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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/080,393 and its predecessors, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claim 1 of the present application, recited two components, a break-away fitting and a locking coupler with a connect/disconnect fitting. In the parent applications and the present specification, only a single connection between the hose and the fill pipe is disclosed. That is the “female locking coupler that clamps to the tank adapter”. It is this female that is discloses as both the locking coupler and the coupler that can be a break-away fitting. Accordingly, there is no disclosure that there are two of these elements, rather it is just disclosed that the locking coupler itself can be a break-away coupler. Claim 11, then recites that the connect/disconnect fitting is also a break-away fitting. No where did the parent application implicitly or explicitly support this. Claim 13 further obfuscates the issues and introduces a third element, distinct from the break-away fitting and the locking coupler. For the reasons discussed, supra, this is also unsupported. Accordingly, the subject matter in claims 1, 11, and 13 is not supported by the parent applications.
Additionally, in claim 14, the recitation “the proximity sensor providing a break-away signal when the break-away fitting is separated” is also not supported by the parent applications. While the proximity sensor is disclosed as sensing the presence of the feed hose, the current recitation of claim 14 is not supported explicitly or implicitly.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are new, they should not have cross outs. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,002,210, claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,524,639, and claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,409,794. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application are merely broader than the patent claims. In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). And/or they merely add obvious patentability indistinct features that are obvious design choices in view of the art cited herein. E.g. see Corless (7,171,989) teaches a locking coupler for the purpose of enhanced safety and reliability, and Safi-Samghabadi (2013/0025698) teaches a sensor that detects break-away for the purpose of alerting personnel and preventing refueling thereby enhancing safety.
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 1-13 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 1 recites two distinct elements, “a locking coupler” and “ a break-away fitting”. The specification at paragraph 21 discloses “a male tank adapter 2 on the vehicle with a coupled … female filling locking coupler 3 … the female locking coupler typically a connect/disconnect fitting that clamps the tank adapter 2 … It should be noted that the female filling locking coupler 3 could be a quick release, break-away fitting.” From this disclosure, the locking coupler and the break-away fitting are the same element. The male tank adapter is never disclosed in more detail and is never disclosed as being a locking coupler or break-away fitting. Therefore, the recitation that the locking coupler and the break-away fitting are two distinct elements is unclear because of the disconnect between the specification and the claims.
Claim 11 then goes on to recite the connect/disconnect fitting is a break-away fitting. Again, the only time the specification mentions the break-away fitting is any detail is in paragraph 21. Paragraph 21 is clear that the locking coupler is the fitting with the break-away fitting so the presently claimed distinct break-away fitting is unsupported. The disconnect between the specification and the claims makes the claim scope uncertain.
Claim 13 further obfuscates the issues in claim 1, because claim 13 introduces a tank fill “adaptor” (sic, should be corrected to “adapter” as disclosed). Here claim 13 makes it abundantly clear that neither the break-away fitting nor the locking coupler are the tank fill adapter element. This only supports the conclusion that the two distinct elements in claim 1 are not supported by the specification (or the parent applications).
Allowable Subject Matter
No comments on allowability will be made until the priority of the present application is corrected. It is not clear if this application should be a CIP or if this is truly a CON.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tighe (7,671,482) discloses a vehicle safety system (fig.1) for disabling a vehicle powered by a compressed or liquified fuel gas while fueling, comprising: a proximity sensor (42, col.3 In.40-43) adapted to sense presence of a gas fill hose in proximity to a tank fill adapter, said first sensor in communication with a logic circuit (16); the logic circuit adapted to produce a safe electrical signal indicating a safe condition when said fill hose is not in proximity to said tank fill adapter (fig.3 col.3 In.19-67); a lockout circuit adapted to mechanically or electrically disable said vehicle when said safe electrical signal is absent (fig.3; col.3 In.27-60).While Tighe discloses that other sensors may be included without departing from the scope of their invention (col.2 In.65-67), Tighe fails to explicitly recite a break-away fitting attached to a fuel fill hose coupled to a compressed or liquefied fuel source, or to a tank fill adapter on the vehicle, the break-away fitting configured to allow separation of the fuel fill hose from the tank fill adapter and fuel shutoff in case of an unexpected vehicle pull away.
Vranicar (6,161,872) teaches another vehicle safety system having a break-away fitting (10, fig.1, col.1 In.7-9) on said gas fill hose adapted to stop gas flow if said vehicle drives away with the gas fill hose attached (col.2 In.5-64).
Parks (5,249,612) teaches the use of an override, Parks override permits fueling, while the present application requires an override that overrides the logic circuit to provide an override when the fuel hose is not in proximity to the tank fill adapter, i.e. not for refueling, but for allowing a car to move.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy P. Kelly whose telephone number is (571)270-7615. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (ET) on Monday, Thursday, and 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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Timothy P. Kelly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753