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 § 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 gasket located in 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; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office).
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).
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 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) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the prior art does not disclose the intended use of being configured to engage other elements such as a gasket and a ridge. Judge discloses 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 gasket located in 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; see detailed interpretation already provided above by the Office). Applicant states that the secondary reference provided for claim 25 does not disclose the intended use of claim 23. The above is already addressed by the primary reference. Accordingly, Applicant/Appellant has not demonstrated error in the factual findings or reasoning set forth by the Office and the Office must maintain the rejections.
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 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