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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pump as claimed in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6 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.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “wherein the angle is in the range 5°-50°, preferably 10°-45°” is indefinite. The use of the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite in view of 2173.05(c) I. Please amend the claim accordingly.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of “wherein the length of the enclosure in the vertical direction is in a range of 0.3-0.9, preferably 0.5-0.8 times the distance between the top wall and the bottom wall of the housing” is indefinite for the same reason as applied to claim 6 above. Please amend the claim accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youinou (WO 2004/001204) in view of Halonen et al. (WO 2020/053468 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Youinou discloses a tank (Fig. 8) having a housing (the housing formed at 21 and 22) which provides a space (the space within 21 and 22) for a liquid, wherein an enclosure (6, 6’) forming a sub space (the space within 6 and 6’) is arranged inside the housing at an upper part of the housing for trapping air when the liquid surface in the tank is inclined relative to the housing (see how the tank is configured with respect to Fig. 8 and Des/Clms pages 7-9 such that this limitation is necessarily met), an upper end of the enclosure being closed and airtight and a lower end of the enclosure being open connecting the space and the sub space fluidly to each other (as shown in Fig. 8), but fails to disclose wherein the tank has a level sensor indicating the level of liquid in the tank, the level sensor being arranged in the space outside the sub space.
Halonen teaches a tank (2) that has a level sensor (9) indicating the level of liquid in the tank, the level sensor being arranged in the space outside the sub space (the sub space formed within 3). (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tank of Youinou to include a level sensor as taught by Halonen in order to provide a means to sense the level of the fluid within the tank. (page 2, last paragraph)
Regarding claim 2, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 1, wherein the enclosure comprises at least one wall extending inside the tank from an upper portion of the housing in a direction towards a lower portion of the housing. (Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 3, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 1, wherein the enclosure is a tube. (as best shown in Figs. 2 and 3)
Regarding claim 4, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 3, wherein the longitudinal extension direction of the tube is substantially vertical. (Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 7, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 1, wherein the enclosure is arranged at a distance from a side wall of the housing whereby a gap between the enclosure and the side wall is created in a horizontal direction. (Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 8, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 1, wherein the enclosure has a length in a vertical direction which length is less than the distance between a top wall of the housing and a bottom wall of the housing, and a gap is arranged between the enclosure and the bottom wall of the housing. (Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 9, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 8, wherein the length of the enclosure in the vertical direction is in a range of 0.3-0.9, preferably 0.5-0.8 times the distance between the top wall and the bottom wall of the housing. (as best understood, Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 11, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 1, wherein the tank has a plurality of said enclosure providing a plurality of said sub space. (Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 12, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 11, wherein the enclosures are arranged at a distance from each other creating a gap between adjacent enclosures in a horizontal direction. (Fig. 8)
Regarding claim 13, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 1, wherein the tank is a coolant tank for a coolant system of a vehicle. (Des/Clms Page 7)
Regarding claim 14, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a vehicle comprising a tank according to claim 1. (Des/Clms Page 7)
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youinou in view of Halonen and Merour et al. (FR 2,890,109 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein a lower end of the tube is slanted, the end surface of the lower end of the tube being inclined with an angle relative to a horizontal plane such that the end surface slopes downwards in a direction towards a vertical centerline of the housing.
Merour teaches wherein a lower end of the tube (7) is slanted (see Fig. 1), the end surface of the lower end of the tube being inclined with an angle relative to a horizontal plane such that the end surface slopes downwards in a direction towards a vertical centerline of the housing. (Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tube of Youinou to be slanted as taught by Merour in order to provide a design which allows for a degassing chamber of reduced volume without compromising the quality of the degassing of said liquid and avoid any cascade phenomemon when the liquid enters and keeps the outlet submerged regardless of the conditions of use of the device (page 3)
Regarding claim 6, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 5, wherein the angle is in the range 5°-50°, preferably 10°-45°. (page 3)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youinou in view of Halonen and Riedel et al. (US 2010/0031915, hereafter “Riedel”).
Regarding claim 10, Youinou in view of Halonen further disclose a tank according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the tank has a pump for pumping liquid out from the tank, an inlet of the pump being arranged in the space outside the sub space.
Riedel discloses a tank (24) that has a pump (50) for pumping liquid out from the tank, an inlet of the pump being arranged in the space outside the sub space. (Fig. 1A; para. [0019])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the tank of Youinou to include a pump as taught by Riedel in order to provide a means to help ensure the fluid is circulated as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753