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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 12 May 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s argument, page 8, rejection of claim 1; applicant quotes that Nisler teaches that “once in place, cannot readily removed”. As written, Nisler does not exclude the possibility of removal. Applicant introduces the use of a tool, which is not an element of the invention just as it a tool is not an element of Nisler but the reference merely needs to exist to be able to benefit from the use of a tool to unlock. The use of such a tool is described to unlatch that which is not otherwise intended to be unlatched. In an obviousness rejection it is the refences, taken as a whole as to what is taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art rather than the individual disclosures of the prior art. Clearly, the reference of Pietarien et al teaches the use of a tool to unlatch, providing Nisler with unlocking function. Together, taken as a whole, Nisler and Pietarien demonstrate an unlock function of that which is already old and known. Applicant cannot claim a structure intended to be opened destructively and simultaneously also claim the introduction of a tool to mitigate destruction and achieve opening when there are examples of prior art that clearly accomplish the same function Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument anti-tampering device is broadly claimed, any device can satisfy the claim as written and a handle assembly having a handle of U-shape that is disposed over the cover to prevent separation of the two parts from each other. Claim 11 fails to articulate the structure of what the applicant requires, as such any structure that must be dislodged satisfies the recitation as written.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Nowhere in the specification is there a discussion or description of “ tab and tab receiving portion configured to snap together irreversibly to prevent non-destructive disengagement of the tab receiving component without the use of a tool”. As written the recitation appears to be new matter recitation.
Claim 26 is 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.
Regarding claim 26 "can be broken" is indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that is a mere possibility that is not required.
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) 1,9-11, 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Nisler (US 11,491,082) 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 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),
wherein the first portion is hinged to the second portion via a hinge (25.26),
wherein when the first portion and the second portion are in a closed position, an interior region is formed, that defines a center axis (annotated Fig.4), and
wherein the hinge is arranged parallel to the center axis (Fig.4) and
a locking component comprising a tab provided on the first portion and a tab receiving component provided on 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 tab receiving component after the tab has snapped into the tab receiving component.
Nisler does not disclose: the locking component is configured to be unlocked, when in use, by deforming the tab relative to the tab receiving component or, by inserting a tool into the tab receiving component to force the protruding portion to non-destructively disengage from the tab 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 by deforming the tab relative to the tab receiving component or the locking component are configured to be unlocked, when in use, by inserting a tool into the tab 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, further comprises a tamper-evident component (c.1,l.32-37) configured to provide evidence of unlocking of the locking component.
Regarding claim 23, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses 23 the anti-tampering device of claim 1, wherein the first portion comprises a semi-cylindrical side wall (16; Nisler) and the first portion lacks an upper wall, and wherein the second portion comprises a circular upper wall (17; Nisler) that is uninterrupted (broadly, prior art shows uninterrupted in as much as the applicant does) when the first portion and the second portion are in the closed position.
Regarding claim 24, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device of claim 1, wherein the first portion comprises a semi-cylindrical upper wall (17; Nisler) and a semi-cylindrical side wall extending downward from the semi- cylindrical upper wall, and wherein the first portion further comprises a radial lip (19; Nisler) protruding inwardly from a lowest end of the semi-cylindrical side wall.
Regarding claim 25, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device of claim 1, wherein the hinge is a flexible hinge made in one piece with both the first portion and the second portion (Fig.3; Nisler).
Nisler discloses the claimed invention except for a flexible hinge made in one piece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify a flexible hinge made in one piece, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known spring on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 26, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device of claim 1, wherein the hinge comprises a line of weakness (any definable line for instance the parting line element 25 Fig 5) along which a connection between the first portion and the second portion can be broken.
Regarding claim 27, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device of claim 1, wherein the tab receiving component comprises a channel portion (U shaped receiving portion 41; Nisler) arranged in the second portion, and wherein the protruding portion is configured to exit the channel portion and be held by a blank flange of the channel portion when the tab is fully inserted into the channel portion (36, Fig 8; Nisler).
Regarding claim 28, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses 28. (New) The anti-tampering device of claim 1, wherein the tab 21; Nisler) and the tab receiving component (22; Nisler) are configured to snap together irreversibly to prevent non-destructive disengagement of the tab from the tab receiving component without use of a tool.
Note: that which is written in the negative as to be absent is inherently disclosed by that which is not discussed.
Regarding claim 10, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device of claim 9, wherein the anti-tampering device 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 of claim 9, wherein the tamper-evident component comprises a tamper-proof lid (abstract semicircular lid) preventing access to the receiving component, wherein the tamper-proof lid (34) must be dislodged before the tool is inserted into the tab receiving component to unlock the locking component.
Claim(s) 29, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Nisler (US 11,491,082) in view of Persson (US 6,443,508) further in view of Crispin et al.(US 2013/0174490).
Regarding claim 29, Nisler as modified by Persson discloses the anti-tampering device of claim 11, wherein the second portion comprises
Nisler as modified by Persson does not disclose: an access hole on a front face thereof opposite a side where the tab is inserted into the tab receiving component, and wherein the tamper-proof lid is positioned to cover the access hole.
Crispin et al. teaches an access hole on a front face thereof opposite a side where the tab is inserted into the tab receiving component, and wherein the tamper-proof lid is positioned to cover the access hole for the purpose of a tool (not shown) is inserted into opening 132 to depress release button 300, compress springs 296, and retract latch tongue 298 into pocket 294. Any tool smaller than 1/8 inch is suitable for manipulating latch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nisler as modified by Persson with an access hole on a front face thereof opposite a side where the tab is inserted into the tab receiving component, and wherein the tamper-proof lid is positioned to cover the access hole.as taught by Crispin et al. for the expected benefit of a tool (not shown) is inserted into opening 132 to depress release button 300, compress springs 296, and retract latch tongue 298 into pocket 294. Any tool smaller than 1/8 inch is suitable for manipulating latch.
Regarding claim 30, Nisler as modified by Persson and Crispin et al. discloses the anti-tampering device of claim 29, wherein the tamper-proof lid comprises a living hinge on a first side and a pair of frangible connectors securing the tamper- proof lid in a position covering the access hole (132;Crispin).
Claim(s) 13, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by Nisler (US 11,491,082) in view of Persson (US 6,443,508) further in view of Buzzi (US 2021/0039850).
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) and a second portion (15) hingedly coupled to one another via a hinge (25,26), wherein when the first portion and the second portion are in a closed position, the shell 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) 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 on the second portion, wherein the tab is configured to snap into the tab receiving component.
Nisler as modified by Persson does not disclose: the tab is configured to snap into the tab receiving component such that the tab receiving component completely encloses the tab, and wherein the tab comprises a protruding portion configured to be held by the tab receiving component after the tab has snapped into the tab receiving component.
Buzzi teaches the tab is configured to snap into the tab receiving component such that the tab receiving component completely encloses the tab, and wherein the tab comprises a protruding portion configured to be held by the tab receiving component after the tab has snapped into the tab receiving component for the purpose of providing a window forming a guide entrance and a hook arrangement that opposes escape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nisler as modified by Persson with the tab is configured to snap into the tab receiving component such that the tab receiving component completely encloses the tab, and wherein the tab comprises a protruding portion configured to be held by the tab receiving component after the tab has snapped into the tab receiving component as taught by Buzzi for the expected benefit of providing a window forming a guide entrance and a hook arrangement that opposes escape essentially replacing one known latching arrangement with another known latching arrangement.
14. (Canceled)
15. (Canceled)
16. (Canceled)
17. (Canceled)
18. (Canceled)
Regarding claim 19, Nisler as modified by Persso and Buzzi n 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 and Buzzi 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 and Buzzi 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 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 claim 22 The anti-tampering device of 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 the first portion and the second portion form the shell around the tank cap or the neck, the label being further configured to break or be damaged when removed or upon unlocking the locking component , after the label has been affixed to the first portion and the second portion
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 the first portion and the second portion form the shell around the tank cap or the neck, the label being further configured to break or be damaged when removed or upon unlocking the locking component , after the label has been affixed to the first portion and the second portion as taught by Pietarinen et al. for the expected benefit of providing a tamper evident sealing label.
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, 31 and 32 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 The anti-tampering device of 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 the first portion and the second portion form the shell around the tank cap or the neck, the label being further configured to break or be damaged when removed or upon unlocking the locking component , after the label has been affixed to the first portion and the second portion
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 the first portion and the second portion form the shell around the tank cap or the neck, the label being further configured to break or be damaged when removed or upon unlocking the locking component , after the label has been affixed to the first portion and the second portion as taught by Pietarinen et al. for the expected benefit of providing a tamper evident sealing label.
Regarding claim 31, Nisler as modified by Pietarinen et al. discloses the anti-tampering device of claim 12, wherein the first portion and the second portion each comprise a smooth surface (15, Fig.5; Nisler) configured to receive the label when the first portion and the second portion are locked together.
Regarding claim 32, Nisler as modified by Pietarinen et al. discloses the anti-tampering device of claim 12, wherein the label is configured to provide a visual indication of removal or unlocking by at least one of damage (Abstract; Pietarien et al., delamination, destruction, or color change.
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
Prosecution Insights