Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/963,872

TAMPER RESISTANT PLUG

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 11, 2022
Examiner
SMITH, COURTNEY L
Art Unit
2835
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
S&C Electric Company
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1062 granted / 1244 resolved
+17.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1280
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1244 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-15, and 17-23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Wells 2013/0011215) in view of (Omundson 2020/0325855). Regarding Claim 1; Wells discloses a plug (as depicted by Fig. 13—as constituted by a tamper-resistant fastener-1), the plug comprising: a body portion (whereas a threaded portion constitutes a body portion—as set forth by para. 0125); and a top annular rim defining a central recess, a top annular rim having an internal surface facing the recess, the internal surface having a polygon-like shape with only rounded edges and defined by three lobe indentations between adjacent corners—claim 8 (whereas a head-2—as depicted by Fig.’s 10 and 13 of the fastener and comprises a top annular rim defining an interior surface facing a recess at 58, wherein 59 defines a polygon-like shape without straight edge and otherwise comprising rounded arc shapes defining three lobe indentations between adjacent corners—as depicted by Fig. 13). Except, Wells does not explicitly disclosing the plug for sealing a fill port in a tank. However, Omundson discloses a plug for sealing a fill port in a tank (whereas para. 0093 discloses a fastener-142—Fig.’s 11B-11C in sealable communication with a bore-161 of a pump cylinder-144 in which fuel is supplied, as further set forth by para. 0091) and thus will allow for a mating relationship with a corresponding tool, so as to achieve enhanced torquing while increasing the number torquing repetitions with less damage to sharp corners and extending the life the tank and the plug thereof; and further to provide a construction which is not readily accessible by a generic structure to deter theft, and thus it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Note: claim(s) 1 and 8 appears as distinct relative to all prior art by asserting: the top annular rim is recessed below an upper portion of the fill port, and the central recess is defined through atleast a center axis of a diameter of the top annular rim. Regarding Claim(s) 3 and 10; Wells discloses the already modified plug according to claim(s) 1 or 8, except explicitly wherein the recess has a diameter of about 0.850". However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diameter of the recess of about 0.850" so as to characterize a small diameter tamper-resistant structure so as to prevent removal with commonly available tools—as set forth by para. 0015, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding Claim(s) 4 and 11; Wells discloses the already modified plug according to claim(s) 1 or 8, the plug is a steel plug (as set forth by para. 0129). Except Wells does not explicitly disclose the tank is a steel tank. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify a pump cylinder as steel so as to function at desired pressure with reduced corrosion, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding Claim(s) 5-6 and 12-13; Wells discloses the already modified plug according to claim(s) 1 or 8 except, explicitly wherein the tank is part of a medium-voltage switchgear. However, the tank may be employed for a generator in an alternative energy system of a switchgear, and thus it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Regarding Claim(s) 7 and 14; Wells discloses the already modified plug according to claim(s) 1 or 8 wherein the body portion is threaded (as already set forth). Regarding Claim(s) 15 and 19; Wells discloses a plug (as depicted by Fig. 13—as constituted by a tamper-resistant fastener-1), the plug comprising: a body portion (whereas a threaded portion constitutes a body portion—as set forth by para. 0125); and a top annular rim defining a central recess, a top annular rim having an internal surface facing the recess, the internal surface having a polygon-like shape with only rounded edges and defined by three lobe indentations (whereas a head-2—as depicted by Fig.’s 10 and 13 of the fastener and comprises a top annular rim defining an interior surface facing a recess at 58, wherein 59 defines a polygon-like shape without straight edge and otherwise comprising rounded arc shapes defining three lobe indentations—as depicted by Fig. 13). Except, Wells does not explicitly disclose switchgear including a hermetically sealed tank having a fill port and the plug for sealing the fill port. However, Omundson discloses a plug for sealing a fill port in a hermetically sealed tank (whereas para. 0093 discloses a fastener-142—Fig.’s 11B-11C in sealable communication with a bore-161 of a pump cylinder-144 in which fuel is supplied, and where 144 is sealed with 16, as further set forth by para. 0091) and thus will allow for a mating relationship with a corresponding tool, so as to achieve enhanced torquing while increasing the number torquing repetitions with less damage to sharp corners and extending the life the tank and the plug thereof; and further to provide a construction which is not readily accessible by a generic structure to deter theft, and thus it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Going further, the tank may be employed for a generator in an alternative energy system of a medium voltage switchgear so as to generate power alone and/or in combination without reduced downtime and/or energy efficiency, and thus it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Note: claim 15 appears as distinct relative to all prior art by asserting: the top annular rim is recessed below an upper portion of the fill port, and the central recess is defined through atleast a center axis of a diameter of the top annular rim and/or where. Regarding Claim 17; Wells discloses the already modified switchgear according to claim 15 except explicitly wherein the recess has a diameter of about 0.850". However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the diameter of the recess of about 0.850" so as to characterize a small diameter tamper-resistant structure so as to prevent removal with commonly available tools—as set forth by para. 0015, 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 involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding Claim 18; Wells discloses the already modified switchgear according to claim 15 the plug is a steel plug (as set forth by para. 0129). Except Wells does not explicitly disclose the tank is a steel tank. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify a pump cylinder as steel so as to function at desired pressure with reduced corrosion, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Regarding Claim 20; Wells discloses the already modified switchgear according to claim 15 wherein the body portion is threaded (as already set forth). Regarding Claim 21-22; Wells discloses the already modified switchgear according to claim(s) 1 or 8, wherein the edges are configured to engage a corresponding, specially designed tool (whereas para. 0125 discloses a specific key as a standalone tool to tighten and untighten the fastener-1). Regarding Claim 23; Wells discloses the already modified switchgear according to claim 15, wherein the rounded edges are configured to engage a corresponding, specially designed tool (whereas para. 0125 discloses a specific key as a standalone tool to tighten and untighten the fastener-1). 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 COURTNEY SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9094. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5p. 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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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. /COURTNEY L SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 11, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 27, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 27, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 04, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604440
LOWER MODULE OF POWER ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604439
VEHICLE-MOUNTED POWER SUPPLY APPARATUS AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604442
POWER MODULE, PARTICULARLY FOR POWER ELECTRONICS OF A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598726
Control Module for a Vehicle With at Least an Electric Motor and a Transmission
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593423
FLOW-THROUGH FOLDING MEMBRANE ACCUMULATOR FOR LIQUID COOLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+11.7%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1244 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month