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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 7/1/2026. Claims 18 and 20-33 are pending in the application. Claims 1-17 and 19 are cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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 18 and 20-33 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the latch element in the unlatched state of the container being displaceable radially of the axis into the latch recess so that it can be moved between an unlatched position disengaged from the seat into a latched position fitting complementarily into the seat”. The latch element in the unlatched state was not previously recited in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the unlatched state of the container" in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The latch element in the unlatched state, was not previously recited in the claim. Claims 20-33 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 18.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the complementary seats" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “complementary seats” are no longer recited in the claim (claim 18), from which this claim depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 18, 20-22, 25 and 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniels, Jr. US 5,274,682 in view of Leary et al. US 10,894,643 B2 and NPL Video “Wedge Mechanism 26”, all previously cited.
PNG
media_image1.png
473
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
425
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 18, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses a container 116 for holding radioactive waste materials comprising: a container side wall 118 generally centered on an upright axis and having an upper edge formed with a seat; a floor 119 downwardly closing the side wall; a cover 161 having an upper face formed at an outer edge of the cover with a latch recess (where 181 is inserted), complementary to the seat; and a latch element 174 (Fig. 7B) fittable in the latch recess and having a projection 178 that extends toward the side wall and that engages in the seat 163 of the side wall in a latched state of the cover, the seat formed in the upper edge of the side wall and being constituted as a form fitting aperture extending through the side wall.
McDaniels, Jr. discloses the latch mechanism having a latch element fittable in the latch recess complementary to the seat as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the latch element in the unlatched state of the container being displaceable radially of the axis into the latch recess so that it can be moved between an unlatched position disengaged from the seat into a latched position fitting complementarily into the seat.
However, Leary teaches a container with a lid having the latch element 21ab in the unlatched state of the container being displaceable radially of the axis into the latch recess so that it can be moved between an unlatched position disengaged from the seat 26ab into a latched position fitting complementarily into the seat. (Col 4:21-26) While Leary teaches said features, in its drawings, Leary doesn’t explicitly disclose the mechanism used to achieve such movement. NPL Video “Wedge Mechanism 26”, teaches the use of simple wedge mechanism allowing to move elements in the corresponding radial direction. Specifically, a screw goes through a bore allowing the piece to move in a direction equivalent to the claimed radial direction (see annotated figure, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
799
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pursuant MPEP 2143-I-B, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results may support a conclusion of obviousness. Thus, a person skilled in the art could have substituted the latch elements and mechanism of McDaniels, for another mechanism such as those in the combined teachings Leary and the NPL video, since these would yield the predictable results of locking the lid. Thus, as modified McDaniels would have “the latch element in the unlatched state of the container being displaceable radially of the axis into the latch recess so that it can be moved between an unlatched position disengaged from the seat into a latched position fitting complementarily into the seat”, as claimed. Moreover, regarding claim 28, as modified McDaniels, Jr. would have the latch element being formed with a locating bore for a screw fastener screwed into the locating bore (see annotated drawing from the NPL Video; and also screws 181 of McDaniels, Jr.) in a completely closed state of the container, and the bore and/or the fastener engages axially through the latch element.
With regards to claim 20, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses at least two of the latch recesses are provided distributed angularly around the outer edge of the upper face of the cover and in each of a respective latch element 174 can fit but it does not specifically disclose the recess is on the outer edge of the upper face of the cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the recess on the outer edge of the upper face of the cover, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. 2144.04 (VI-C)
With regards to claim 21, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses the side wall 118 comprises at least two of the complementary seats 163 that are distributed angularly around the upper edge of the side wall.
With regards to claim 22, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses the form fitting projection 178 is formed integrally on the latch element 174 and projects radially outward of the axis from the latch element. (Projection 178 is integral to structure 176).
With regards to claim 25, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses a main seal 167 between the side wall 118 and the cover 161, around the inner face of the side wall, and across the axis of the container radially of the container beneath the latch element 174.
With regards to claim 27, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses a fixing element 181 in the latch recess that holds the latch element 174 in its form fitting position in the completely closed state of the container and mounted in a complementary and snug fit between the latch element and a stop shoulder of the latch recess.
With regards to claim 29, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses a supporting foot 179 at a lower end of the fixing element 181 and engageable with a floor of the latch recess, the supporting foot in the completely closed state of the container being braced between the fixing element and the floor of the latch recess.
With regards to claim 30, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses the cover 161 in the completely closed state of the container 116 is connected to the side wall 118 free from weld joints.
