DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 6 June 2025 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
In the interest of compact prosecution, as Applicant argues, different scope of dependent claims may not be mutually exclusive. The examiner concedes that while the intent of a locking component to be only destructively defeated, the ability of using a tool to unlock a locking component may overcome intended anti-tampering. As taught by the reference of Persson, the ability to unlock with a tool is applicable to the refence of Nisler.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1,4-11, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Nisler (US 11491082) in view of Persson (US 6,443,508).
Regarding claim 1, Nisler discloses an anti-tampering device (10) for securing a tank cap onto a neck of a degassing tank of a vehicle cooling circuit, wherein the anti-tampering device comprises a locking component (20,22) attached to a shell (10) configured to surround and secure the tank cap on the neck,
wherein the shell comprises a first portion (14) and a second portion (15) each comprising cooperating parts of the locking component,
wherein the first portion is hinged to the second portion with a hinge (25.26),
wherein when the first portion and the second portion are in a closed position, an interior region is formed, wherein the interior region defines a center axis (annotated Fig.4), and
wherein the hinge is arranged parallel to the center axis (Fig.4)
wherein the locking component comprises a tab provided on the first portion and a tab receiving component provided in the second portion, and in that the tab is configured to snap into the tab receiving component,
wherein the tab comprises a protruding portion configured to be held by the receiving component after the tab has snapped into the receiving component.
Nisler does not disclose: the locking component is configured to be unlocked, when in use, by deforming the tab relative to the receiving component or the locking component are configured to be unlocked, when in use, by inserting a tool into the receiving component to force the protruding portion to non-destructively disengage from the receiving component.
Persson teaches presents a projecting flange 24, the objective of which is to facilitate the removal of the stop means 13 from its position in the cavity 14 of the projector 6, for example by means of a screw-driver or a similar tool (C.4l-32-36; Persson) for the purpose of facilitating the removal of the stop means 13 from its position in the cavity 14 of the projector.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nisler with the locking component is configured to be unlocked, when in use, by deforming the tab relative to the receiving component or the locking component are configured to be unlocked, when in use, by inserting a tool into the receiving component to force the protruding portion to non-destructively disengage from the receiving component.as taught by Persson for the expected benefit of facilitating the removal of the stop means from its position in the cavity of the projector.
PNG
media_image1.png
689
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure taken from Nisler (US 11,491,082)
2. (Canceled).
3. (Canceled)
4. (Canceled)
5. (Canceled)
6. (Canceled)
7. (Canceled)
8. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 9, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device for a tank cap according to claim 1, wherein it comprises a tamper-evident component (c.1,l.32-37) that is configured to provide evidence of unlocking the locking component .
Regarding claim 10, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device for the anti-tampering according to claim 9, wherein the tank cap is configured to be removed only by destroying the tamper-evident component (c.1,l.32-37) .
Regarding claim 11, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device for a tank cap according to claim 9, wherein the tamper-evident component comprises a tamper-proof lid (abstract semicircular lid) preventing access to the receiving component, which must be dislodged before the tool is inserted into the receiving component to unlock the locking component.
Regarding claim 13, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses an anti-tampering device for securing a tank cap onto a neck of a degassing tank of a vehicle cooling circuit, the anti-tampering device comprising:
a shell (10) configured to surround and secure the tank cap on the neck,
wherein the shell comprises a first portion (14) coupled to a second portion (15) hingedly coupled to one another via a hinge (25,26) that, when in a closed position, defines an interior region with a center axis (annotated Fig. 4) that is parallel to a pivot axis of the hinge (Fig.4); and a locking component (20,22) that is coupled to each of the first portion and the second portion,
wherein the locking component comprises a tab provided on the first portion and a tab receiving component provided in the second portion,
wherein the tab is configured to snap into the tab receiving component,
wherein the tab comprises a protruding portion configured to be held by the receiving component after the tab has snapped into the receiving component.
Nisler does not disclose: the locking component is configured to be unlocked, when in use, by deforming the tab relative to the receiving component or the locking component are configured to be unlocked, when in use, by inserting a tool into the receiving component to force the protruding portion to non-destructively disengage from the receiving component.
Persson teaches presents a projecting flange 24, the objective of which is to facilitate the removal of the stop means 13 from its position in the cavity 14 of the projector 6, for example by means of a screw-driver or a similar tool (C.4l-32-36; Persson) for the purpose of facilitating the removal of the stop means 13 from its position in the cavity 14 of the projector.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nisler with the locking component is configured to be unlocked, when in use, by deforming the tab relative to the receiving component or the locking component are configured to be unlocked, when in use, by inserting a tool into the receiving component to force the protruding portion to non-destructively disengage from the receiving component.as taught by Persson for the expected benefit of facilitating the removal of the stop means from its position in the cavity of the projector.
14. (Canceled)
15. (Canceled)
16. (Canceled)
17. (Canceled)
18. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 19, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device for a tank cap according to claim 13, wherein it comprises a tamper-evident component c.1,l.32-37) that is configured to provide evidence of unlocking the locking component.
Regarding claim 20, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device for a tank cap according to claim 19, wherein the tank cap is configured to be removed only by destroying the tamper-evident component (c.1,l.32-37).
Regarding claim 21, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device for a tank cap according to claim 19, wherein the tamper-evident component comprises a tamper-proof lid (abstract semicircular lid) preventing access to the receiving component, which must be dislodged before the tool is inserted into the receiving component to unlock the locking component.
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 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Nisler (US 11491082) in view of Pietarinen et al. (US 2016/0180747).
Regarding claims 12 and 22 The anti-tampering device for a tank cap according to claim 9 and 19, wherein the tamper-evident component comprises a structure configured to be affixed to both the first portion and the second portion when they form a shell around the tank cap or the neck of the tank cap, tamper device when it is removed or upon unlocking the locking component , when the label has been affixed to the first and second portions m a label (100)
Nisler does not disclose: a label configured to be affixed to both the first portion and the second portion when they form a shell around the tank cap or the neck of the tank cap, the label being further configured to break or be damaged when it is removed or upon unlocking the locking component , when the label has been affixed to the first and second portions
Pietarinen et al. teaches a label (100) for the purpose of providing a tamper evident sealing label.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nisler with a label configured to be affixed to both the first portion and the second portion when they form a shell around the tank cap or the neck of the tank cap, the label being further configured to break or be damaged when it is removed or upon unlocking the locking component , when the label has been affixed to the first and second portions as taught by Pietarinen et al. for the expected benefit of providing a tamper evident sealing label.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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 Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 571.272.7376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675