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 .
Response to Arguments
All drawing objections have been overcome.
All previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been overcome.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2025 (proper amendments 12/29/2025) in response to Office Action 2/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues it is not obvious to modify a “device similar to” primary prior art Mohrhoff with the second collar “such as” secondary prior art Connors (page 6, para 3). Examiner points out this is not an argument toward Mohrhoff, so there is nothing to respond to. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that a ‘logic leap’ is missing between adding the second collar of Connors to the first collar of Mohrhoff so the combination is hindsight (page 6, para 4). Examiner points out Connors has a first and second collar thereby covering the logic leap. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues set-screws (page 7, para 2). Examiner points out the option “split-clamp collar” was chosen instead of set-screws at b) to be the first means that gets covered by the second collar at d).
Applicant argues that a thief could access set-screws in the combination of prior art – namely by replacing the rivets of Mohrhoff with set-screws – which would destroy Mohrhoff’s primary function of being substantially non-removable (page 7 para 3 & page 8 para 3). Examiner points out the option “split-clamp collar” was chosen instead of set-screws at b) to be the first means that gets covered by the second collar at d).
Examiner notes this argument is for claims 9-10 and 26-27 “screws” limitations (see below for further discussion). Examiner also submits for Applicant’s future consideration a well-known screw head type called “spanner” that prevents unauthorized access.
Applicant argues that the instant application is “more secure” than Mohrhoff’s rivets (page 8, para 1). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a function) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Also the argument is merely intended use.
Applicant argues that Mohrhoff is not adjustable (page 8, para 4). Examiner points to the detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that “inventive faculty” is required therefore the combination is improper (pages 9-10). Examiner points out that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. MPEP 2141.03 I.
Applicant argues that there is no reason to combine and argues unclaimed things (page 11). Examiner points to the detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes Mohrhoff’s citation because rivets are not “non-permanent” for installation, adjustment or removal (page 15, para last). In other words, since the rivets are more permanent, the amendment overcomes. However, the claim is for adjustment of the first collar not the rivets. Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below. If Applicant wishes to have the screws in the claim, examiner recommends doing so non-optionally as it is currently optional for claim 1, and examiner notes that functional limitations (non-permanent adjustment) rarely force structural limitations (screws versus rivets). Examiner further notes claims 9-10 and 26-27 are rejected with screws replacing the rivets.
Applicant argues that “a pressure vent” central in the cap as amended would “likely” necessarily be blocked from operating to release overpressure from the tank since the lock shackle is disclosed as “directly above” the cap (page 17, paras last two). Examiner agrees with “likely” since there is no evidence to support actual blocking because the claimed pressure vent has no definite structure, meaning a wide variety of vents qualify. Applicant has not disclosed any structure for the pressure vent to release pressure, therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation such a vent includes pressure vents that could operate while blocked or just not be blocked; for example a side opening in a cap-central body of a vent could circumvent the lock shackle.
Applicant argues that in c1) the lock shackle position is not taught (page 17, para last to page 18 & page 31, para last to page 32). Examiner points to the detailed analysis in the rejection below.
Applicant summarily states, as the crux of argumentation, that Connors first collar 12 is not attached to the filler neck 48 so Connors first collar is not analogous to Mohrhoff’s therefore Connors is unusable (page 21, para Summary). Examiner points out the collar 12 is attached to 48 in Figure 3 (via adjustment ring 44).
Applicant argues similarly (page 29 end 1b to page 30 & page 31 paras 1-2).
Applicant argues that the lock shackle is in the second plane not the third (page 30, para last). Examiner disagrees. The lock shackle is in the first and third planes as claimed. So being in the second plane or not is irrelevant.
Applicant argues that Mohrhoff’s lock shackle’s third plane angle would not be obvious to optimize to the claimed range (page 32, para last to page 34). Examiner points out that Mohrhoff has an angle to begin with, and points to the analysis in the rejection below for more detail.
Applicant argues that Connors stabilizing means (page 6, para 3). Examiner
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Applicant argues “removably attached” and “removably secured” (pages 27-28 & 36-38). Examiner points out neither phrase is claimed. The claim is “removable and adjustable along the tank… nipple”.
