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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a cavity plug, classified in B65D 55/04.
II. Claim 15, drawn to a method of using a cavity plug, classified in B22F 3/24.
III. Claims 16-20, drawn to a system comprising a cavity plug, classified in B22F 12/30.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product.
Inventions I and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the build plate can have a different hole cover such as by snap fit, thread, press fit or friction fit. The subcombination has separate utility such as a cavity plug for aerospace and automotive applications.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions II and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used in the aerospace or automotive industry.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Groups I and II: the cavity plug can be used for automotive and aerospace applications.
Groups I and III: the subcombination has separate utility such as a cavity plug for aerospace and automotive applications.
Groups II and III: the apparatus as claimed can be used in the aerospace or automotive industry.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Daniel Warren on 1/12/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pivot slots as recited in Claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are as originally filed.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hannaford (US 581,157).
Hannaford teaches a closure for bottles as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
319
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The reference letters are on pages 1 and 2. Hannaford anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, the locking arm, taught as a spring, comprises a pair.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation of the component and the comprising a fuel injector, the component is recited as intended use in the preamble. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding the fuel injector, language in the claim that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, for example statements of intended use or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation of the component and the comprising a micro-mixing injector, the component is recited as intended use in the preamble. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding the micro-mixing injector, language in the claim that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, for example statements of intended use or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.
Claims 1-3, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraus (US 5,454,479 A).
Kraus teaches a closure cover as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image2.png
371
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The closure cover reads on the claimed cavity plug. The first wall is taught by 21. The outer shell is taught by the cylindrical side wall 4. The locking mechanism is represented by the wings 6, and the wings read on locking arm. The sealing lip is 30.The closure covers are specifically suitable for sealing an opening (column 1, lines 24-26). Kraus anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the top lid is 3 and the sealing is at the opening 20 (column 2, lines 49 and 50).
Regarding Claim 3, the cylindrical side wall 4 has a different diameter than the bottom wall 3.
Regarding Claim 7, there are at least two wings 6.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation of the component and the comprising a fuel injector, the component is recited as intended use in the preamble. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding the fuel injector, language in the claim that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, for example statements of intended use or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation of the component and the comprising a micro-mixing injector, the component is recited as intended use in the preamble. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding the micro-mixing injector, language in the claim that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, for example statements of intended use or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by El Naga et al (US 2019/0337056 A1).
El Naga et al teaches an apparatus for sealing powder holes in additively manufactured parts as represented below in the annotated drawing:
PNG
media_image3.png
574
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The first wall is taught by the top of 402. The silicone plug 410 seals powder hole 406. The entire structure may result in a strong seal for the powder hole [0052-0053]. The locking mechanism is taught by the metal expansion pieces 408 and 409 [0053]. El Naga et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the second wall is represented below in FIG. 4B.
PNG
media_image4.png
488
534
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Protrusions 404 and 405 represent the second wall. The plug is sealed as part of the entire structure [0053], which reads on a second seal.
Regarding Claim 7, there are two soft metal expansion pieces.
Regarding Claim 8, the expansion pieces 408 and 409 conform to the shape of the adjacent AM parts 402 [0053], which reads on pivot parts.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation of the component and the comprising a fuel injector, the component is recited as intended use in the preamble. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding the fuel injector, language in the claim that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, for example statements of intended use or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation of the component and the comprising a micro-mixing injector, the component is recited as intended use in the preamble. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding the micro-mixing injector, language in the claim that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, for example statements of intended use or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lacey, Jr. et al (US 9,024,188 B2).
Lacey, Jr. et al teaches a pin as represented in the annotated drawing below:
PNG
media_image5.png
507
575
media_image5.png
Greyscale
FIG. 6 teaches the component as 4a. The pins are locked in the holes and movement is precluded (column 5, lines 34-39), which reads on the first seal. The locking mechanism with a locking arm is taught by 32, 34, 36, and 38. Lacey, Jr. et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the top lid is taught by undersurface 40.
Regarding Claim 3, the undersurface has a different diameter than the cylindrical body.
Regarding Claim 7, there are two sets of plunger systems.
Regarding Claim 8, the plunger is slideably disposed within the bore of the body of the pin (column 4, lines 42 and 43), which reads on the location of pivot slots.
Regarding Claim 10, Lacey, Jr. et al teaches the biasing mechanism is a spring (column 4, lines 45 and 46).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation of the component and the comprising a fuel injector, the component is recited as intended use in the preamble. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding the fuel injector, language in the claim that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, for example statements of intended use or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation of the component and the comprising a micro-mixing injector, the component is recited as intended use in the preamble. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Regarding the micro-mixing injector, language in the claim that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation, for example statements of intended use or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claims 5 and 6, El Naga et al teaches a second seal on the sides of the walls 404 and 405 but does not teach a bottom flange with the second seal. None of Baus et al, Kraus et al, or Hannaford teach or suggest a second wall and a second seal. Regarding Claim 9, neither Lacey, Jr. et al nor El Naga et al suggest a pivot rod as claimed. Lacey, Jr. et al the plunger is slideably disposed within the bore of the body of the pin, and El Naga et al teaches expansion pieces conform a shape. Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Lacey, Jr. et al does not suggest a locking bolt in communication with the spring.
CN 109465448 A (CN ‘448) teaches a dust-proof plate levelling device and powder bed material manufacturing device as represented below in the drawing:
PNG
media_image6.png
450
556
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, CN ‘448 does not suggest a locking mechanism comprising a locking arm as recited in Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baus et al (US 6,872,039 B2) teaches a self-locking pin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733