1), comprising: a flexible suction tube 8 (Figure 1); a float 6 (Figure 1) connected to the flexible suction tube; an inlet nozzle 10 (Figure 1), wherein the inlet nozzle is on the perimeter of the float (Figure 1 and 2; column 2, line 49-51); a connector on the flexible suction tube 9 (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 3, Pregno discloses the float is a rigid buoyant portion (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 4, Pregno discloses the float is a sealed hollow portion of pipe 6 (Figure 2). Regarding Claim 7, Pregno discloses the flexible suction tube defines a rotational range of movement of the float (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 10, Pregno discloses the connector defines a fluid outlet aperture 9 (figure 1, end of pipe portion), the flexible suction tube is in fluid communication with fluid outlet aperture and the inlet nozzle (Figure 1), and the float causes the flexible suction tube to flex and rise or unflex and fall with a change of a fluid level of an organic fluid when the suction tube system is installed in a tank allowing the inlet nozzle to remain in the organic liquid and allowing reliable suction of organic liquid from stratified fluid layers within the tank (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 13, Pregno discloses the inlet nozzle is submerged in the organic fluid in the tank (Figure 1 and 2). Regarding Claim 14, Pregno discloses a fluid level of the organic fluid increases and the flexible suction hose bends into tighter radius, the rigidity of the flexible suction hose keeps the inlet nozzle submerged below a fluid level but above a water/fuel interface (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 15, Pregno discloses a position of the inlet nozzle in relation to the float keeps inlet nozzle from rising above the fluid level (figure 1 and 2). Regarding Claim 16, Pregno discloses both the float and the flexible suction tube have a width or diameter that is less than an internal diameter of an inlet port of the tank, such that the float and the flexible suction tube of the suction tube system may be inserted through the inlet port (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 18, Pregno discloses a device attached to the connector on the suction tube allows at least one of fluid to be added to or fluid to be removed from the tank (Column 2, lines 28-29). Claim(s) 1, 8-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burris et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6915818). Regarding Claim 1, Burris et al. discloses a suction tube system for a tank (Figure 1), comprising: a flexible suction tube 132 (Figure 1); a float 122 (Figure 1) connected to the flexible suction tube; an inlet nozzle 110 (Figure 1), wherein the inlet nozzle is on the perimeter of the float (Figure 1); a connector on the flexible suction tube (figure 1, portion at top of 130). Regarding Claim 8, Burris et al. discloses the suction tube assembly comprises an inlet portion 100/110 (Figure 1) and the inlet portion is housed within the float (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 9, Burris et al. discloses the inlet portion within the float is in fluid connection with the flexible suction tube (Figure !). Regarding Claim 10, Burris et al. discloses the connector defines a fluid outlet aperture (Figure 1), the flexible suction tube is in fluid communication with fluid outlet aperture and the inlet nozzle (Figure 1), and the float causes the flexible suction tube to flex and rise or unflex and fall with a change of a fluid level of an organic fluid when the suction tube system is installed in a tank allowing the inlet nozzle to remain in the organic liquid and allowing reliable suction of organic liquid from stratified fluid layers within the tank (Figure 1). Regarding Claim 11, Burris et al. discloses the tank is a petroleum fuel tank (column 2, lines 34-38). Regarding Claim 12, Burris et al. discloses the tank is a diesel fuel tank (column 2, lines 34-38). Regarding Claim 17, Burris et al. discloses the inlet nozzle is positioned external to the float (Figure 1). 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pregno (U.S. Patent No. 3381709) in view of Thirlaway et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20140238515). Regarding Claim 2, Pregno teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the flexible suction tube comprises at least one of a foot valve and a check valve and the foot valve or the check valve is in fluid communication with fluid outlet aperture. However, Thirlaway et al. teaches a check valve (Paragraph 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pregno to include the above, as taught by Thirlaway et al., in order to allow for ventilation. Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pregno (U.S. Patent No. 3381709) in view of Okada et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20050224135). Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Pregno teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the flexible hose is a stainless steel flexible pipe. However, Okada et al. teaches stainless steel (paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pregno to include the above, as taught by Okada et al., in order to provide a lightweight and durable material. Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm est. 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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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. /ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600528
PACKAGE AND CLOSURE FOR PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595885
NONUNIFORM WALL THICKNESS PROFILE FOR TEARDROP PRESSURE VESSELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577039
WASTE MANAGEMENT RECEPTACLE SYSTEM FOR CONTAINMENT OF ODOROUS WASTE AND METHOD OF USING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559304
SECURE BIN FOR SELECTIVE DEPOSIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559307
TRASH CAN ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1082 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month