DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-12 as filed 12/06/2024 are pending for consideration.
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 .
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,209,713. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the parent patent recite all of the limitations recited in the claims of the instant application including a reducing coupler, screen, spring, and bushing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action (or with a timely filed terminal disclaimer as described above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations set forth in independent claim 1. Darms (US Patent 1,922,930) is considered the closest prior art and teaches a fuel anti-siphoning tool (page 1, lines 1-3) comprising: an anti-siphoning fuel tool having a coupler C, a screen 19, a spring 22, and a bushing (the lower end of tube 1 having threads 4 is readable as a bushing); wherein said fuel anti-siphoning tool mounted between a delivery pipe (although not shown, during normal use of the device the cap S is removed and a delivery pipe is inserted through the flange 2) and a supply pipe (plug 8 having openings 9 is readable as a "supply pipe" because it supplies the fuel to the tank T via the openings 9) of a fuel tank T; wherein said screen 19 and said spring 22 are retained between said coupler C at one end and said bushing (at the lower end of 1) at another end (19 and 22 are between the coupler and the bushing as shown in Figure 1); and wherein said screen 19 having a plurality of holes disposed therethrough for allowing a flow of fuel.
Darms does not disclose the coupler is a reducing coupler, the spring having a material selected from a lightweight metal, the screen having a broad end and a narrow end and a plurality of holes disposed therethrough for allowing a flow of fuel from said narrow end to said broad end, and the bushing having male National Pipe Taper (NPT) threads at a first end and female NPT threads at a second end for connecting pipes of different sizes.
Martin (US Patent 3,951,297) teaches a coupler 22 is a reducing coupler (Figure 4). Kneisley (US Patent Application 2015/0202957) teaches a lightweight metal (stainless steel; para. 0038) used in an anti-siphoning fuel tool. Kaneko (US Patent Application 2014/0027451) teaches a fueling device with a screen 16 having a broad end (at the lower left of 16 as shown in Figure 10) and a narrow end (at the upper right end in Figure 10) and a plurality of holes (between the partition members as best shown in Figure 7) disposed therethrough for allowing a flow of fuel from said narrow end to said broad end (as shown in Figure 10). However, there is not sufficient evidence that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Darms to include the combination of modifications necessary to arrive at the invention recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jaffa (US Patent 2,371,241) teaches a spring element (including wires 20 and 21) to hold a screen 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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 Schneider can be reached on (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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753