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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “filling gun provided with at least one catch and a gripping area”, introduced at Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the present set of claims, Claim 7 requires “means for reducing a section of the insertion channel of the gun, said reducing means comprising a deformable body”.
Although the phrase “deformable body” suggests structure for the “means for reducing a section of the insertion channel of the gun”, the phrase is sufficiently vague such that one of ordinary skill in the art is not immediately apprised of what constitutes a “deformable body”. This limitation has support in Applicant’s Specification at para 59 and Figs 3A-3G, and is interpreted as “any flexible (“deformable”) component that can reduce a section of the insertion channel 300”.
Examiner concludes that, given the aggregate sum of the entire phrase “means for reducing a section of the insertion channel of the gun, said reducing means comprising a deformable body”, the invocation of 112(f) is therefore appropriate.
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 1-11 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Additionally,
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant claims a method with the following steps:
measuring a gas flow, Qc, at the outlet of the fuel vapor filtration device,
measuring a gas flow to the top of the tubing, Qr, within the second vent line fluidically connecting the fuel tank to the top of the tubing,
PNG
media_image1.png
32
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
calculating a gas flow rate from the fuel tank, Qd, using the relationship (I)
PNG
media_image2.png
38
156
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining an air flow rate entering the fuel system through the top of the tubing, Qa, using the relationship (II):
Examiner notes that these limitations appear almost verbatim in Applicant’s specification. However, Applicant does not provide any explanation as to how the measurements and calculations occur, what structure (if any) is used to make these measurements and calculations, or any purpose for performing these steps.
The aforementioned measurement and calculation steps seem to have no bearing on any “optimization” of a filling assembly or fuel system, and do not appear to be used by any other method steps presented in the claims, shown in the Figures, or disclosed in the written Specification. Applicant additionally does not describe any novelty or unexpected results in performing these measurements and calculations.
The inclusion of these limitations therefore render the claim indefinite, as one of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised on how accomplishing these steps (or not accomplishing them) would infringe upon the claimed invention.
Further regarding Claim 1, the claim contains the limitation “…a top of the tubing comprising a separating wall…”. Here, the phrase/limitation “the tubing” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claims 2-11 these claims depend upon Claim 1, and suffer the same deficiencies.
Further regarding Claim 2, the claim contains a method step/limitation of “modifying at least one passage section of the second vent line fluidically connecting the tank to the top of the tubing so as to obtain a value of Qa such that: 0 < Qa< 0.2 Qp.”
Similarly to the above rejection of Claim 1, Examiner notes that although this phrase appears verbatim in Applicant’s Specification, Applicant gives no guidance as to how said modification is to be done, nor any unexpected benefits or novel results in doing so. The inclusion of this limitation therefore renders the claim indefinite, as one of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised on how accomplishing these steps (or not accomplishing them) would infringe upon the claimed invention.
Further regarding Claim 3, the claim contains method steps/limitations drawn to filling the fuel system with a liquid with specific characteristics regarding density, kinematic viscosity, and vapor pressure.
Similarly to the above rejections of Claims 1-2, Examiner notes that although the limitations of Claim 3 appear verbatim in Applicant’s Specification, Applicant gives no guidance on examples of liquid(s) with these characteristics, nor how using such a liquid would structurally “optimize” a filling assembly of a fuel system. Specifically, there is no guidance on what the use of such a liquid is supposed to accomplish, as opposed to using normal fuel(s) with a vapor pressure in ranges established by industry and governmental / international regulations. There is also no guidance on what (if any) tests are done using said liquid in order to perform “structural optimization” of the fuel assembly.
Additionally, although Applicant claims ranges of the density and kinematic viscosity of fuel, Applicant does not specify either the type of fuel to be used, nor the range of temperatures at which the claimed ranges apply. Since it is known that density and kinematic viscosity of a liquid varies with temperature, this lack of information (alone, or in combination with the other above deficiencies as described by Examiner) renders the claim indefinite, as one of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised on how using this liquid with these properties (or not) would infringe upon the claimed invention.
Further regarding Claims 4-6, Claims 4-5 each contain limitations drawn to “the partition wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this item. Claim 6 depends upon Claim 5, and therefore suffers the same deficiencies.
Additionally, and in light of Applicant’s Specification and drawings, it appears that Applicant may intend for “the partition wall” of Claims 4-5 to be the same component as “a separating wall” of Claim 1. Examiner notes that both terms are designated as item 30 (see at least paras 50 and 57 of Applicant’s Specification). However, the terms should match in the claims in order to clarify the scope of the claimed invention. Correction is required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison (US 5,282,497), in views of Koukan (US 2013/0213364) and Benjey et al. (US 2005/0000590).
