DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 2/27/2026. Amended claim 1 is acknowledged and the following grounds of rejection below are maintained. Claims 2-3 and 8 are cancelled. The amendments to the specification have been considered and accepted.
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 § 102
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 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, 4-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mark et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0170053), hereinafter “Mark”.
Regarding claim 1, Mark discloses a reservoir tank comprising: a tank main body (146, shown in figure 5) having a coolant injection part (154) and configured to store a coolant therein; an inlet pipe (108) connected to one side of the tank main body (left side 158) and configured to communicate with the inside of the tank main body; and an outlet pipe (116) connected to the other side of the tank main body (right side 160) and configured to communicate with the inside of the tank main body, wherein a height of an upper end of one side (158) of the tank main body is lower than a height of an upper end of the other side (160) of the tank main body, and the inlet pipe (108) is connected to the tank main body so that the coolant flows in a direction toward a lower end from the upper end of one side of the tank main body (shown in figure 5), wherein the reservoir tank has a stepped portion (top surface of 158 where 108 connects to shown in figure 5) formed at one side thereof so that a height of an upper end of one side is lower than a height of an upper end of the other side (shown in figure 5), wherein the inlet pipe (108) is connected to an upper surface of the stepped portion (surface of 158 where 108 connects to), and wherein the outlet pipe (116) is disposed adjacent to a lower end of the other side (160) of the tank main body (shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Mark discloses the reservoir tank of claim 1, wherein at least a part of the inlet pipe (108) is inserted into one side (158) of the tank main body, and wherein a lower end of the inlet pipe disposed in one side of the tank main body is disposed to be adjacent to and spaced apart from the lower end of one side of the tank main body (shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Mark discloses the reservoir tank of claim 1, wherein the inlet pipe comprises: a first pipe portion extending in an upward/downward direction (108 pipe portion within the first compartment 158) and partially inserted into one side of the tank main body; and a second pipe portion (horizontal pipe portion 108 outside of the tank) disposed outside the tank main body (146) and extending in a shape bent from an upper end of the first pipe portion (shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Mark discloses the reservoir tank of claim 1, wherein the coolant injection part (154) is provided at the upper end of the other side (160) of the tank main body.
Regarding claim 9, Mark discloses the reservoir tank of claim 1, further comprising: a partition wall (148) provided in the tank main body, coupled to the tank main body, and configured to divide an internal space of the tank main body (paragraph 47).
Regarding claim 10, Mark discloses the reservoir tank of claim 9, wherein a communication hole (162) is formed in the partition wall (148) and penetrates two opposite surfaces of the partition wall in a thickness direction of the partition wall (shown in figure 5).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark.
Regarding claim 7, Mark discloses the same invention substantially as claimed but is silent to disclose wherein the interior of the tank main body is filled with the coolant so that a height of a surface of the coolant is higher than a height of the upper end of one side of the tank main body. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have the coolant level above the height of the one side of the tank main body since it was known in the art that that coolant expands significantly when it heats up during engine operation and therefore, the coolant level of Mark (130) would be a height that is higher than the height of the first compartment (158).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the present invention does no have a physical separation wall that creates two regions and the present invention prevents the formation of bubbles. Examiner notes that these limitations are not within the claims of having no separation wall, having to be only one region, and prevention of the formation of bubbles. These limitations should be recited within the claims for the arguments to hold weight. Applicant merely provides the statement in page 6 of the remarks that that Mark fails to teach “wherein the reservoir tank… the other side of the tank main body” but does not show how. The mere statement without explanation does not render the argument valid. Examiner also notes that the present claims mentions “one side” and the ”other side” and therefore any “sides” of the coolant tank can be regarded as the “other side”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-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, 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.
/SYED O HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights