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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3 and 24 are 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. The claims recite wherein the circumferentially spaced rotational lock tabs are undeflectable”, but the original disclosure did not disclose that the tabs were undeflectable by any force, Therefore, the general statement that the tabs are undeflectable is new matter.
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.
Claim 21 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the plurality of circumferentially spaced deflectable lock tabs" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 3, 6, 7, 21, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aguiar et al. (US-20200271276-A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 7 and 21, Aguiar discloses a foot ring (14) configured to be secured to a tank (12) having a collar (20), the foot ring comprising: a base (32) having an inner (34) and outer (36) surface and a central portion (38); a plurality of circumferentially spaced deflectable longitudinal lock tabs (90) radially outwardly spaced from the central portion for securing the foot ring to the tank, each of the circumferentially spaced deflectable longitudinal lock tabs having a first portion for abutting a radially outer surface of a base of the collar and a second portion for engaging an underside of a flange of the collar that extends radially outwardly from the base of the collar (par. 0038); and a plurality of circumferentially spaced rotational lock tabs (110) radially outwardly spaced from the central portion, each of the circumferentially spaced rotational lock tabs configured to be received in a respective notch in the flange to prevent rotational movement of the foot ring relative to the tank (par. 0039), wherein the circumferentially spaced rotational lock tabs are fixed relative to the base and are not deflectable at a low force (they aren’t separate parts and they’re rigid), a plurality of circumferentially spaced shock absorbing members (70, 72) extending from the inner surface, wherein the plurality of circumferentially spaced deflectable longitudinal lock tabs extend from radially inner ends of the shock absorbing members toward the outer surface (Fig. 3), wherein the plurality of circumferentially spaced deflectable longitudinal lock tabs extend toward the outer surface and the central portion and are radially outwardly spaced from the central portion (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Aguiar discloses a foot ring (14) configured to be secured to a tank (12) having a collar (20), the foot ring comprising: a base (32) having an inner and outer surface and a central portion (38); a plurality of circumferentially spaced deflectable longitudinal lock tabs (90) radially outwardly spaced from the central portion for securing the foot ring to the tank, each of the circumferentially spaced deflectable longitudinal lock tabs having a first portion for abutting a radially outer surface of a base of the collar, a second portion having a plurality of arms extending radially outward from each first portion for engaging an underside of a flange of the collar that extends radially outwardly from the base of the collar (par. 0038), and a third portion (92) extending radially outwardly from the second portion and having a backside that abuts an outer surface of the flange of the collar (Fig. 3); and a plurality of circumferentially spaced rotational lock tabs (110) radially outwardly spaced from the central portion, each of the circumferentially spaced rotational lock tabs configured to be received in a respective notch in the flange to prevent rotational movement of the foot ring relative to the tank (par. 0039), wherein the circumferentially spaced rotational lock tabs are fixed relative to the base and are not deflectable at a low force (they aren’t separate parts and they’re rigid).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguiar et al. (US-20200271276-A1) in view of Bartels (US-6123187-A).
Aguiar fails to teach indicia on the outer surface of the base corresponding to a location on the inner surface of the base of each of the plurality of circumferentially spaced rotational lock tabs.
Bartels teaches that it is known the art to manufacture a tank attachment with indicia in order to provide a user with information (col. 3, lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the foot ring with indicia, in order to provide a user with information.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguiar et al. (US-20200271276-A1) in view of Manser (US-20140231439-A1).
Aguiar fails to teach a plurality of circumferentially spaced lock members extending radially inwardly from the central portion for connecting to a sensor assembly, wherein each of the plurality of circumferentially spaced lock members includes a plurality of circumferentially spaced teeth.
Manser teaches that it is known the art to manufacture a foot ring with a plurality of circumferentially spaced lock members (104) extending radially inwardly from A central portion for connecting to a sensor assembly (intended use), wherein each of the plurality of circumferentially spaced lock members includes a plurality of circumferentially spaced teeth (Figs. 1, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have manufactured the foot ring with lock members, in order to provide a more secure connection with a tank.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Aguiar fails to teach the claimed portions abutting a tank, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The claims are drawn to a foot ring and not the combination of a foot ring an tank. The structure of the prior art of record is capable of the connection structure claimed based on the tank used.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733