CTNF 18/036,839 CTNF 84742 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 preliminary amendment filed on 6/9/2023. Claims 18-33 are pending in the application. Claims 1-17 are cancelled. Claims 18-33 are new. 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. 07-34-01 Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “expediently” in claims 26 and 28 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “expediently” is 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. For examination purposes the recitation “the cover outer edge and expediently interacts with and abuts” in claim 26 has been interpreted as - - the cover outer edge an expediently interacts with and abuts - -; “the fastener expediently engages axially” in claim 28 has been interpreted as - - the fastener expediently engages axially - -. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. PNG media_image1.png 473 348 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 425 262 media_image2.png Greyscale 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 18, 21, 22, 25, 27, 29-30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by McDaniels, Jr. US 5,274,682 . 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; 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); 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 a complementary seat 163 of the side wall in a latched state of the cover, the complementary seat being formed in the upper edge of the side wall and being constituted as a form fitting aperture extending through the side wall. 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 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 and 28 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” . With regards to claims 19 and 28, McDaniels, Jr. discloses the claimed invention (latch mechanism having a latch element and a complementary seat) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the latch element in the unlatched state of the container can be displaced 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. Leary teaches a container with a lid have a latch element 21ab in the unlatched state of the container can be displaced 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 elements in the unlatch state of the container can be displaced 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 20 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniels, Jr. US 5,274,682 . 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. 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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 Pennington US 2006/0188054 A1, cited in Applicant’s IDS . 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 discloses a secondary cover over the primary cover as taught by Pennington for the purposes of providing additional sealing to the container . 07-21-aia AIA 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 Singh US 10,410,756 B2 . 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.) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniels, Jr. US 5,274,682 in view of RICKER US 1,618730 . With regards to claim 28, McDaniels, Jr. (Fig. 7AB-8) discloses the latch element 174 is formed with a locating bore (176 that structure 177 extends through) but it does not specifically disclose it is for a screw fastener screwed into the locating bore in a completely closed state of the container, and the bore and/or the fastener expediently engages axially through the latch element. However, RICKER teaches that it was known in the art to have container and lid that includes a latch mechanism 14 that includes a locating bore 26 for a screw fastener 25 screwed into the locating bore in a completely closed state of the container, and the bore and/or the fastener expediently engages axially through the latch element. (Pg. 1:80-83 and 99-105). 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 the one taught by RICKER, since they would yield the predictable results of locking the lid. Thus, as modified McDaniels would have a locating bore for a screw fastener screwed into the locating bore in a completely closed state of the container, and the bore and/or the fastener expediently engages axially through the latch element. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 2 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 3 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 4 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 5 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 6 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 7 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 8 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 9 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 10 Art Unit: 3736 Application/Control Number: 18/036,839 Page 11 Art Unit: 3736