With regards to claim 31, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses the claimed invention as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a ratio of a diameter of the container to a wall thickness of the side wall amounts to at least 20:1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a ratio of a diameter of the container to a wall thickness of the side wall amounts to at least 20:1, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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. Please note that in the instant application, page 17, lines 23-28, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With regards to claim 32, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses a support basket for holding spent fuel elements on the floor inside the side wall that is cylindrically tubular. (Col 10:1-39)
Claim(s) 23 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniels, Jr. US 5,274,682 in view of Leary et al. US 10,894,643 B2 and NPL Video “Wedge Mechanism 26” and further in view of Pennington US 2006/0188054 A1, all previously cited.
With regards to claim 23, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses the claimed invention (latch recess) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the latch recess opens upward on the upper face of the cover at the cover outer edge and is radially outwardly open along its entire vertical height.
PNG
media_image4.png
456
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Pennington teaches it was known in the art to have a container 100 for holding radioactive waste materials that includes a latch recess 130 opens upward on the upper face of the cover 116 at the cover outer edge and is radially (surrounding the container axis) outwardly open along its entire vertical height. (Para. 0037)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch recess in McDaniels, Jr. by having the latch recess open upward on the upper face of the cover at the cover outer edge and is radially outwardly open along its entire vertical height as taught by Pennington for the purposes of providing an alternative shape to the recess and providing a radially engagement between the lid and container.
With regards to claim 33, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses the claimed invention (latch recess) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a secondary cover over the primary cover.
However, Pennington discloses a secondary cover 120 over the primary cover 116. (Para. 0041)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container in McDaniels, Jr. by having disclosed a secondary cover over the primary cover as taught by Pennington for the purposes of providing additional sealing to the container.
Claim(s) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniels, Jr. US 5,274,682 in view of Leary et al. US 10,894,643 B2 and NPL Video “Wedge Mechanism 26” and further in view of Singh US 10,410,756 B2, all previously cited.
With regards to claim 24, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses the form fitting projection 178 in the latched state of the cover 161, although it appears to, it does not explicitly disclose the projection does not project in the latched state beyond a radial outer face of the side wall and is flush with the outer face of the side wall.
However, Singh teaches it was known in the art to have a radioactive waste container 100 have a fitting projection 150 in the latched state does not project in the latched state beyond a radial outer face of the side wall and is flush with the outer face of the side wall. (Col 12:38-59)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the projection in McDaniels, Jr. by providing a latched state beyond a radial outer face of the side wall and is flush with the outer face of the side wall as taught by Singh for the purposes of providing a stronger connection between the two structures and reduce gapping.
With regards to claim 26, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 24, the combination of McDaniels, Jr. and Singh further teaches the latch element (174; McDaniels, Jr.) in the latched state of the cover (161; McDaniels, Jr.) is flush (taught by Singh) at its side corresponding to the cover outer edge or the side wall with the cover outer edge and expediently interacts with and abuts against the inner face of the side wall (118; McDaniels, Jr.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues in part “…McDaniels does not disclose a locking recess in the edge region of the upper surface of the lid”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites the container side wall having an upper edge formed with a seat and a latch element fittable in the latch recess, complementary to the seat, McDaniels discloses a seat 163 and a recess (shown above) at an upper edge. The term “upper” is considered a broad recitation and the locking recess structures of McDaniels, Jr. are positioned at an upper edge with respect to the other elements. Therefore, McDaniels, Jr. meets the claimed limitations.
The Applicant argues the combination of McDaniels, Jr. in view of in view of Leary et al. US 10,894,643 B2 and NPL Video “Wedge Mechanism 26” does not disclose the locking element, when the container is in the unlocked state, is slidable radially of the container within the locking recess, so that it can be moved from an open position to a form-fit position and back again because McDaniels is a container for radioactive waste and Leary is a beverage container. The Applicant further states in part “A person skilled in the art starting from McDaniels would therefore not take Leary into account. However, even if one were to assume that a person skilled in the art seeking to improve a container for radioactive waste would look for a solution in the field of beverage containers, the reference to Leary would still not be relevant because FIG. 1 of Leary shows that locking elements (21a, 21b) of a closure device (18) on the lid (17) of the beverage container (10) are intended to engage in complementary openings (26a, 26b) in the container wall (11). These openings or form-fitting recesses do not, however, penetrate the container wall. Nor does a further consideration of the disclosure in the NPL video "Wedge Mechanism 26" change this.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference Leary and NPL Video “Wedge Mechanism 26” was simply cited to teach the function of the locking element in the locked and unlocked state, slidable radially of the container within the locking recess, not the lid completely. Additionally, McDaniels discloses the openings/recesses penetrate the container wall. Therefore, the claimed limitations are met.
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 JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
