DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 29 January 2024 had some references listed multiple times. These extra references have been lined through, but the references have been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-5, 12, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Morris et al. (U.S. Patent 2,388,561) . Morris discloses a hole cover having a cover plate (15) with an engagement mechanism coupled thereto and extending from the bottom thereof (Figure 4, for example). There is an engagement plate (20) shiftable relative to the cover plate (15) and is configure to shift an engagement member (23) along a sloped wall (11). Morris is configured to operate in insertion and engagement procedures as claimed (Figure 2, for example). Morris is configured to actuate in the manner of claim 2 (Figure 2). Regarding claim s 3 -5 and 12 , there is a screw ( 18 ) and hole (not labeled) configured and operable as claimed. Regarding claims 14 and 15, the lower portion (not labeled) of the cover (15) which contacts the perimeter of the flange (14) meets the recitation of the skirt. Regarding claim 17, there is a perimeter lip ( Figure 2 ) arranged as claimed. 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 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (U.S. Patent 2,388,561), as applied above . Regarding the support bracket, stand-off, retainer plate and boss of claims 6-8 and 13, respectively, the examiner takes Official notice that these are well known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included with Morris in order to optimally secure the plate. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim s 1, 16 and 21, respectively , of prior U.S. Patent 12,146,286 . This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 2-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 2-15, 17-20, 22 and 23 of U.S. Patent 12,146,286 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are broader versions of the patented claims . Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,297,608 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are essentially broader versions of the patented claims . Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/201,425 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are essentially a broader version of the ‘425 claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach cover arrangements. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6989 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 11-7:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christopher Sebesta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272-0547 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT GARY S. HARTMANN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3671 /GARY S HARTMANN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671