Applicant argues that Mohrhoff does not have a second collar (page 29, para Dual & 38). Examiner agrees, which is why Connors teaches it, so the argument is piecemeal.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 26-27, Applicant argues that replacing Mohrhoff’s rivets with screws, while useful for the user to install (as examiner reasoned), would necessarily defeat the purpose of Mohrhoff’s first collar of being substantially non-removable (page 10 para 3 & page 12 para 2 & page 41 para 1 through page 42). Examiner points out those two things are not mutually exclusive. Why could it not be adjustable on install, and once installed be substantially non-removable? To teach away, a reference must actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. Prior art does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed (MPEP 2145 X-D). A modification must denigrate the function of the base reference. In this case, Patterson/Fetzer screws does not actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed fastener. Further, the modification does not prevent Mohrhoff from performing its primary function of making “theft… more difficult” (col 2, lines 10-11). Examiner notes that the claimed (parent claim 1) adjustability and removability of the first collar of Mohrhoff during installation is not affected by its disclosure “After the lock is reattached to the shackle, the cap cannot be removed without breaking either the clamp or the lock or the standards” (col 2, lines 8-10), because installation of the collar is before assembling the lock.
Applicant argues that Mohrhoff discloses hand tools could be used after modifying Mohrhoff’s rivets into screws (page 16, paras last two). Examiner points out no mention of hand tools in Mohrhoff. Also see above MPEP 2145 X-D.
All this is applied similarly to an argument of secondary prior art Blackburn (page 43, second section).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant states that secondary prior art Bothe appears to do nothing (page 40). Examiner points out that the claim term “single” collar had to be dealt with by Bothe.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant again argues that the claimed “triple split” collar has criticality over the “additional and alternative” rejection (page 22, para last). Examiner disagrees, there is no explicit reason to choose triple over double since the Applicant discloses “double or triple”. In response to a statement (page 40), examiner notes that secondary prior art Wallskog precisely does what Applicant states, which is why it is relevant.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues second means for attachment (page 35, paras 1-3). However, stabilizing means is claimed and separate/distinct as a second means.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues screws would not be used by a POSITA for the hinge of Connors second collar/cover 16 (page 35). Examiner disagrees, fasteners are simply substituted as cited in the rejection analysis below. Examiner notes that Applicant’s purported criticality does not qualify.
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 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such a claim limitation is: “a stabilizing means for attaching” in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-12, 15-16, 19 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 25, last lines of a), the terms “easy” and “quick” are relative terms of degree. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since the scope is indeterminate, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 1, (last line of c) II)) and 4 (last line), the term “undesirable” is entirely subjective. Since the term is entirely dependent on a user’s indeterminate state of mind, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, the species “clamp screws” is unclear which genus of “setscrews” or “split-clamp pressure collar” (of parent claim 1) it is derived. Since the Applicant differentiates “clamp screw” from “setscrew” and a screw is not a clamp collar in itself, the “clamp screw” species is not clearly one of the genus. MPEP 2173.04. Also, the claim term “a split-clamping collar” is separately claimed outside the genus and no longer a “first means of attachment” (assuming “a split-clamping collar” is intended to be “the split-clamping pressure collar”) resulting in further lack of clarity, rendering the claim indefinite. Examiner interprets “…the first collar comprises a split-clamping collar and the first means for attachment is one or more clamp screws…” as “…the first collar comprises the split-clamping pressure collar and one or more clamp screws…”.
Claims 2-12, 15-16, 19 and 26-28 are also rejected for depending upon the rejected parent claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 11-12, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3979933 issued to Mohrhoff (hereinafter “Mohrhoff”) in view of US Pat 3615036 issued to Mross (hereinafter “Mross”) in view of US Pat 4613055 issued to Connors (hereinafter “Connors”).
Regarding claim 1, Mohrhoff teaches a removably attached dual collar tank cap blocking device (Fig 1, a blocking device 90 for cap 60 is removably attached to a dual collar 10 on tank tube 20) providing
a means for the attachment of a lockable blocking device lock (Fig 1, a lock of 90) and lock shackle (Fig 1, a shackle of 90) to block a tank fill-port cap from being removed from a tank fill-port tube nipple (90 blocks a cap 60 from being removed from a nipple of 20), the dual collar tank cap blocking device enabled to be used on a tank fill port nipple (the device 90 with 10 is capable of blocking the cap) wherein
the dual collar tank cap blocking device comprises:
a) a first collar to partially or fully surround the circumference of the tank fill-port tube nipple (Fig 2, a first collar 10 at least partially surrounds the circumference of tank tube 20), and the first collar being removable and adjustable along the tank fill port tube nipple (Fig 1, 10 is capable of being adjusted along 20 and removable/displaceable/transferrable along 20 i.e. from one location to another, redundantly meaning adjustable), installation, adjustment or removal of the first collar is non-permanent, easy and quick (adjustment is non-permanent, see “adjustable”; examiner notes Applicant narrows this limitation in claim 10 using set-screws);
b) the first collar comprising a first means for attachment comprising one or more set-screws, or a split-clamp pressure collar (examiner chooses “a split-clamp pressure collar”) to attach the first collar to the tank fill-port tube nipple (Figs 1-2, the collar 10 comprises a split-clamp pressure collar clamping the tank tube nipple of 20), resulting in a rigid condition of the first collar around the tank fill port tube nipple (10 is capable of being in a rigid condition/position);
c) the first collar comprising a second means for attachment enabling a secure and removable attachment of the first collar to the lock shackle (Fig 1, attachment bars 40 are capable of allowing 90 to removably securely attach to 10),
the first collar second means for attachment comprising two attachment bars, each attachment bar comprising a hole, the lock shackle passing through each hole (Fig 1, the attachment bars 40 each and individually have two holes capable of attaching 90), and wherein the lock shackle is;
I) positioned in a first plane, the first plane being perpendicular to a second plane, the second plane being a transverse plane that is parallel with the top surface of the fill port cap, the fill port cap resides in the first plane (Fig 1, 90 is positioned in a first plane, the first plane being perpendicular to a second plane, the second plane being a transverse plane that is parallel with the top surface of the fill port cap, the fill port cap resides in the first plane);
II) positioned in a third plane, the third plane being non-parallel when compared to the second plane,
the third plane having:
i) a distance of separation to the outer edge of the top surface of the fill port cap being less than
ii) a distance of separation to the center of the fill port cap (Fig 1, 90 is in a third plane being non-parallel relative to the second plane (i.e. 90 traverses tilted plane between 70 and 80, Fig 3), the third plane being positioned at a degree’s angle difference than the angle of the top surface of the fill port cap, wherein the third plane angle of the lock shackle defines
that a distance of separation from a portion of 90 at 80, Fig 3, to the outermost edge of the top surface of 60 is less than a distance of separation from a portion of 90 at 70 to the center of 60) the degrees angle difference between the second plane and the third plane being in the range of ten to twenty five degrees; or any other angle of degrees to allow the lock shackle to block the fill port cap from opening, but still allow the fill port cap pressure vent to release undesirable pressure from the tank (examiner chooses “any angle”; Figs 1 and 3, the third plane angle of 90 is capable of allowing a cap valve/pressure vent (that necessarily releases pressure from the tank) to operate while still blocking removal of the cap 60);
d) the lock shackle also preventing the removal of the fill port cap (shackle of 90 shown preventing removal of fill port cap).
But Mohrhoff does not explicitly teach a pressure vent in the port cap.
Mross, however, teaches the tank fill port cap comprises a pressure vent in the center of the tank fill port cap (a pressure vent is in a center of a fill cap; wherein claim 1, “filler cap for a fill neck having: a closed top, a body integral therewith and having an open end”, claim 3 “the body characterized by: means therein adjacent said open end… and a pressure vent opening generally behind the just said means passing transversely through said body”, meaning “a pressure vent” passes through a center of (transversely through, in other words at least non-peripherally) the tank fill port cap (filler cap))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tank fill port cap of Mohrhoff with a pressure vent as taught by Mross in order to advantageously equalize pressure within the tank to prevent or reduce mishaps otherwise caused by overpressure.
But Mohrhoff/Mross does not explicitly teach a second collar.
Connors, however, teaches a second collar (Fig 1, an enclosing device cover collar 16, of metal col 4, line 7) that covers and blocks the removal of a first collar first means for attachment to a tank fill-port tube nipple, and the second collar being secured in position by a lock shackle (Fig 4, 16, in a secure position by a lock and shackle 40, encloses a space around a cap 46 and blocks removal of 46 and a first collar 12 first attachment means rivets 38 to tank tube neck 48, Fig 3; wherein Fig 1, hinge means 20 necessarily comprises a rod).
The purpose of a second collar is to further protect the fuel cap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first collar of Mohrhoff with a second collar as taught by Connors in order to advantageously cover the first collar and fuel cap from the outside environment increasing their lifespan by reducing damage.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via adding the second collar of Connors to the first collar of Mohrhoff since Connors has a similar first collar, in a way that maintains hinging from the bottom of the second collar (Connors, Fig 3) and accommodates covering the lock and lock shackle. Furthermore this setup would have the lock shackle of Mohrhoff go through the opening 36 of the second collar of Connors, since Connors teaches a lock shackle securing the second collar through 36. And then the second collar of Connors covers above the selected split clamp collar (“first means for attachment”) of Mohrhoff.
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Mohrhoff as modified above does not expressly disclose the specific angular range or specific angular values claimed, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at between 10 and 25 degrees, recognizing that the shackle angle in the third plane across the cap is directly correlated to ease of cap removal and choice of shackle, which are desirable characteristics, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors further teaches a system comprising: a) the dual collar tank cap blocking device of claim 1 positioned around the fill port tube nipple and cap (Mohrhoff, the dual collar tank cap locking device of claim 1, shown positioned around (at least partially) the tank nipple and tank cap), and b) the lock and lock shackle positioned in the first collar second means for attachment (Mohrhoff, the lock and the lock shackle are in the second means for attachment (the holes)); c) the lock shackle securing the position of the second collar (Mohrhoff as modified by Connors, see summary statement in claim 1); and d) the lock and lock shackle locked together (Mohrhoff, the lock and lock shackle are shown locked together). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 3, Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors further teaches
the system of claim 2, wherein the lock shackle blocks the removal of the tank fill-port cap by restricting the opening motion of the tank fill-port cap (see claim 1, 90 blocks a cap 60 from being removed from a nipple of 20). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 4, Mohrhoff further teaches the degrees angle difference is in the range of ten to twenty five degrees or any other angle of degrees to allow the lock shackle to block the fill port can from opening, but still allow the fill port cap pressure vent to release undesirable pressure from the tank (Figs 1 and 3, the third plane angle of 90 is capable of allowing a cap pressure vent to operate while still blocking removal of the cap 60).
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that Mohrhoff as modified above does not expressly disclose the specific angular range or specific angular values claimed, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize and arrive at between 10 and 25 degrees, recognizing that the shackle angle in the third plane across the cap is directly correlated to ease of cap removal and choice of shackle, which are desirable characteristics, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors further teaches the second collar comprises a stabilizing means for attaching the second collar to the first collar providing a stabilized position of the second collar (Connors, Fig 1, hinge means 20 necessarily comprises a rod). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 12, Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors does not explicitly teach that the stabilizing means comprises screws.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Connors second collar, with evidence from contemplating screws as an alternative fastener (Connors, col 4, lines 36-37, “screws or the like fastening elements”), such that a rod fastening a hinge is a “screw” stabilizing means instead as it is no more than a simple substitution of one fastener for another that is known in the art for being a stabilizing means and would only produce predictable results of modularly allowing hinging and stabilizing the second collar. MPEP 2144.06 II. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Mohrhoff further teaches the lock and lock shackle is a padlock (Fig 1, Abstract, 90 is a padlock).
Regarding claim 16, Mohrhoff further teaches the lock and lock shackle is a pin and barrel lock (Fig 1, lock 90 is capable of being a pin and barrel type of lock).
Regarding claim 19, Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors further teaches the first collar and the second collar composition comprises a metal (Mohrhoff, col 1, line 23, 10 is metal; Connors, col 4, line 7, metal). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claims 5, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3979933 issued to Mohrhoff (hereinafter “Mohrhoff”) in view of US Pat 3615036 issued to Mross (hereinafter “Mross”) in view of US Pat 4613055 issued to Connors (hereinafter “Connors”) in further view of US Pat 3734342 issued to Patterson (hereinafter “Patterson”) as evidenced by US Pub 20020020619 by Fetzer (hereinafter “Fetzer”).
Regarding claim 5, Mohrhoff further teaches the first collar comprises a split-clamping collar and the first collar first means for attachment is one or more clamp providing pressure from the first collar to wall of the tank fill port tube nipple (Fig 2, rivets 50 clamp the split-clamping first collar 10 that pressures a wall of tank tube nipple of 20).
But Mohrhoff/Connors does not explicitly teach a screw type fastener for clamping.
Patterson, however, solves the same problem as Mohrhoff’s fastener by being a fastener that does not destroy Mohrhoff’s primary function "designed to prevent filler caps being removed from the tops of fuel tank filler pipes" (Mohrhoff, summary of the invention), when it teaches known threaded rivets (Patterson, col 2, line 32, “RIVNUTS” trademark) that have
screw heads (Fig 3, screw heads of screws 28 and 29) that perform clamping of elements (Fig 2, screws perform clamping, so they are clamp screws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first attachment means (i.e. removable secure rivet of Mohrhoff) for the clamp of Mohrhoff/Connors to be clamp screws as taught by Patterson, and
Fetzer evidences ([0040] “There are a number of other joining devices that will suffice to perform the function of the threaded bolt fasteners [e.g. screws] … and other known devices could act as a fastener to move the clamp segments into closed, sealing position.” Then discloses [0250] “set screws” (i.e. clamp screws) as a fastener) as a simple substitution of one fastener (i.e. screw for removable secure threaded rivet) for another (i.e. setscrew for removable secure threaded rivet) that is known in the art of fasteners for clamping and would only produce predictable results (MPEP 2144.06 II), wherein examiner notes that in the instant Application the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed invention,
in order to advantageously increase ease of assembly and remain secure against tampering.
Regarding claim 7, Mohrhoff further teaches the split-clamping collar is a double-split-clamping collar (Fig 1, 10 has two splits, left and right from viewer perspective).
Regarding claim 9, Mohrhoff further teaches the first collar is a continuous circumference collar (10) and the first means for attachment is one or more setscrews providing pressure from the set screws to the tank fill port tube nipple (Fig 2, rivets 50 are clamp screws for the split-clamping first collar 10 that pressure a wall of tank tube 20).
But Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors does not explicitly teach a setscrew type of fastener.
Patterson, however, solves the same problem as Mohrhoff’s fastener by being a fastener that does not destroy Mohrhoff’s primary function "designed to prevent filler caps being removed from the tops of fuel tank filler pipes" (Mohrhoff, summary of the invention), when it teaches known threaded rivets (Patterson, col 2, line 32, “RIVNUTS” trademark) that have
screw heads (Fig 3, screw heads of setscrews 28 and 29) that are a countersunk design head and the screws are countersunk in (Fig 3, holes 25 and 26 are countersunk for the heads (i.e. angled as shown)).
The purpose of a screw is to allow adjustability of the clamp to various imperfect cylinder sizes over using a rivet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first attachment means (i.e. removable secure rivet of Mohrhoff) for the clamp of Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors to be threaded and setscrews as taught by Patterson, and
Fetzer evidences ([0040] “There are a number of other joining devices that will suffice to perform the function of the threaded bolt fasteners [e.g. screws] … and other known devices could act as a fastener to move the clamp segments into closed, sealing position.” Then discloses [0250] “set screws” as a fastener) as a simple substitution of one fastener (i.e. screw for removable secure threaded rivet) for another (i.e. setscrew for removable secure threaded rivet) that is known in the art of fasteners for clamping and would only produce predictable results (MPEP 2144.06 II), wherein examiner notes that in the instant Application the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed invention (discloses “clamp screw(s)”, “setscrew(s)” and “stabilizing screws”),
in order to advantageously increase ease of assembly (over non-threaded rivets) and remain secure against tampering.
Regarding claim 10, Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors further teaches the setscrew heads are a countersunk design head and the setscrews are countersunk (Patterson/Fetzer) in the first collar (of Mohrhoff) when the tips are pressed against the tank fill-port tube nipple (Mohrhoff as modified by Patterson/Fetzer, the screw tips indirectly press against the nipple/pipe neck through the collar). See details in the parent claim 9 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3979933 issued to Mohrhoff (hereinafter “Mohrhoff”) in view of US Pat 3615036 issued to Mross (hereinafter “Mross”) in view of US Pat 4613055 issued to Connors (hereinafter “Connors”) in further view of US Pat 3734342 issued to Patterson (hereinafter “Patterson”) as evidenced by US Pub 20020020619 by Fetzer (hereinafter “Fetzer”) in further view of DE 102017004447 by Bothe et al. (hereinafter “Bothe”).
Regarding claim 6, Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors/Patterson/Fetzer does not explicitly teach that the split-clamping collar is a single-split-clamping collar.