Regarding Claim 1, Examiner makes the following observations and interpretations of the claim’s limitations:
Claim 1 requires “calculating a gas flow rate from the fuel tank” from measurements of “gas flow Qc” and “gas flow Qr”. Claim 1 additionally requires “determining an air flow rate entering the fuel system through the top of the tubing” from the measurement of “gas flow Qc” and a “liquid flow rate Qp” that is set between 15 and 38 L/minute.
Per the Applicant’s disclosure (see at least Specification, paras 50-53 and Fig 1), Examiner interprets these limitations per the following annotated version of Applicant’s Fig 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
786
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here, it is clear that:
a) The claimed “gas flow rate from the fuel tank” is necessarily the sum of the flow from said tank (e.g., the aggregate of “gas flow Qc” and “gas flow Qr”.
b) The claimed “air flow rate entering the fuel system through the top of the tubing” is necessarily the difference between the flow entering the fuel system and the flow exiting the fuel system (e.g., the difference between the sum of Qa and Qp, minus Qc). Using simple algebra, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize the above formula is identical to that as claimed by Applicant.
In other words, the aforementioned claimed limitations would be inherent to any closed fuel system with an inlet and an outlet. These limitations follow basic, inherent, conservation of mass principles.
As mentioned above in the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it does not appear that the inclusion of these limitations serves any particular purpose, as these aforementioned measurements and calculations do not appear to be utilized in any structural optimization of a fuel system filling assembly.
Therefore, Examiner concludes that any fuel system that meets the structural requirements as shown in Applicant’s Fig 1 above would inherently have these aforementioned claimed properties, and the routine use of such a structure would inherently read upon Applicant’s claim.
Further regarding Claim 1, Allison discloses the structure of Applicant’s Claim 1, and therefore a method for structural optimization of a filling assembly of a fuel system,
said filling assembly comprising
- a filling gun comprising at least one catch and a gripping area (Applicant loosely defines the terms “catch” and “gripping area” at Specification para 24, stating that this limitation is satisfied if “the filling gun is inserted into the top of the tubing and held in a "normal filling” position as defined in ISO 13331”. Therefore, Applicant admits this “normal filling” limitation is known per at least ISO 13331).
- a top of the tubing (Allison discloses “cap-less restrictor assembly 18”, mounted on fill-pipe 14; see Fig 4 and Col 5, lines 4-24) comprising a separating wall (extending flange 87) comprising an insertion channel (nozzle opening 88) configured to receive the filling gun therein,
- said wall separating a first chamber located on the atmosphere side and a second chamber located on the tank side (see Fig 4, Examiner’s annotations),
- a fuel tank (Fig 1, tank 12),
- a fuel line (fill pipe 14) fluidically connecting the fuel tank to the top of the tubing (14),
- a first vent line (vapor line 32) fluidically connecting the tank (12) to a fuel vapor filtration device (charcoal canister 26. See Fig 1 and Col 3, lines 24-28),
- a second vent line (a nozzle signal conduit or line 24) fluidically connecting the fuel tank (12) to the top of the tubing (18. See Fig 1 and Col 5, lines 61-63, wherein line 24 connects to fill pipe 14, shown to be further connected to tubing 18),
said method for structural optimization of a filling assembly of a fuel system comprising the following steps:
- filling the fuel system using the filling assembly, with a liquid flow rate Q, of between 15 and 38 L/minute (Allison discloses liquid dispensed at a “standard nozzle pressure and flow rate” of “about 8 gal./min”, which is within Applicant’s claimed range. See Col 6, line 19),
- configuring an air inlet in the top of the tubing, said configuration being carried out according to the following steps:
- sealing the top of the tubing on the tank side (this would be normally accomplished when installing the fueling assembly into a vehicle),
- inserting the filling gun (nozzle “N”) into the top of the tubing through the insertion channel (see Fig 4), with at least one catch of the filling gun being inserted into the top of the tubing (known from ISO 13331) and held therein in a filling position (shown at Fig 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
702
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Further regarding Claim 1, Allison teaches the claimed invention, to include second vent line 24, but does not discuss the flow rate of air (or vapors) through the second vent line. Allison is therefore considered silent on “sucking air through the second vent line at a suction flow rate threshold value of between 10 and 40 L/min”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 1,
Koukan, however, teaches that recirculation flow rates through the second vent line is known, and “Generally, refuelling volumetric flows fluctuate approximately between 15 L/min and 40 L/min.” Please see paras 5, 23, 39, and 40. See also Fig 1, wherein second vent line (“recirculation line 8”) is taught.
Examiner notes that the Koukan reference additionally teaches “a reducing member 9… In order to ensure that…equilibrium is present in all possible refuelling volumetric flows (that) may vary from approximately 15 L/min up to approximately 40 L/min…”. See paras 39, 41, and Figs 4-5.
The Allison and Koukan references both teach fueling systems with vapor recirculation lines specifically designed to limit fuel vapors from re-entering the atmosphere. The Koukan reference not only teaches the general standard of the art of flow rates between 15 L/min and 40 L/min, but additionally teaches additional structure to ensure that these standard conditions are met. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to at least ensure that the cross-sectional area of the second vent line 24 as disclosed by Allison either a) had the appropriate cross section, or b) optionally utilized the reducing member 9 as taught by Koukan, in order to meet a standardized flow rate of 15-40 L/min as also taught by Koukan.
Further regarding Claim 1, Allison as modified above teaches the claimed invention, to include tubing (Allison, 18), and an air inlet connecting the top of the tubing to the atmosphere (Allison, Fig 4, Examiner’s annotations). However, neither Allison nor Koukan discuss the pressure within the fuel system to any detail, and so are silent on “measuring the pressure within the top of the tubing, configuring an air inlet connecting the top of the tubing to the atmosphere so as to obtain a pressure drop of between 1 and 100 mbar between the second chamber on the tank side and the atmosphere, said configuration being made in the top of the tubing at the gun”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 1.
Benjey et al., however, teaches that, for fuel vapor recirculation systems, it is known to the prior art to “accommodate(e) the reduced pressure in the region surrounding the liquid discharge from the dispensing nozzle during refueling”, by providing a “mechanical seal… about the nozzle upon insertion in the filler tube for preventing fuel vapors escaping to the atmosphere during refueling”.
PNG
media_image5.png
476
616
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Benjey reference additionally teaches that it is known in the prior art that, within the majority of vehicle service regions “nozzles are set to shut off when a vacuum of about 1.75 to 2.5 kPa is reached in the filler tube. The normal vacuum during fuel discharge is about 0.5 kPa and requires about six liters per minute of recirculation vapor flow to maintain the vacuum at this level.” See at least paras 3 and 15.
Examiner notes that the disclosed range of pressure drop (1.75 to 2.5 kPa) for prior art nozzles in the Benjey reference is within the 1 to 100mbar range claimed by Applicant. Benjey et al. additionally teaches (see Fig 1 and paras 7-8) a gun (“filling nozzle 20”), tubing (“cup 16”), and an air inlet connecting the top of the tubing to the atmosphere (Fig 1, Examiner’s annotations), and nozzle seal 18, which separates said “air inlet” with “second chamber on the tank side” (see Fig 1, Examiner’s annotations).
Per para 15, the Benjey reference additionally teaches “a typical nozzle 20 having a vacuum shutoff mechanism therein (not shown), activated by vacuum within the region of cup 16 below the seal 18 acting through a port 76 provided in the nozzle.” Examiner interprets this vacuum shutoff mechanism as necessarily having the capability of “measuring the pressure within the top of the tubing”, as claimed by Applicant and supported at para 56 of Applicant’s Specification.
Therefore, the Benjey reference teaches:
- measuring the pressure within the top of the tubing (per para 15),
- configuring an air inlet (Fig 1, Examiner’s annotations) connecting the top of the tubing (16) to the atmosphere so as to obtain a pressure drop of between 1 and 100 mbar between the second chamber on the tank side and the atmosphere (this range is standard per paras 3 and 15),
- said configuration being made in the top of the tubing at the gun (shown at Fig 1).
The Allison, Koukan, and Benjey references each teach fueling systems with vapor recirculation lines specifically designed to limit fuel vapors from re-entering the atmosphere. The Benjey reference additionally teaches standard practices (i.e. vacuum activated shutoff mechanisms within the filling dispenser) to further limit vapor escape due to the necessary pressure drop that occurs within a standard vapor recirculation design. It would have been obvious to ensure that the dimensions of the fuel assembly as disclosed by Allison did indeed produce a standard pressure differential (“drop”) within the standard nozzle design range of 1.75 to 2.5 kPa (and therefore between 1 and 100 mbar) as taught by Benjey in order to fit within standard nozzle design and in the interests of further limiting vapor escape into the atmosphere.
Further regarding Claim 1, per Examiner’s rationale and interpretation above, and in light of the rejection of Claim 1 above under 35 USC 112(b), Examiner concludes that Allison, as modified above, additionally teaches:
- measuring a gas flow, Qc, at the outlet of the fuel vapor filtration device,
- measuring a gas flow to the top of the tubing, Qr, within the second vent line fluidically connecting the fuel tank to the top of the tubing,
- calculating a gas flow rate from the fuel tank, Qd, using the relationship (I)
PNG
media_image1.png
32
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- determining an air flow rate entering the fuel system through the top of the tubing, Qa, using the relationship (II):
PNG
media_image2.png
38
156
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, the claim is drawn to the sizing at least one passage section of the second vent line (designated as item 8 in Applicant’s Fig 1) such that the air flow rate Qa (designated as item 14 in Applicant’s Fig 1) satisfies the range: 0 < Qa< 0.2 Qp.
Examiner additionally notes that, as written, antecedent Claim 1 merely defines Qa as “an air flow rate entering the fuel system through the top of the tubing”, and claims “…a top of the tubing comprising a separating wall comprising an insertion channel configured to receive the filling gun therein…”. As shown above in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103, the apparatus of Allison reads upon this limitation (see Fig 4, Examiner’s annotations)
In addition to the rejection of Claim 2 above under 35 USC 112(b), Examiner further notes that this claimed range includes an air flow rate Qa of anything above zero. Examiner notes that an apparatus with an air flow rate Qa = 0 would require an absolute tight seal around the filling nozzle 10; as best understood by Examiner, zero airflow could only be practically achieved by welding the filling nozzle to the fuel system, or providing similar permanent bonding to eliminate airflow. Therefore, Examiner concludes that an air flow rate Qa > 0 would be achieved by any fueling assembly wherein a nozzle is removably inserted into a filler pipe, such as the apparatuses of Allison, Koukan, and Benjey et al.
Therefore, Allison as modified above, teaches a method for structural optimization of a filling assembly of a fuel system, such that it comprises a step of modifying at least one passage section of the second vent line fluidically connecting the tank to the top of the tubing so as to obtain a value of Qa such that: 0 < Qa< 0.2 Qp (see at least Allison, Fig 4, Examiner’s annotations).
Regarding Claim 3, please see Examiner’s rejection of Claim 3 under 35 USC 112(b) above. Examiner reserves comment on the patentability of this claim; the claim cannot be evaluated without further guidance on a) the type of fuel Applicant intends for the scope of this claim to cover, and/or b) an example of the liquid Applicant considers as meeting this limitation.
Regarding Claim 4, Allison, as modified above, teaches a method for structural optimization of a filling assembly of a fuel system, such that the step of providing an air inlet (Allison, Fig 4, via nozzle opening 88) in the top of the tubing comprises a step of cutting a through-hole in the top of the tubing within the partition wall (87). As shown in Allison, Fig 4, achieving nozzle opening 88 would necessarily involve “cutting a through-hole” and creating both items 87 and 88.
Regarding Claim 5, Allison, as modified above, teaches a method for structural optimization of a filling assembly of a fuel system, such that the step of cutting a through-hole in the top of the tubing within the partition wall is carried out in the region of the insertion channel of the filling gun (see Allison, Fig 4, and Examiner’s comments above in the rejection of Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 9, the claim requires the step of “optimizing the position of the inlet of the second vent line in the top of the tubing”, but does place any limitations on how this step is accomplished, nor what is being “optimized” by changing the position of the claimed inlet.
Although Allison et al, as cited in the rejections above for the apparatus and method of a filling assembly of a fuel system do not explicitly mention “optimizing”, Examiner notes that the act of moving the position of the inlet of the second vent line in the top of the tubing would not change the operation of the apparatus. Examiner additionally notes the following from MPEP 2114.05: “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Although the present argument regards the position of an inlet (and not temperature), Examiner applies the same reasoning, noting that Applicant has not established any criticality in the disclosure concerning the placement of the claimed inlet.
In the present case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to “optimize” the structure of the fuel filling assembly as described by Allison et al. above through routine experimentation (to include positioning/sizing of all fluid flow points), with the obvious goal of achieving the best performance possible. Examiner concludes that the modified teachings of Allison et al. as present above read upon the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Allison, as modified above, teaches a structure of a filling assembly of a fuel system obtained by the optimization method according to claim 1 (see the structure described above in the rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Allison, as modified above, teaches a filling assembly for a fuel system comprising the structure of claim 10 (see the structure described above in the rejection of Claim 1).
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison as modified by Koukan and Benjey et al., and in further view of Hagano et al. (US 2013/0193140).
Regarding Claim 7, Allision as modified above teaches the claimed invention, to include an air inlet and an insertion channel of the gun (see the rejection of Claim 1 above and Allison, Fig 4).
The above combined references, however, are silent on a “step of providing an air inlet compris(ing) installing means for reducing a section of the insertion channel of the gun, said reducing means comprising a deformable body”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 7.
Hagano et al., however, teaches a step of providing an air inlet compris(ing) installing means for reducing a section of the insertion channel of the gun, said reducing means comprising a deformable body, via “introductory push parts 53B”, per para 71 and Figs 16-17.
PNG
media_image6.png
794
740
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Allison and Hagano references each teach a method of constructing a fuel filling assembly. The Hagaon reference additionally teaches a fuel tank opening-closing member, with a nozzle detection feature to provide locking/unlocking the nozzle in place, thereby preventing fuel spillage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Hagano, para 17 and Figs 16-17 (to include nozzle detection mechanism 50B of the opening-closing activation mechanism 40B and introductory push parts 53B) to the modified tubing of Allison, in order to ultimately gain the advantages of fuel spill prevention.
Regarding Claim 8, Allison, as modified above, teaches a method for structural optimization of a filling assembly of a fuel system, such that the deformable body is selected from the group consisting of:
- a brush comprising a ring whose bristles are directed towards the center of the ring and
a ring comprising a system of trapezoidal-shaped flaps (Hagano et al., introductory push parts 53B, explicitly taught as “trapezoidal” at para 71) directed towards the center of the ring (shown at least at Hagano et al., Fig 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner reserves final comment on patentability of the claims, pending resolution of the rejections under USC 35 112(b) above, and with the following additional comments.
Applicant’s disclosure (see Examiner’s annotations of Applicant’s Fig 1, as well as Fig 2 and paras 56-58) appear to describe method steps that are either not included in the claims, or not expressed in the claims in a manner that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Specifically, Applicant discloses two discrete, separate inlets into fuel line 5: an insertion channel 300 for filling gun 10, and a separate air inlet 301. Both inlets are located “at the top of tubing 3”. Examiner notes that per Fig 1, the flow of air through inlet 301 would be parallel with the flow of fuel through fuel gun 10 inserted through inlet 300.
Applicant additionally discloses providing suction through vent line 8 in the direction of arrow 17, towards fuel canister 7 and valve 15 of tank 4.
However, the claims, as written, do not specifically limit the method with these details. Instead, Claim 1 merely requires “a separating wall comprising an insertion channel configured to receive the filling gun therein, said wall separating a first chamber located on the atmosphere side and a second chamber located on the tank side”, which when broadly interpreted, describes a standard vapor recirculation system (such as taught by Allison et al.). In other words, the claims as written (with the possible exception of Claim 6) do not appear to require separate inlets as disclosed.
Similarly, Claim 1 merely requires “sucking air through the second vent line at a suction flow rate threshold value of between 10 and 40 L/min”, but does not specify a direction. Therefore, a broad interpretation of this Claim 1 limitation also describes standard gasoline pump flow rates, as also shown above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 6 claims “a step of cutting a through-hole in the top of the tubing”, but does not state what (may) appear to be Applicant’s intended result: establishing an air flow path that is parallel to the path of fuel flowing through fuel gun 10 when inserted into inlet 300. Examiner notes that, as written, the act of “cutting a through-hole in the top of the tubing” could be interpreted as constructing a through-hole for the insertion of the fuel gun.
Examiner finds that these disclosed, yet not claimed concepts (e.g., separate fuel gun and air inlets with parallel fuel and air flow paths, and providing suction away from the air inlet) appear to be novel over the prior art. However, Examiner further notes that Applicant’s disclosure fails to teach a) how to provide suction away from the air inlet, b) what aspects of a fuel system are “optimized” by performing these actions, and or c) what novel and/or unexpected results, if any, are achieved by performing these actions.
Because of these issues and the ones previously discussed in the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant has not established that the invention (as claimed in the present claim set) is indeed novel over the prior art. Correction/amendment is encouraged, but it is unclear if sufficient detail can be added to the application without introducing new matter; further examination would be required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3753