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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murai (US 10,934,976).
In regards to claim 1:
Murai teaches a fuel tank processing apparatus comprising: a first valve (35) disposed in a fuel tank (15) that stores fuel; a discharge path (31) through which the first valve (35) communicates with outside of the fuel tank and through which gas discharged from the fuel tank flows; a second valve (52) disposed in the discharge path (31); and a calculation controller (45) configured to adjust an opening degree of the second valve (52), wherein the calculation controller (45) is configured to adjust the opening degree of the second valve (52) based on a change in condition of the fuel tank (15) when the second valve (52) is opened. Murai recites (Col 7, Lines 1-22) the second valve (52) is opened when a lid switch is operated, the condition of the fuel tank is changed to a fueling condition, and the opening degree of the second valve is adjusted to remain open until the completion of fuel feeding, and when the condition of fuel tank is changed to no longer being refilled and the lid is closed, upon that condition the second valve (52) has the opening degree changed to a closed position.
In regards to claim 2:
Murai teaches the first valve is a vent valve.
In regards to claim 3:
Murai teaches the calculation controller is configured to adjust the opening degree of the second valve based on an amount of fuel in the fuel tank and a degree of reduction in an internal pressure of the fuel tank when the second valve is opened. Murai recites (Col 7, Lines 1-22) when the fuel tank is below a desired level by a user and the user begins a process of refueling, the second valve is opened and the internal pressure of the fuel tank is reduced to atmospheric pressure and remains open while the pressure is at atmospheric pressure.
In regards to claim 5:
Murai the second valve is a solenoid valve (Col 19, Lines 46-50).
In regards to claim 6:
Murai teaches a fuel tank processing apparatus comprising: a first valve (35) disposed in a fuel tank (15) that stores fuel; a discharge path (31) through which the first valve (35) communicates with outside and through which gas discharged from the fuel tank (15) flows; a second valve (52) disposed in the discharge path; and circuitry configured to adjust an opening degree of the second valve (hashed lines from ECU 45), wherein the circuitry is configured to adjust the opening degree of the second valve based on a change in condition of the fuel tank when the second valve is opened (Col 7, Lines 1-22).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai in view of Buseki et al (US 2022/0205417 hereinafter “Buseki”).
In regards to claim 4:
Murai does not teach the calculation controller is configured to, in response to an operation for supplying the fuel, acquire information representing an internal pressure of the fuel tank and an amount of the fuel in the fuel tank, calculate a degree of reduction in the internal pressure of the fuel tank while the opening degree of the second valve is set to a predetermined degree, and adjust the opening degree of the second valve based on the internal pressure of the fuel tank, the amount of the fuel in the fuel tank, and the degree of reduction in the internal pressure of the fuel tank.
Buseki teaches a calculation controller (17) configured to, in response to an operation for supplying fuel, acquire information representing an internal pressure (via pressure sensor 21) of a fuel tank (FT) and an amount of the fuel in the fuel tank (via fuel level sensor 20), calculate a degree of reduction in the internal pressure of the fuel tank while the opening degree of a second valve is set to a predetermined degree, and adjust the opening degree of the second valve based on the internal pressure of the fuel tank, the amount of the fuel in the fuel tank, and the degree of reduction in the internal pressure of the fuel tank (Paragraphs [0054]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the controller of Murai to acquire a internal pressure of the fuel tank and a fuel level to adjust the opening degree of the second valve as taught by Buseki in order to properly vent the fuel tank based on internal pressure and the fuel level (Paragraphs [0045] – [0058] and shown in Figure 2, where S3 the pressure is acquired, S5 the fuel level is determined, along with Figure 8 shows as fuel supply begins, the tank pressure and valve opening degrees are shown).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights