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 amendment filed 4/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein media guide comprises…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 10,000,328 (Leiss et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1 and 3-5, Leiss et al. discloses: A fuel tank (10), comprising: an outer shell (12); a media guide (60) disposed within a space at least partially defined by the outer shell (see Figs. 4 and 5), the media guide being configured to receive a media within cells (column 6, lines 24-29) of the media guide; a spring space (occupied by 30) disposed between the media guide and the outer shell; and at least one compressible spring (38) disposed within the spring space and connected between the outer shell and the media guide (column 5, lines 40-44), wherein along longitudinal portions of the media guide longitudinally aligned with the at least one spring, but for the at least one spring, radial paths between the media guide and the outer shell are unobstructed (see Fig. 5 detail below, radial paths are only obstructed by the springs).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
427
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Spring)][AltContent: textbox (Spring)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Radial Path)][AltContent: textbox (Radial Path)][AltContent: textbox (“but for the at least one spring, radial paths between the media guide and the outer shell are unobstructed”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
682
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
359
208
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the outer shell (see Fig. 1 above) is cylindrical and the at least one spring is compressible in a radial direction relative to the outer shell (column 5, lines 40-44, and column 7, lines 47-57).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the spring space is free of media to allow for movement of the at least one spring (see Fig. 7).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein a plurality of springs are disposed in the spring space in an angular array when viewed from above (see Fig. 5).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein a cover (22/32/62 cooperate to separate spring space from media) disposed above the spring space and configured to prevent media from entering the spring space.
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the at least one spring comprises a corrugated shape (see Fig. 1 and 5.
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses: A method of operating a fuel tank system, comprising: providing a fuel tank comprising an outer shell; disposing a media guide within a space at least partially defined by the outer shell; providing a spring space between the outer shell and the media guide; and disposing at least one spring within the spring space, wherein along longitudinal portions of the media guide longitudinally aligned with the at least one spring, the at least one spring is the only radial obstruction to radial paths between the media guide and the outer shell (as in re claim 1).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein disposing a cap within the fuel tank and above the spring space (cap as cover in re claim 6 above).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein pouring media into the media guide while the cap prevents media from entering the spring space (column 6, lines 50-54).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein radially expanding the media guide; and compressing at least one of the at least one spring between the media guide and the outer shell (metals listed expand when heated, tank expected to be heated by environment or during collision during normal use of exteriorly mounted fuel tank of Leiss et al., see column 8, lines 30-33).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein rigidly attaching the media guide to a base of the fuel tank (a degree of rigidity provided by bonding by welding, adhesive to prevent movement, column 6, lines 42-46).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the at least one spring comprises a corrugated shape when viewed from above (as in re claim 7, see Fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiss et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2017/0066320 (Choi et al. hereinafter).
In re claims 5 and 15, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein [the] media guide comprises a honeycomb shape when viewed from above.
However, with reference to Fig. 3 below, Choi et al. discloses wherein a partition/media guide (180) of a fuel tank is formed in a lattice or honeycomb shape (paragraph 0041).
PNG
media_image5.png
445
447
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the partition/media guide of Leiss et al. in a particular shape, such as a lattice or honeycomb shape as taught by Choi et al., since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 0012 and 0016, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 8, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leiss et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above.
In re claims 8 and 17, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the at least one spring comprises a radially compliant structure (As in re claims 2 and 12 above).
Leiss et al. fails to disclose wherein the spring is made by three-dimensional printing.
However, In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the radially compliant spring, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. three-dimensional printing. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In re claim 16, Leiss et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the at least one spring and the outer shell are integrally formed.
However, Leiss et al. does disclose wherein the spring and outer shell can be “bonded by welding, adhesive or other means to prevent movement and wear during normal use” (column 6, lines 42-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to formed the spring and outer shell integrally, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 0016, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6-7 of the Remarks that Leiss does not disclose the new limitations requiring wherein along longitudinal portions of the media guide longitudinally aligned with the at least one spring, but for the at least one spring, radial paths between the media guide and the outer shell are unobstructed. However, as interpreted in re claims 1 and 9 above, Leiss discloses radial paths between the media guide and outer shell, where the only obstruction is the spring and therefore the paths are unobstructed “but for the at least one spring” (see annotated Fig. 5 Detail view above).
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights