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 .
The claims received 6/24/2026 are entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: claims 10 and 20 each recite “the barrier member is configured to secure the first receptable or the second receptacle to the base member between the barrier member and the casing.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lampton (“How Gas Pumps Work”; https://auto.howstuffworks.com/gas-pump.htm; 6/20/20211).
Regarding claim 1, Lampton discloses a temporary fluid commodity transfer station (MPEP 2111.02 “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation");”, comprising:
a fluid commodity transfer system having at least one pump (“a submersible pump” or “a suction pump”), at least one valve actuator (“a flow control valve” or “lever” which controls valve internal to the nozzle discussed under “the automatic shit-off” section), at least one outlet (“nozzle”), and a manifold (“the blend valve”) fluidly coupled to the at least one outlet, wherein the manifold comprises a first inlet and a second inlet (as explained in the “blend valve” section plural tanks are supplied to the blend valve providing an inlet for each), and wherein the fluid commodity transfer system is configured to dispense fluid therethrough;
a fuel tender (“car’s gas tank” within “the automatic shut-off” section) operably coupled to the fluid commodity transfer system;
a first receptacle comprising a tank (“two underground tanks”) and a frame (underground installation includes a frame) operably coupled to the fluid commodity transfer system; and
a second receptacle comprising a tank (“two underground tanks”) operably coupled to the fluid commodity transfer system;
a plurality of conduits configured to deliver fluid between the fluid commodity transfer system and the first receptacle and the second receptacle (said components are connected by conduits), wherein a first conduit of the plurality of conduits is operably coupled between the tank of the first receptacle and the first inlet of the manifold (as explained in “the blend valve” section the tanks are connected to the blend valve which is the manifold), and wherein a second conduit of the plurality of conduits is operably coupled between the tank of the second receptacle and the second inlet of the manifold (as explained in “the blend valve” section the tanks are connected to the blend valve which is the manifold); and
wherein the at least one pump (“submersible pump” or “suction pump”) is configured to draw the fluid from at least one of the first or second receptacles through the manifold and drive the fluid from the manifold through the at least one outlet to the fuel tender (“car’s gas tank”);
wherein the at least one valve actuator (lever of the nozzle or flow control valve) is configured to control deliver of the fluid from the at least one outlet to the fuel tender (car’s gas tank).
Further regarding claim 11, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02. Therefor the apparatus as presented also reads on the method claim(s).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Lampton discloses the fluid commodity transfer system is part of a fluid commodity transfer structure (structure including a plurality components in addition to those named above like is shown in figure of man pumping fuel).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marden (US 2,075,126).
Regarding claim 1, Marden discloses a temporary fluid commodity transfer station (MPEP 2111.02 “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation");”, comprising:
a fluid commodity transfer system having at least one pump (E), at least one valve actuator (D), at least one outlet (f3), and a manifold (B) fluidly coupled to the at least one outlet, wherein the manifold comprises a first inlet and a second inlet (five inlets shown in figure 3), and wherein the fluid commodity transfer system is configured to dispense fluid therethrough;
a fuel tender (“receptacle” 2:42) operably coupled to the fluid commodity transfer system;
a first receptacle comprising a tank (a) and a frame (frame identified in annotated figure) operably coupled to the fluid commodity transfer system; and
a second receptacle comprising a tank (another of “a” where five are shown in figure 1) operably coupled to the fluid commodity transfer system;
a plurality of conduits (a2) configured to deliver fluid between the fluid commodity transfer system and the first receptacle and the second receptacle, wherein a first conduit of the plurality of conduits is operably coupled between the tank of the first receptacle and the first inlet of the manifold (shown in figure 3), and wherein a second conduit of the plurality of conduits is operably coupled between the tank of the second receptacle and the second inlet of the manifold (shown in figure 3); and
wherein the at least one pump (E) is configured to draw the fluid from at least one of the first or second receptacles through the manifold and drive the fluid from the manifold through the at least one outlet to the fuel tender (“receptacle” 2:42);
wherein the at least one valve actuator (D) is configured to control deliver of the fluid from the at least one outlet to the fuel tender.
Further regarding claim 11, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02. Therefor the apparatus as presented also reads on the method claim(s).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Marden discloses the fluid commodity transfer system is part of a fluid commodity transfer structure (structure including a plurality components in addition to those named above as shown in figures).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Marden discloses the fluid commodity transfer structure includes a base member (identified above in annotated figure) having at least one intermodal footprint configured for intermodal transport (footprint of structure shown in figure 1; “the supply tank A, which may be mounted in any usual or suitable manner upon a truck or elsewhere”). The "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. In this instance the fluid commodity transfer structure of Marden is capable of intermodal transport, e.g. being transported by rail, truck, or ship.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Marden discloses the first intermodal footprint of the base member is capable of receiving the first or second receptacle (both receptacles are within the foot print as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Marden discloses the fluid commodity transfer structure includes a casing (shown in annotated figure above) coupled to the base member and abutting the at least one intermodal footprint.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Marden discloses the casing and at least a portion of the base member are of a unitary construction forming a single structure (single structure shown in figure 1).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Marden discloses the base member comprises a top surface, a bottom surface (top and bottom surface of frame member shown in figure), and further wherein the top surface is configured to receive the first or second receptacle (both receptacles “a” are mounted to top of base member)
Regarding claim 8, Marden discloses the fluid commodity transfer structure includes a casing (shown in annotated figure above) coupled to the base member and abutting the at least one intermodal footprint.
Regarding claim 17, Marden discloses the dispensing the fluid comprises controlling delivery of the fluid from the at least one outlet to the fuel tender via at least one valve actuator (C, D, or f3)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Marden discloses the plurality of conduits (a2) is removably coupled to the base member. Additionally, regarding limitations drawn to being “removably coupled”, the "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art. In other words as the device is capable of being constructed it is also capable of being deconstructed.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Marden discloses the fluid commodity transfer structure includes a barrier member (identified in annotated figure below), further wherein the barrier member is coupled to a distal end of the base member opposite from the casing, and further wherein the barrier member is configured to secure the first receptacle or the second receptacle to the based between the barrier member and the casing.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection. Lampton and Marden are provided in the alternative above to anticipate the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bingham et al (US 2004/0250871) fuel dispenser
Lee et al (US 2014/0202583) fuel dispenser
Beissler et al (US 2015/0303770) modular power and fuel system
Murray, Sr. et al (US 2016/0097363) transportable fuel delivery device
Melanson et al (US 2014/0299101) fuel supply
Webb (US 2002/0079016) fuel dispenser
Haut et al (US 2010/0320727) intermodal tank transport
Meints et al (US 9,903,505) ISO container tank
Bryant (US 5,114,046) skid mounted fuel tank
White et al (US 5,566,712) fueling system
O’Shea et al (US 4,422,485) integrated mobile tank servicing system
Fitch (US 2,056,179) intermodal tank cradle
Beers (US 3,229,472) plural tank distribution
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights