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 § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US-20180105414-A1) in view of Song et al. (US-20190255939-A1).
Kubo discloses a capless fuel filler assembly (Fig. 6) configured to be attached to a distal end of a filler pipe extending from a fuel tank, the capless fuel filler assembly comprising: a main body (150) having a fuel filler through which a nozzle (FN) of a filler gun is inserted, a longitudinal direction of the main body extending along an insertion direction in which the nozzle is inserted (Fig. 9); and a pair of stopper ribs (160) that are disposed within the main body and project inward in a first projecting direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction to regulate an insertion depth of the nozzle (par. 0041, Fig. 9), wherein the pair of stopper ribs project inward toward each other (par. 0047), and the shortest distance between the pair of stopper ribs being set to be smaller than an outer diameter of a distal end of the nozzle (Fig. 9).
Kubo fails to teach a flap valve for opening and closing the fuel filler, the flap valve being disposed in the main body such that the flap valve can be opened and closed, a guide rib configured to guide an insertion of the nozzle, the guide rib projecting in a second projecting direction intersecting the first projecting direction of the pair of stopper ribs, and the guide rib extending along the longitudinal direction, the guide rib being disposed between the flap valve and the pair of stopper ribs in the insertion direction of the nozzle, the guide rib being configured and arranged to guide the nozzle such that a portion of the distal end of the nozzle having a maximum width in the first projecting direction abuts against the pair of stopper ribs when the nozzle is inserted.
Song teaches that it was known in the art to manufacture a fuel filler assembly with a flap valve (210) for opening and closing the fuel filler, that is disposed in the main body such that the flap valve can be opened and closed (par. 0029), a guide rib (225) configured to guide an insertion of the nozzle (par. 0031), the guide rib projecting in a direction intersecting a projecting direction inwardly extending portions, and extending along a longitudinal direction (Fig. 2), the guide rib located between the flap valve and a lower potion (Fig. 2) , and being configured and arranged to guide the nozzle such that a portion of the distal end of the nozzle having a maximum width in the projecting direction would abut against inner projecting portions when the nozzle is inserted (par. 0031, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the assembly with a flap valve, as taught by Song, in order to prevent unwanted items from being inserted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the assembly with a guide rib, as taught by Song, in order to guide the nozzle of a filler gun toward a centered position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the stopper ribs are for a different purpose, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The structure of the stoper ribs of the prior art is capable of the intended use with a nozzle.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation applied above is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-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, 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights