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(b)
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9, “the gap” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “a plurality of gaps” recited in claim 1, on which claim 9 depends upon. Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoi US 20220297051 A1 in view of Matthias et al. US 20160023157 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hosoi teaches an adsorption unit having spring structure represented by canister 1 (Fig. 1, [0036]). The canister 1 comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
A frame, comprising an inlet side and an exhaust side represented by housing 10, charge port 2A, and atmosphere port 2B wherein “charge port 2A is configured to introduce the fuel vapor generated in the fuel tank into the filling chamber 3” and “the atmosphere port 2B releases gases that is free from the fuel vapor to the atmosphere” (Fig. 1, [0038]).
A plurality of limited springs, arranged in the frame represented by one elastic body 6 wherein “one example of the at least one elastic body 6 is a spring” (Fig. 1, [0042]). Figure 1 depicts multiple one elastic body 6 inside of the housing 10. Furthermore, having a plurality of springs is merely duplication of parts. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as duplication of parts, are valid rejections in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04).
A plurality of adsorption granules, arranged in the frame represented by activated carbon 8 wherein “the activated carbon 8 is an aggregate of granules” (Fig. 1, [0037]).
The adsorption granule being restricted by the limiting springs to be fixed in the frame between the inlet side and exhaust side represented by “the activated carbon 8 receives a pressure force from the second filter 5B, which is pushed by the grid 7 biased by the at least one elastic body 6, and is packed into the filling chamber 3 without leaving any gaps” (Fig. 1, [0042]).
Hosoi is silent as to the limiting springs comprising a lateral side defined with a plurality of gaps.
Matthias et al. teaches the limiting springs comprising a lateral side defined with a plurality of gaps represented by spring elements 42a wherein “the spring elements 42a are embodied by metallic helical compression springs” (Fig. 1, [0036]). It is known in the art that helical compression springs are designed with gaps between their coils. It is also well known in the art that helical compression springs are beneficial for their high load capacity and reliability.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hosoi to incorporate the teachings of Matthias et al. to incorporate helical compression springs that have a plurality of gaps on a lateral side as they are known for their high load capacity and reliability.
Regarding claim 2, Hosoi teaches a first space defined between the frame and the limiting springs and the adsorption granules being disposed in the first space represented by filling chamber 3 wherein “a space defined by the housing 10 to fill the activated carbon 8 is also referred to as a filling chamber 3” (Fig. 1, [0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Hosoi teaches each of the limiting springs comprising two ends arranged corresponding to the inlet side and the exhaust side represented Figure 1 clearly depicting the one elastic body 6 having two ends arranged with one end facing the charge port 2A (the inlet) and the second end facing the atmosphere port 2B (the exhaust side) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the specification does not define what a “plate” is. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), a “plate” is interpreted as being any solid surface.
Hosoi teaches a pair of communicating plates respectively arranged at the inlet side and the exhaust side represented by grid 7 and second wall 3B where in Figure 1 depicts grid 7 being arranged closer to the charge port 2A (the inlet) and the second wall 3B being arranged closer to the atmosphere port 2B (the exhaust side) (Fig. 1, [0040-0042]).
Hosoi teaches a plurality of sealing plates configured to surround the pair of communicating plates and connect between the pair of communicating plates represented by first wall 3A and the circumferential walls of housing 10 as shown by Figure 1 to be the top, bottom, left, and right walls of the device.
Hosoi teaches each of the limiting springs comprising two ends connected to the communicating plates respectively represented by Figure 1 clearly depicting the one elastic body 6 having two ends arranged with one end connected to the grid 7 and the second end connected to the second wall 3B (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hosoi teaches the limiting springs being separated from each other represented by Figure 1 clearly depicting the two at least one elastic body 6 being apart by some distance. The reference is silent as to the limiting springs being parallel to each other. However, arranging the limiting springs to be parallel is simply a design choice. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04). Positioning the limiting springs to be parallel to each other would be beneficial for simplification of the device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoi US 20220297051 A1 in view of Matthias et al. US 20160023157 A1 and in further view of Larmour et al. US 20240100537 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Hosoi in view of Matthias et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hosoi in view of Matthias et al. fails to teach the adsorption granules being larger than a width of the plurality of gaps of the limiting springs.
Larmour et al. teaches the adsorption granules being larger than a width of the plurality of gaps of the limiting springs represented by granules 310 wherein “it is noted that agglomerate granules 310 have a geometrically irregular exterior shape, and have a size that is larger than the width of the longitudinal gap between rollers 105c and 105d” (Fig. 3, [0102]). The granules being larger than the width of the gaps is beneficial so the “granules 310 do not fall downwards through the longitudinal gap between rollers 105d and 105e” [0102].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hosoi in view of Matthias et al. to incorporate the teachings of Larmour et al. to incorporate the adsorption granules being larger than a width of the plurality of gaps of the limiting springs to ensure the adsorption granules do not fall through the limiting springs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the adsorption granules being disposed in the second space defined by the limiting springs.
Claim 6 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the limiting spring comprising two ends connected to the frame.
Claim 8 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the limiting springs configured to cross the inlet side and cross the exhaust side.
Claims 10 – 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 is allowable as the prior art fails to teach the adsorption material being attached to the limiting springs.
Claims 11-14 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights