DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received on April 18, 2025 for application number 19/182,899. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 6, 2025 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe Mitsunori (JP H07279787 A), hereinafter “Watanabe”.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses an internal combustion engine (Overview section) comprising: an oil tank (paragraph 24); a carburetor (Fig. 1 (20)); and a fuel tank (Fig. 4 (40)) including an inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)), an outlet port (Fig. 1 (23, 25)) in fluid communication with the carburetor (Fig. 1 (20)), and a filler skirt (Fig. 4 (lower part of element 41)) extending from the inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)) into an internal volume defined by the fuel tank (Fig. 4 (40)), wherein the filler skirt (Fig. 4 (lower part of element 41)) extends into the internal volume a predefined distance to define a vapor lock volume (paragraphs 6-15), the fuel tank (Fig. 4 (40)) being movable between a first orientation and a second orientation that is rotationally offset from the first orientation by between about sixty degrees and about one hundred and twenty degrees (paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 37), and in the second orientation, a portion of the internal volume is oriented above the filler skirt (Fig. 5 (lower part of element 41)), and wherein the vapor lock volume is greater than or equal to the portion of the internal volume so that a maximum fuel level is below the inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)) when the fuel tank is in the second orientation (paragraphs 6-16, 30-32, 37).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the internal combustion engine of claim 1, wherein the fuel tank (Fig. 4 (40)) includes a floor (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)), a top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)), and a plurality of sidewalls extend between the floor (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)) and the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses the internal combustion engine of claim 2, wherein the inlet port (Fig. 2 (in the vicinity of element 42)) extends through the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses the internal combustion engine of claim 2, wherein the filler skirt (Fig. 2 (lower part of element 41)) extends in a direction away from the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)) and toward the floor (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe discloses the internal combustion engine of claim 1, further comprising a first oil drain port formed in the oil tank (paragraphs 24-29).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe discloses the internal combustion engine of claim 1, wherein the carburetor (Fig. 1 (20)) includes a fuel bowl that defines a fuel level and a vent opening arranged above the fuel level, so that fuel within the fuel bowl is prevented from leaking out through the vent opening when the fuel tank is in the second orientation (paragraphs 11-25).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe discloses the internal combustion engine of claim 1, wherein the first orientation is a horizontal orientation and the second orientation is a vertical orientation (Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe discloses a fuel tank (Fig. 2 (40)) for an internal combustion engine (Overview section), the fuel tank (Fig. 2 (40)) comprising: an inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)); an outlet port (Fig. 1 (23, 25)); a top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)); a bottom wall (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)); a plurality of sidewalls, each extending between the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)) and the bottom wall (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)), wherein the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)), the bottom wall (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)), and the plurality of sidewalls combine to define an internal volume (inside element 40); and a filler skirt (Fig. 4 (lower part of element 41)) extending from the inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)) into the internal volume (inside element 40), wherein the filler skirt (Fig. 4 (lower part of element 41)) extends into the internal volume (inside element 40) a predefined distance to define a vapor lock volume (paragraphs 6-15), the fuel tank (Fig. 2 (40)) being movable between a first orientation and a second orientation that is rotationally offset from the first orientation by between about sixty degrees and about one hundred and twenty degrees (paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 37), and in the second orientation, a portion of the internal volume is oriented above the filler skirt (Fig. 5 (lower part of element 41)), and wherein the vapor lock volume is greater than or equal to the portion of the internal volume so that a maximum fuel level is below the inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)) when the fuel tank is in the second orientation (paragraphs 6-16, 30-32, 37).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe discloses the fuel tank of claim 12, wherein the filler skirt (Fig. 2 (lower part of element 41)) extends in a direction away from the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)) and toward the bottom wall (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe discloses the fuel tank of claim 12, wherein the inlet port (Fig. 2 (in the vicinity of element 42)) extends through the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)).
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 of this title, 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 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe Mitsunori (JP H07279787 A), hereinafter “Watanabe”, in view of J.R. Gretzinger (US Patent No. 2,933,192), hereinafter “Gretzinger”.
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses the internal combustion engine of claim 5.
Watanabe fails to disclose that the first oil drain port is configured to be releasably connected to an oil cartridge with the oil cartridge.
However, Gretzinger discloses a first oil drain port (Gretzinger (59)) that is configured to be releasably connected to an oil cartridge with the oil cartridge (Gretzinger (Fig. 1 (57))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Watanabe by incorporating the teachings of Gretzinger because oil cartridges are old and well known in the art of filtering engine oil.
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Watanabe discloses the internal combustion engine of claim 5, wherein the first oil drain port (Gretzinger (59)) is formed in a first wall of the oil tank (paragraphs 24-30), wherein the first wall forms a bottom wall when the fuel tank is in the first orientation (Fig. 2 (40)).
Regarding claim 9, the modified invention of Watanabe discloses the internal combustion engine of claim 8, further comprising a second oil drain port formed in a second wall of the oil tank, wherein the second wall forms the bottom wall when the fuel tank is in the second orientation (paragraphs 28, 35, 37).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartz et al. (US Patent No. 5,261,215), hereinafter “Hartz”, in view of Watanabe Mitsunori (JP H07279787 A), hereinafter “Watanabe”.
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe discloses a lawn mower (Abstract), comprising: a cutting blade (col. 1, lines 35-37).
Hartz does not explicitly disclose an internal combustion engine including: an oil tank; a carburetor; and a fuel tank including an inlet port, an outlet port in fluid communication with the carburetor, and a filler skirt extending from the inlet port into an internal volume defined by the fuel tank, wherein the filler skirt extends into the internal volume a predefined distance to define a vapor lock volume, the fuel tank being movable between a first orientation and a second orientation that is rotationally offset from the first orientation by between about sixty degrees and about one hundred and twenty degrees, and in the second orientation, a portion of the internal volume is oriented above the filler skirt, and wherein the vapor lock volume is greater than or equal to the portion of the internal volume so that a maximum fuel level is below the inlet port when the fuel tank is in the second orientation.
However, Watanabe discloses an internal combustion engine (Overview section) including: an oil tank (paragraph 24); a carburetor (Fig. 1 (20)); and a fuel tank (Fig. 4 (40)) including an inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)), an outlet port (Fig. 1 (23, 25)) in fluid communication with the carburetor (Fig. 1 (20)), and a filler skirt (Fig. 4 (lower part of element 41)) extending from the inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)) into an internal volume defined by the fuel tank (Fig. 4 (40)), wherein the filler skirt (Fig. 4 (lower part of element 41)) extends into the internal volume a predefined distance to define a vapor lock volume (paragraphs 6-15), the fuel tank (Fig. 4 (40)) being movable between a first orientation and a second orientation that is rotationally offset from the first orientation by between about sixty degrees and about one hundred and twenty degrees (paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 37), and in the second orientation, a portion of the internal volume is oriented above the filler skirt (Fig. 5 (lower part of element 41)), and wherein the vapor lock volume is greater than or equal to the portion of the internal volume so that a maximum fuel level is below the inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)) when the fuel tank is in the second orientation (paragraphs 6-16, 30-32, 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Hartz by incorporating the teachings of Watanabe in order to avoid the spill of fuel when the lawn mower is in the vertical orientation.
Regarding claim 16, the modified invention of Watanabe discloses the lawn mower of claim 15, wherein the fuel tank (Fig. 2 (40)) includes a floor (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)), a top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)), and a plurality of sidewalls extend between the floor (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)) and the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)).
Regarding claim 17, the modified invention of Watanabe discloses the lawn mower of claim 16, wherein the inlet port (Fig. 4 (in the vicinity of element 42)) extends through the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)).
Regarding claim 18, the modified invention of Watanabe discloses the lawn mower of claim 17, wherein the filler skirt (Fig. 2 (lower part of element 41)) extends in a direction away from the top wall (Fig. 2 (top part of element 40)) and toward the floor (Fig. 2 (bottom part of element 40)).
Regarding claim 19, the modified invention of Watanabe discloses the lawn mower of claim 15, the oil tank includes a first oil drain port formed in the oil tank (paragraphs 24-29).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14 and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,603. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 15 and 20 are basically claims 1, 14 and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,603 with minor English language syntax differences. Further on, claims 1, 14 and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,603 anticipates claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 15 and 20 of the instant present application. Still further, please refer to the following table for the correspondence of claims between the present application and U.S. Patent No. 12,281,603:
Application (19/182,899)
Claims
Patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,281,603)
Claims
1, 6, 7, 12
1
15
14
20
34
Therefore, claims 1, 14 and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,603 anticipate claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 15 and 20 of the instant present application separately alone or altogether.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-5923. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru 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, Lindsay Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights