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
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 1-2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by May et al. (WO 2022261411 A1, and May hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, May discloses an explosion-resistant device for a hazardous environment, comprising:
an enclosure (18, fig. 11) sized to enclose equipment therein (“to allow access to the analysis equipment through an access opening”, [0036]) and comprising a body (body of 18, fig. 11), the enclosure further comprising:
a projected rim (272, fig. 12) extending away from the body and defining an opening (51, fig. 12), the opening providing an access to the equipment (“FIG. 12 … showing the lid assembly of the analysis compartment arranged in an open position to allow access to the analysis equipment through an access opening”, [0036]); and
rim threads positioned on a surface of the projected rim (fig. 12, “lid 266 and the connection flange 272 collectively form a threaded engagement”, [0082]); and
a cover assembly (262, fig. 12) comprising:
a joint (270, fig. 11) comprising a first portion and a second portion (annotated figure I below), the first portion affixed with the body (fig. 12);
a cap (266, fig. 11) comprising:
a cap top (annotated figure I below); and
a cap side extending from the cap top (annotated figure I below), the cap side further comprising cap threads complementary to the rim threads (annotated figure I below); and
a radial support (264, fig. 13A) affixed with the second portion (via 270) and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (fig. 13C and annotated figure II below, support projection abuts first side projection and obstructs 266 from sliding out of 264),
wherein the cover assembly is rotatably coupled with the enclosure via the joint (figs. 11-13C).
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
1409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1029
1427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, May discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 1, wherein the radial support comprises a support projection projecting from an interior surface of the radial support (annotated figure II below), the cap side further comprising a side projection positioned adjacent to an end of the cap side opposite from the cap top (annotated figure II below), the side projection projecting from an exterior side surface of the cap side (annotated figure II below), the support projection positioned between the cap top and the side projection and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (annotated figure II below).
PNG
media_image3.png
994
1581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, May discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 1, wherein the cap side comprises a first side projection and a second side projection (annotated figure II above) and defines a side recess (annotated figure II above) positioned between the first side projection and the second side projection (annotated figure II above).
Regarding Claim 6, May discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 5, wherein the radial support comprises an annular raised ring concentric to the side recess (figs. 12-13C; see also support projection in annotated figure II above), an outer diameter of the cap side at the side recess being smaller than an inner diameter of the radial support at the annular raised ring (annotated figure II above).
Regarding Claim 7, May discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 1, wherein the radial support comprises a first support segment, a second support segment, and one or more support fasteners joining the first support segment with the second support segment (fig. 12 shows fasteners at the top of 268 to keep two semi-circular segments fastened together).
Regarding Claim 9, May discloses a cover assembly of an explosion-resistant device for a hazardous environment, comprising:
a joint (270, fig. 11) comprising a first portion and a second portion (annotated figure I above), the first portion configured to be affixed with an enclosure (18, figs. 11-12) of an explosion-resistant device (fig. 12);
a radial support (264, fig. 13A) affixed with the second portion (via 270, figs. 11-12); and
a cap (266, fig. 11) comprising:
a cap top (annotated figure I above); and
a cap side extending from the cap top (annotated figure I above),
wherein the radial support comprises a support projection (annotated figure II above) projecting from an interior surface of the radial support, the cap side further comprising a side projection (annotated figure II above) positioned adjacent to an end of the cap side opposite from the cap top, the side projection projecting from an exterior side surface of the cap side (annotated figure II above), the support projection positioned between the cap top and the side projection and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (annotated figure II above), and
wherein the cover assembly is configured to rotatably couple with the enclosure via the joint (figs. 11-13C).
Regarding Claim 12, May discloses the cover assembly of claim 9, wherein the cap side comprises a first side projection and a second side projection (annotated figure II above) and defines a side recess (annotated figure II above) positioned between the first side projection and the second side projection (annotated figure II above).
Regarding Claim 13, May discloses the cover assembly of claim 12, wherein the radial support comprises an annular raised ring concentric to the side recess (figs. 12-13C; see also support projection in annotated figure II above), an outer diameter of the cap side at the side recess being smaller than an inner diameter of the radial support at the annular raised ring (annotated figure II above).
Regarding Claim 14, May discloses the cover assembly of claim 9, wherein the radial support comprises a first support segment, a second support segment, and one or more support fasteners joining the first support segment with the second support segment (fig. 12 shows fasteners at the top of 268 to keep two semi-circular segments fastened together).
Regarding Claim 16, May discloses a method of assembling an explosion-resistant device for a hazardous environment, the method comprising:
forming a cover assembly (262, fig. 12), wherein the cover assembly includes:
a joint (270, fig. 11) including a first portion and a second portion (annotated figure I above);
a cap (266, fig. 11) including:
a cap top (annotated figure I above); and
a cap side extending from the cap top (annotated figure I above), the cap side further including cap threads (annotated figure I above); and
a radial support (264, fig. 13A) affixed with the second portion (via 270) and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (fig. 13C and annotated figure II below, support projection abuts first side projection and obstructs 266 from sliding out of 264);
affixing the cover assembly with an enclosure of an explosion resistant device (fig. 11, 270 affixes 262 with 18), the enclosure sized to contain equipment therein and including a body (“to allow access to the analysis equipment through an access opening”, [0036]), the enclosure further including:
a projected rim (272, fig. 12) extending away from the body and defining an opening (51, fig. 12) providing an access to the equipment (“FIG. 12 … showing the lid assembly of the analysis compartment arranged in an open position to allow access to the analysis equipment through an access opening”, [0036]); and
rim threads positioned on a surface of the projected rim (fig. 12, “lid 266 and the connection flange 272 collectively form a threaded engagement”, [0082]) and complementary to the cap threads (annotated figure I above),
wherein affixing the cover assembly further comprises affixing the first portion of the joint with the body (fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 17, May discloses the method of claim 16, wherein forming the cover assembly further comprises: selecting a gap between the cap side and the radial support to facilitate self-alignment of the cap side with the projected rim (figs. 13A-B, gap formed between 266 and 268 allows displacement of 266 in a direction such that their vertical sidewalls are aligned with each other).
Regarding Claim 18, the method of claim 16, wherein forming the cover assembly further comprises: positioning a side projection of the cap side adjacent to a support projection of the radial support such that the support projection obstructs the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (figs 13A-C and annotated figure II above); and assembling the radial support by joining a first support segment with a second support segment via one or more fasteners (fig. 12 shows fasteners at the top of 268 to keep two semi-circular segments fastened together).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May.
Regarding Claim 3, May discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 2, wherein the cap side defining a side recess (annotated fig. II above) but does not explicitly disclose the support projection comprises an annular raised ring, the annular raised ring being concentric to the side recess and received in the side recess.
However, May discloses structures such as element 46 shown in fig 5 which is a clamp structure (see fasteners 56 and 60, fig. 5) that circumferentially supports a lid element (66, fig. 5), i.e., has a similar function and overall shape as element 268 shown in figs. 12 and 13A-13C that suggests circumferential symmetry on the inner wall of 268. When taking this into account, along with the symmetry in the location of support projections shown in the cross-sectional view of fig. 13 C (see annotated figure II above) as well as the rotational freedom of the support projection (annotated figure II above) required for threading/unthreading it, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May so that the support projection comprising an annular raised ring, the annular raised ring being concentric to the side recess and received in the side recess, since this would be considered a change in shape. Changes in shape have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B). A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform said motivation, for instance, to provide a uniformly distributed support to the annular first side projection when the lid is the unthreaded and pivoted state.
Regarding Claim 10, May discloses the cover assembly of claim 9, wherein the cap side defining a side recess (annotated fig. II above) but does not explicitly disclose the support projection comprises an annular raised ring, the annular raised ring being concentric to the side recess and received in the side recess.
However, May discloses structures such as element 46 shown in fig 5 which is a clamp structure (see fasteners 56 and 60, fig. 5) that circumferentially supports a lid element (66, fig. 5), i.e., has a similar function and overall shape as element 268 shown in figs. 12 and 13A-13C that suggests circumferential symmetry on the inner wall of 268. When taking this into account, along with the symmetry in the location of support projections shown in the cross-sectional view of fig. 13 C (see annotated figure II above) as well as the rotational freedom of the support projection (annotated figure II above) required for threading/unthreading it, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May so that the support projection comprising an annular raised ring, the annular raised ring being concentric to the side recess and received in the side recess, since this would be considered a change in shape. Changes in shape have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B). A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform said motivation, for instance, to provide a uniformly distributed support to the annular first side projection when the lid is the unthreaded and pivoted state.
Regarding Claim 19, May discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the cap side defining a side recess (annotated fig. II above) but does not explicitly disclose the radial support comprises an annular raised ring, and forming the cover assembly further comprises: positioning the annular raised ring in the side recess.
However, May discloses structures such as element 46 shown in fig 5 which is a clamp structure (see fasteners 56 and 60, fig. 5) that circumferentially supports a lid element (66, fig. 5), i.e., has a similar function and overall shape as element 268 shown in figs. 12 and 13A-13C that suggests circumferential symmetry on the inner wall of 268. When taking this into account, along with the symmetry in the location of support projections shown in the cross-sectional view of fig. 13 C (see annotated figure II above) as well as the rotational freedom of the support projection (annotated figure II above) required for threading/unthreading it, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May so that the radial support comprises an annular raised ring, and forming the cover assembly further comprises: positioning the annular raised ring in the side recess, since this modification would be considered a change in shape of the radial support. Changes in shape have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B). A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform said motivation, for instance, to provide a uniformly distributed support to the annular first side projection when the lid is the unthreaded and pivoted state.
Claims 4, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May in view of Smedsrud et al. (US 20200309647 A1, and Smedsrud hereinafter), further in view of Mack (US 11327513 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, May discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body, the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint with respect to a circumference of the radial support, the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin.
Smedsrud discloses an explosion-proof device including a latch configured to removably couple elements (“any number of suitable coupling techniques, or combination thereof, could be used, including, but not limited to … latches”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May to incorporate the teachings of Smedsrud so that the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body, in order to facilitate quick coupling and decoupling. May discloses the radial support includes fastening elements (see top portion of 268, fig. 12 of May) in the form of bolts; a person of ordinary skill would recognize that replacing them with a latch would perform similar fastening function but with the advantage of doing it in a faster way and without the need of additional tools.
Mack discloses a latch (including 132 and 203, fig. 2) disposed on a side opposing a joint (124, fig. 1), the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin (203, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May and Smedsrud to incorporate the teachings of Mack so that the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint, the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin, in order to help secure the cover assembly to the body (“second fastener 132 to secure the coupling between the first and second portions 102, 104 of the housing 100”, Col. 4, ln. 14-16 of Mack). Mack does not disclose the side opposing the joint, on which the latch is disposed, is with respect to a circumference of the radial support. However, Mack discloses that the location of the fastener may differ (“The locations of the hinge 124, the first fastener 126, and/or the second fastener 132 can differ from the examples shown in FIG. 1.”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to have the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint with respect to a circumference of the radial support, because it doing so would provide maximum torque relative to the joint.
Regarding Claim 11, the cover assembly of claim 9 but does not explicitly disclose the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the enclosure.
Smedsrud discloses an explosion-proof device including a latch configured to removably couple elements (“any number of suitable coupling techniques, or combination thereof, could be used, including, but not limited to … latches”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May to incorporate the teachings of Smedsrud so that the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body, in order to facilitate quick coupling and decoupling. May discloses the radial support includes fastening elements (see top portion of 268, fig. 12 of May) in the form of bolts; a person of ordinary skill would recognize that replacing them with a latch would perform similar fastening function but with the advantage of doing it in a faster way and without the need of additional tools.
Mack discloses a latch (including 132 and 203, fig. 2) disposed on a side opposing a joint (124, fig. 1), the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin (203, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May and Smedsrud to incorporate the teachings of Mack so that the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint, the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin, in order to help secure the cover assembly to the body (“second fastener 132 to secure the coupling between the first and second portions 102, 104 of the housing 100”, Col. 4, ln. 14-16 of Mack). Mack does not disclose the side opposing the joint, on which the latch is disposed, is with respect to a circumference of the radial support. However, Mack discloses that the location of the fastener may differ (“The locations of the hinge 124, the first fastener 126, and/or the second fastener 132 can differ from the examples shown in FIG. 1.”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to have the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint with respect to a circumference of the radial support, because it doing so would provide maximum torque relative to the joint.
Regarding Claim 20, the method of claim 16, wherein the cover assembly but does not explicitly disclose a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body.
Smedsrud discloses an explosion-proof device including a latch configured to removably couple elements (“any number of suitable coupling techniques, or combination thereof, could be used, including, but not limited to … latches”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May to incorporate the teachings of Smedsrud so that the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body, in order to facilitate quick coupling and decoupling. May discloses the radial support includes fastening elements (see top portion of 268, fig. 12 of May) in the form of bolts; a person of ordinary skill would recognize that replacing them with a latch would perform similar fastening function but with the advantage of doing it in a faster way and without the need of additional tools.
Mack discloses a latch (including 132 and 203, fig. 2) disposed on a side opposing a joint (124, fig. 1), the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin (203, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May and Smedsrud to incorporate the teachings of Mack so that the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint, the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin, in order to help secure the cover assembly to the body (“second fastener 132 to secure the coupling between the first and second portions 102, 104 of the housing 100”, Col. 4, ln. 14-16 of Mack). Mack does not disclose the side opposing the joint, on which the latch is disposed, is with respect to a circumference of the radial support. However, Mack discloses that the location of the fastener may differ (“The locations of the hinge 124, the first fastener 126, and/or the second fastener 132 can differ from the examples shown in FIG. 1.”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to have the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint with respect to a circumference of the radial support, because it doing so would provide maximum torque relative to the joint.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May in view of Balourdet (US 10291757 B1, and Balourdet hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 8, the explosion-resistant device of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a lubricant applied to the radial support and/or the cap side.
Balourdet discloses a lubricant applied to elements in contact with other elements (“Connection(s), couplings, or other forms of contact between parts, components, and so forth may include conventional items, such as lubricant”, Col. 6, ln. 19-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May to incorporate the teachings of Balourdet so that it further comprises a lubricant applied to the radial support and/or the cap side, in order to reduce friction due to contact and facilitate coupling/decoupling.
Regarding Claim 15, the cover assembly of claim 9 but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a lubricant applied to the radial support and/or the cap side.
Balourdet discloses a lubricant applied to elements in contact with other elements (“Connection(s), couplings, or other forms of contact between parts, components, and so forth may include conventional items, such as lubricant”, Col. 6, ln. 19-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May to incorporate the teachings of Balourdet so that it further comprises a lubricant applied to the radial support and/or the cap side, in order to reduce friction due to contact and facilitate coupling/decoupling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Applicant argues that “May's carriage is for pivotably coupling May's lid to May's "housing 16". Further, May provides no motivation, let alone any corresponding structural feature, for configuring the carriage to obstruct the lid from dislocating out of the carriage 264. On the contrary, May fastens the lid using other means. Specifically, May's lid is configured to reside "in a sealed position, threaded with a connection flange of the control compartment" (see May, at column 5, lines 7-9). Thus, at best, May purports to obstruct the lid from dislocating out of the housing 16 (which does not map even to the claimed "radial support") based on that threaded connection. Therefore, May fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least "a radial support affixed with the second portion and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When considering the teachings of the prior art, a PHOSITA is not limited by the intended purpose stated in the disclosure of said art, but is instead guided by the known physical and functional properties of the element itself (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner also asserts that May indeed discloses structural features consistent with the claimed function of a radial support obstructing a cap from dislocating out of a radial support. More in detail, May discloses, in fig. 13C, element 266 (referred to as “cap” in the previous Office Action) and element 264 (referred to as “radial support” in the previous Office Action) supporting element 266 externally and limiting its motion in the radial direction; fig. 12 shows both elements are cylindrical in shape; therefore, element 264 functions as a radial support for element 266. Furthermore, fig. 13C shows that the internal surface of element 264 comprises a portion that protrudes inwardly towards the center, i.e., it has a smaller inner radius than the rest of 264 and prevents 266 from sliding out of 264, which indicates that structure and function of element 264 is consistent with the claimed limitation “a radial support … obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support”. See also rejection of Claims 1 and 16 above.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 18, Applicant argues that the "support projection" that the Examiner annotated onto May's "frame 268"is absent from May's depictions of "frame 268" in FIGS. 13A and 13B (see May, at FIGS. 13A-13C). Given how May's FIGS. 13A-13B depict the "lid assembly...in the closed position" and how May's FIG. 13C depicts "the lid assembly...moved towards the option position" (see May, at column 5, lines 5-20), the Office has not adequately justified how the alleged "support projection" can disclose, teach, or suggest "obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support", as recited in claims 2, 9, and 18. Therefore, May fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least "the radial support comprises a support projection projecting from an interior surface of the radial support, the cap side further comprising a side projection positioned adjacent to an end of the cap side opposite from the cap top, the side projection projecting from an exterior side surface of the cap side, the support projection positioned between the cap top and the side projection and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support".
Examiner acknowledges that the “support projection” annotated in figure II (above) corresponding to May’s fig. 13C is not depicted in similar manner in figs. 13A and 13B since it appears that hash lines are missing in figures 13A and 13B. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s conclusion.
Given the situation discussed above, a PHOSITA would determine that either figs. 13A-13C are either inconsistent with each other and cannot be interpreted together or that a drawing/rendering error was made but enough details such as similar shape, size, and location are shown to suggest the structure is indeed present and should be similar in all three figures. Furthermore, even if said “support projection” is absent in figs. 13A and 13B but shown in fig. 13 C, then fig. 13C itself would constitute direct disclosure of the structure in question. An analysis of the functional role of the “support projection” mentioned above also supports the second conclusion.
More in detail, referring now to figs. 13A-13C, May discloses “Referring now to FIG. 13A, … The lid assembly 262 is arranged in the closed position to engage with the connection flange 272, and the lid 266 has been rotated for threaded engagement with the connection flange 272” and “In FIG. 13B, … The lid 266 has been unthreaded from, but remains engaged with, the connection flange 272, while the lid assembly 262 is arranged in the closed position. In FIG. 13B, the lid 266 is positioned farther from the access opening 51 than in the sealed position as shown in FIG. 13A. In FIG. 13C, the lid assembly 262 has been pivoted out from the closed position towards the open position”. In other words, fig. 13C represents a state where the lid 266 has been unthreaded and pivoted around. A question that arises is what keep it from falling down? It can be seen that the support projection abutting first side projection (see annotated figure II above) constitutes a physical system that functionally obstructs 266 from sliding down and falling out of 264 (especially, in the unthreaded state); therefore fig. 13C is consistent with the claimed limitation “the support projection … obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support".
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 19, Applicant argues that the "support projection" that was annotated onto May's "frame 268"is only on one side of May's depiction of "frame 268" in FIG. 13C (see May, at FIG. 13C). Thus, the annotated "support projection" cannot be an "annular raised ring", as claimed. Therefore, May fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least "the support projection comprises an annular raised ring, the cap side defining a side recess, the annular raised ring being concentric to the side recess and received in the side recess".
Examiner respectfully disagrees. May’s fig. 13 C shows “support projection” (see annotated fig. II above) protruding radially inwards from frame 268 and a similar protrusion is shown on the left portion of 268, also protruding radially inwards but without hash lines. As discussed above (see response to Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 2, 9, and 18) a PHOSITA would be able to establish that said protrusions prevent 266 from sliding/falling down from 264 (since 266 is no longer threaded to 264). In addition, fig. 13C is a cross-sectional view but the symmetry in the location of said protrusions when considered in view of the circular symmetry observed in the inner walls of other structures disclosed by May (e.g., 46 in figs. 3, 5 has a similar functional role to 264 of fig. 13C) suggests that the “support projection” has an annular ring shape. See also rejection of Claims 3, 10, and 19 above.
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 Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841