Bothe, however, teaches a similar split-clamping collar that is a single-split-clamping collar (Fig 3).
The purpose of a single split is to better fit other imperfect cylinder sizes with varied caps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first collar of Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors to be single split as taught by Bothe in order to advantageously simplify design for increase ease of use and manufacture, and beneficially be easier to apply to different sized and shaped objects.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3979933 issued to Mohrhoff (hereinafter “Mohrhoff”) in view of US Pat 3615036 issued to Mross (hereinafter “Mross”) in view of US Pat 4613055 issued to Connors (hereinafter “Connors”) in further view of US Pat 3734342 issued to Patterson (hereinafter “Patterson”) as evidenced by US Pub 20020020619 by Fetzer (hereinafter “Fetzer”) in further view of WO 9106800 by Wallskog (hereinafter “Wallskog”).
Regarding claim 8, Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors/Patterson/Fetzer does not explicitly teach that the split-clamping collar is a triple-split-clamping collar.
Wallskog, however, teaches a similar clamp is a triple-split-clamping collar (Fig 4, page 9, lines 5-8, collar clamp ring 80 has more than two pieces (i.e. three) so is triple split).
The purpose of a triple split is to better fit other imperfect cylinder sizes with varied caps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first collar of Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors to be triple split as taught by Wallskog in order to advantageously simplify design for increase ease of use and manufacture, and beneficially be easier to apply to different sized and shaped objects.
Claim 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3979933 issued to Mohrhoff (hereinafter “Mohrhoff”) in view of US Pat 4613055 issued to Connors (hereinafter “Connors”).
Regarding claim 25, Mohrhoff teaches a removably attached dual collar tank cap blocking device (Fig 1, a blocking device 90 for cap 60 is removably attached to a dual collar 10 on tank tube 20) providing
a means for the attachment of a lock (Fig 1, a lock of 90) and lock shackle (Fig 1, a shackle of 90) to prevent a tank fill-port cap from being removed from a tank fill-port tube nipple (90 blocks a cap 60 from being removed from a nipple of 20),
the dual collar tank cap blocking device comprises:
a) a first collar to partially or fully surround the circumference of the tank fill-port tube nipple (Fig 2, a first collar 10 at least partially surrounds the circumference of tank tube 20), and the first collar being removable and adjustable along the tank fill port tube nipple (Fig 1, 10 is capable of being adjusted along 20 and removable/displaceable/transferrable along 20 i.e. from one location to another, redundantly meaning adjustable), installation, adjustment or removal of the first collar is non-permanent, easy and quick (adjustment is non-permanent, see “adjustable”; examiner notes Applicant narrows this limitation in claim 10 using set-screws);
b) the first collar comprising a first means for attachment comprising one or more set-screws, or a split-clamp pressure collar (examiner chooses “a split-clamp pressure collar”) to attach the first collar to the tank fill-port tube nipple (Figs 1-2, the collar 10 comprises a split-clamp pressure collar clamping (i.e. first means of attachment) to attach to the tank tube nipple of 20), resulting in a rigid condition of the first collar around the tank fill port tube nipple (10 is capable of being in a rigid condition/position);
c) the first collar comprising a second means for attachment enabling a secure and removable attachment of the first collar to the lock shackle (Fig 1, attachment bars 40 (i.e. second means for attachment) are capable of allowing 90 to removably securely attach to 10),
the first collar second means for attachment comprising two attachment bars, each attachment bar comprising a hole, the lock shackle passing through each hole (Fig 1, the attachment bars 40 each and individually have two holes capable of attaching 90), and wherein the lock shackle is;
I) positioned in a first plane, the first plane being perpendicular to a second plane, the second plane being a transverse plane that is parallel with the top surface of the fill port cap, the fill port cap resides in the first plane (Fig 1, 90 is positioned in a first plane, the first plane being perpendicular to a second plane, the second plane being a transverse plane that is parallel with the top surface of the fill port cap, the fill port cap resides in the first plane);
d) the lock shackle also preventing the removal of the fill port cap (shackle of 90 shown preventing removal of fill port cap).
But Mohrhoff does not explicitly teach a second collar.
Connors, however, teaches a second collar (Fig 1, an enclosing device cover collar 16, of metal col 4, line 7) that covers and blocks the removal of a first collar first means for attachment to a tank fill-port tube nipple, and the second collar being secured in position by a lock shackle (Fig 4, 16, in a secure position by a lock and shackle 40, encloses a space around a cap 46 and blocks removal of 46 and a first collar 12 first attachment means rivets 38 to tank tube neck 48, Fig 3; wherein Fig 1, hinge means 20 necessarily comprises a rod).
The purpose of a second collar is to further protect the fuel cap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first collar of Mohrhoff with a second collar as taught by Connors in order to advantageously cover the first collar and fuel cap from the outside environment increasing their lifespan by reducing damage.
Examiner notes the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via adding the second collar of Connors to the first collar of Mohrhoff since Connors has a similar first collar, in a way that maintains hinging from the bottom of the second collar (Fig 3) and accommodates covering the lock and lock shackle. Furthermore this setup would have the lock shackle of Mohrhoff go through the opening 36 of the second collar of Connors, since Connors teaches a lock shackle securing the second collar through 36. And then the second collar of Connors covers above the selected split clamp (“first means for attachment”) of Mohrhoff.
Regarding claim 28, Mohrhoff/Connors teaches a system comprising:
a) the dual collar tank cap blocking device of claim 25 positioned around the fill port tube nipple and cap (Mohrhoff, the dual collar tank cap locking device of claim 1, shown positioned around (at least partially) the tank nipple and tank cap), and b) the lock and lock shackle positioned in the first collar second means for attachment (Mohrhoff, the lock and the lock shackle are in the second means for attachment (the holes)); c) the lock shackle securing the position of the second collar (Mohrhoff as modified by Connors, see summary statement in claim 1); and d) the lock and lock shackle locked together (Mohrhoff, the lock and lock shackle are shown locked together). See details in the parent claim 25 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3979933 issued to Mohrhoff (hereinafter “Mohrhoff”) in view of US Pat 4613055 issued to Connors (hereinafter “Connors”) in further view of US Pat 3734342 issued to Patterson (hereinafter “Patterson”) as evidenced by US Pub 20020020619 by Fetzer (hereinafter “Fetzer”).
Regarding claim 26, Mohrhoff further teaches the first collar comprises a split-clamping collar and the first collar first means for attachment is one or more clamp providing pressure from the first collar to wall of the tank fill port nipple (Fig 2, rivets 50 clamp the split-clamping first collar 10 that pressures a wall of tank tube nipple of 20).
But Mohrhoff/Connors does not explicitly teach a screw type fastener for clamping.
Patterson, however, solves the same problem as Mohrhoff’s fastener by being a fastener that does not destroy Mohrhoff’s primary function "designed to prevent filler caps being removed from the tops of fuel tank filler pipes" (Mohrhoff, summary of the invention), when it teaches known threaded rivets (Patterson, col 2, line 32, “RIVNUTS” trademark) that have
screw heads (Fig 3, screw heads of screws 28 and 29) that perform clamping of elements (Fig 2, screws perform clamping, so they are clamp screws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first attachment means (i.e. removable secure rivet of Mohrhoff) for the clamp of Mohrhoff/Connors to be clamp screws as taught by Patterson, and
Fetzer evidences ([0040] “There are a number of other joining devices that will suffice to perform the function of the threaded bolt fasteners [e.g. screws] … and other known devices could act as a fastener to move the clamp segments into closed, sealing position.” Then discloses [0250] “set screws” (i.e. clamp screws) as a fastener) as a simple substitution of one fastener (i.e. screw for removable secure threaded rivet) for another (i.e. setscrew for removable secure threaded rivet) that is known in the art of fasteners for clamping and would only produce predictable results (MPEP 2144.06 II), wherein examiner notes that in the instant Application the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed invention,
in order to advantageously increase ease of assembly and remain secure against tampering.
Regarding claim 27, Mohrhoff/Connors further teaches the first collar is a continuous circumference collar (Mohrhoff, the first collar which is the split clamp collar is shown “continuous” in circumference; similar to Applicant’s multi-part split clamp first collar which has a seam) and the first means for attachment providing pressure to the tank fill port tube nipple (Mohrhoff, rivets necessarily apply pressure, the rivet indirectly press the nipple/pipe neck through the collar).
But Mohrhoff/Connors does not explicitly teach a specific type of fastener means.
Patterson, however, solves the same problem as Mohrhoff’s fastener by being a fastener that does not destroy Mohrhoff’s primary function "designed to prevent filler caps being removed from the tops of fuel tank filler pipes" (Mohrhoff, summary of the invention), when it teaches known threaded rivets (Patterson, col 2, line 32, “RIVNUTS” trademark) that have
screw heads (Fig 3, screw heads of screws 28 and 29) that are a countersunk design head and the screws are countersunk in (Fig 3, holes 25 and 26 are countersunk for the heads (i.e. angled as shown)).
The purpose of a screw is to allow adjustability of the clamp to various imperfect cylinder sizes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first attachment means (i.e. removable secure rivet of Mohrhoff) for the clamp of Mohrhoff/Connors to be threaded and setscrews as taught by Patterson, and
Fetzer evidences ([0040] “There are a number of other joining devices that will suffice to perform the function of the threaded bolt fasteners [e.g. screws] … and other known devices could act as a fastener to move the clamp segments into closed, sealing position.” Then discloses [0250] “set screws” as a fastener) as a simple substitution of one fastener (i.e. screw for removable secure threaded rivet) for another (i.e. setscrew for removable secure threaded rivet) that is known in the art of fasteners for clamping and would only produce predictable results (MPEP 2144.06 II), wherein examiner notes that in the instant Application the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed invention,
in order to advantageously increase ease of assembly and remain secure against tampering.
Therefore, every claim is fully obviated above. Claims 10 and 27 are alternatively rejected below to incorporate another possible interpretation for compact prosecution.
In the alternative, if claims 10 and 27 are found not obviated as above then:
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3979933 issued to Mohrhoff (hereinafter “Mohrhoff”) in view of US Pat 3615036 issued to Mross (hereinafter “Mross”) in view of US Pat 4613055 issued to Connors (hereinafter “Connors”) in further view of US Pat 3734342 issued to Patterson (hereinafter “Patterson”) as evidenced by US Pub 20020020619 by Fetzer (hereinafter “Fetzer”) in further view of US Pat 4093055 issued to Blackburn et al. (hereinafter “Blackburn”).
Regarding claim 10Mohrhoff/Mross/Connors/Patterson/Fetzer does not explicitly teach that the first means for attachment is a setscrew particularly pressuring the tank nipple/neck through the first collar.
Blackburn, however, being a similar clamp in that it solves the same problem of secure attachment to a hollow cylinder, teaches
the setscrew heads are a countersunk design head and the setscrews are countersunk in a first collar when the setscrew tips are pressed against the tube (Fig 2, setscrews 74 of a first pulley clamp device are shown countersunk a distance below the surface it entered, while pressing contacting a tube shaft).
The purpose of setscrews is to fixedly secure to hollow shafts (Blackburn, col 5, lines 9-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added to the clamp attachment means Mohrhoff/Connors with setscrews as taught by Blackburn in order to advantageously increase clamp securement to the hollow shaft while also beneficially increasing ease of application of the clamp to irregular surfaces versus an otherwise non-variable preformed clamp surface, while maintaining ideal force of clamping, and thereby the clamp is able to be more widely utilized.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3979933 issued to Mohrhoff (hereinafter “Mohrhoff”) in view of US Pat 4613055 issued to Connors (hereinafter “Connors”) in further view of US Pat 4093055 issued to Blackburn et al. (hereinafter “Blackburn”).
Regarding claim 27, Mohrhoff/Connors further teaches that the first collar is a continuous circumference collar (Mohrhoff, the first collar which is the split clamp collar is shown “continuous” in circumference; similar to Applicant’s multi-part split clamp first collar which has a seam),
But does not explicitly teach that the first means for attachment is a setscrew particularly pressuring the tank nipple/neck.
Blackburn, however, being a similar clamp in that it solves the same problem of secure attachment to a hollow cylinder, teaches
one or more setscrews providing pressure from the setscrews to the tube (Fig 2, setscrews 74 of a first pulley clamp device are shown countersunk a distance below the surface it entered, while pressing contacting a tube shaft).
The purpose of setscrews is to fixedly secure to hollow shafts (Blackburn, col 5, lines 9-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added to the clamp attachment means Mohrhoff/Connors with setscrews as taught by Blackburn in order to advantageously increase clamp securement to the hollow shaft while also beneficially increasing ease of application of the clamp to irregular surfaces versus an otherwise non-variable preformed clamp surface, while maintaining ideal force of clamping, and thereby the clamp is able to be more widely utilized.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733