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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2026 has been entered.
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 23-30 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. Applicant now provides a portion of the middle skirt is formed of a gasket, of which Applicant does not provide in Applicant’s original specification. With respect to elected figure 9a, Applicant merely provides “[0042] In an alternative embodiment of lid 160 shown in FIG. 9A, the fins 70 and gasket 72 are replaced by a middle skirt 170, located between inner skirt 164 and outer skirt 170. The skirt 170 forms a seal with gasket 250. However, to make a desired good seal with a fitting 44 (i.e., with ridge 56 thereof), a lid 160 embodiment necessitates that a gasket (or sealant) be placed on fitting 44 at the location of ridge 56. Alternately, the fin 56 is formed of gasket type material. See FIG. 12(d), discussed below.” Applicant must remove the impermissible 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 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.
Applicant provides that the skirt is formed of a gasket and then states that the gasket is in an opening. Applicant fails to make Applicant’s intent clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 23-24, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Judge (US 3157304 A).
Judge discloses:
23. A lid (figs 1-9) configured for sealing a subsurface fluid tank (Applicant has chosen to not positively claim the tank and therefore the tank and all of the tank structure such as opening, gasket in a fitting an opening of a tank, seal with gasket, septic tank, opening in a riser, o-ring, etc. have not been required by Applicant; the lid is capable of performing the above intended use, such as interacting with all of the above features and more), the lid comprising: a top configured to cover an opening of the tank (upper surface of 20); a circumscribing inner skirt extending downwardly from the top (any inner skirt such as in fig 3, 6 that comprises at least two skirts outward; for example the element adjacent “28 could be an inner skirt); a circumscribing outer skirt extending downwardly from the top, wherein a diameter of the circumscribing outer skirt is larger than a diameter of the circumscribing inner skirt (such as the skirt element in fig 3 above “S” and below “B” and below “20” with larger diameter than the above inner skirt as in fig 3); and a circumscribing middle skirt between the circumscribing inner skirt and the circumscribing outer skirt extending downwardly from the top, wherein the circumscribing middle skirt is configured to engage a fitting of the opening of the tank (middle skirt such as adjacent “30” and between the outer and inner as in fig 3 for example, further capable of performing the above intended use such as engaging a gasket and an inner ridge). The Office notes the 112 rejection above. Inasmuch as Applicant provides that the skirt formed of a gasket, the prior art also discloses the above.
24. The lid of claim 23, wherein the top is flat (As in fig 3).
26. The lid of claim 23, wherein the lid forms a seal with the gasket located in the fitting of the opening of the tank (capable of performing the above intended use; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office; The Office notes the 112 rejection above. Inasmuch as Applicant provides that the skirt formed of a gasket, the prior art also discloses the above).
27. The lid of claim 23, wherein the tank comprises a septic tank (capable of performing the above intended use; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office).
28. The lid of claim 23, wherein the opening of the tank comprises an opening in a riser connected to the tank (capable of performing the above intended use; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office).
29. The lid of claim 23, wherein the gasket comprises an O-ring (capable of performing the above intended use; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office).
30. The lid of claim 23, wherein the lid is made of thermoplastic (col. 3: 10-20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judge as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Gavin (US 7627992 B1).
Judge discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Gavin: convex (top of fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Judge in view of Gavin (by changing the lid to the above shape) in order to provide well known drainage features whereby the slope of the top allows prevents settling and potential damage to the device.
Claim(s) 23-24, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judge (US 3157304 A) in view of Crisci (US 4078696 A).
Judge discloses:
23. A lid (figs 1-9) configured for sealing a subsurface fluid tank (Applicant has chosen to not positively claim the tank and therefore the tank and all of the tank structure such as opening, gasket in a fitting an opening of a tank, seal with gasket, septic tank, opening in a riser, o-ring, etc. have not been required by Applicant; the lid is capable of performing the above intended use, such as interacting with all of the above features and more), the lid comprising: a top configured to cover an opening of the tank (upper surface of 20); a circumscribing inner skirt extending downwardly from the top (any inner skirt such as in fig 3, 6 that comprises at least two skirts outward; for example the element adjacent “28 could be an inner skirt); a circumscribing outer skirt extending downwardly from the top, wherein a diameter of the circumscribing outer skirt is larger than a diameter of the circumscribing inner skirt (such as the skirt element in fig 3 above “S” and below “B” and below “20” with larger diameter than the above inner skirt as in fig 3); and a circumscribing middle skirt between the circumscribing inner skirt and the circumscribing outer skirt extending downwardly from the top, wherein the circumscribing middle skirt is configured to engage a fitting of the opening of the tank (middle skirt such as adjacent “30” and between the outer and inner as in fig 3 for example, further capable of performing the above intended use such as engaging a gasket and an inner ridge). The Office notes the 112 rejection above. Inasmuch as Applicant provides that the skirt formed of a gasket, the prior art also discloses the above. In order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that Crisci discloses a gasket (adjacent 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify (by providing a gasket at the skirt) in order to provide a more secure connection between the elements and also sealing such to prevent unintentional movement and introduction of undesired elements.
Judge further discloses:
24. The lid of claim 23, wherein the top is flat (As in fig 3).
26. The lid of claim 23, wherein the lid forms a seal with the gasket located in the fitting of the opening of the tank (capable of performing the above intended use; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office; The Office notes the 112 rejection above. Inasmuch as Applicant provides that the skirt formed of a gasket, the prior art also discloses the above; gasket provided above).
27. The lid of claim 23, wherein the tank comprises a septic tank (capable of performing the above intended use; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office).
28. The lid of claim 23, wherein the opening of the tank comprises an opening in a riser connected to the tank (capable of performing the above intended use; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office).
29. The lid of claim 23, wherein the gasket comprises an O-ring (capable of performing the above intended use; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office).
30. The lid of claim 23, wherein the lid is made of thermoplastic (col. 3: 10-20).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Combined Reference as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Gavin (US 7627992 B1).
The Combined Reference discloses the claimed invention above with the exception of the following which is disclosed by Gavin: convex (top of fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Gavin (by changing the lid to the above shape) in order to provide well known drainage features whereby the slope of the top allows prevents settling and potential damage to the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the prior art does not disclose a skirt formed of a gasket. Applicant does not provide support for the above and therefore multiple 112 rejections are applied. Nevertheless, Inasmuch as Applicant provides that the skirt formed of a gasket, the prior art also discloses the above. In order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that Crisci discloses a gasket (adjacent 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify (by providing a gasket at the skirt) in order to provide a more secure connection between the elements and also sealing such to prevent unintentional movement and introduction of undesired elements. Accordingly, Applicant/Appellant has not demonstrated error in the factual findings or reasoning set forth by the Office and the Office maintains the rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights