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. DETAILED ACTION Summary This is the initial Office action based on the 18173249 application filed 02/23/23 The Amendment filed 08/25/25 has been entered and fully considered Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 are pending, t he new claim(s) 14,15,16,17,18 is supported by the originally filed disclosure 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,18, non-elected Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III in the reply filed on 8/25/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Objections Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: fails to have a period at the end of claim 13 . Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim(s) 10,11,12,13 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(s) 10 has the phrase, “the flow of dust,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element Claim(s) 10 has the phrase, “the direction,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element Claim(s) 11 has the phrase, “the flow of ferrous dust,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language; Particularly, it is unclear if the phrase refers to something previously mentioned (albeit without proper antecedent basis), OR if this phrase is setting forth a new element Though one or more of the claim (s) are indefinite, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has done his best to ascertain their meaning for the following 35 USC § 102 and/or 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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 – (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. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 10717031 (herein known as Lauden ) With regard to claim 10, Lauden sufficiently teaches a cover capable of covering a valve and mitigating dust contamination comprising:, especially at abstract, c3ln4-10, fig 2; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)) a cap 130 fixedly engaged with a conduit 182 about a central axis, especially at c3ln20-30,c4ln20-25,c14ln40-45, fig 2 a first annular curved surface 174 or 154 formed by a flared end of said conduit (as depicted), especially at c13ln20-30,c14ln20-30, fig 2 a second annular curved surface 182 in said cap that is offset from said first annular curved surface (as depicted), especially at c13ln20-30,fig 2 forming 90 degree turn (a tortuous) flow path between said cap and conduit (as depicted), especially at c13ln20-30,c14ln20-30, fig 2 wherein fluid flow by said first annular surface and said second annular surface capable of mitigates the flow of dust through said valve cover and changes the direction of the flow (as depicted), especially at abstract, c3ln4-10,c13ln20-30,c14ln20-30, fig 2; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)) Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 14,15,16,17 allowable subject matter; but As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5546 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M,T,Th,F . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached on (571)272-0475. 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. /ANTHONY SHUMATE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776