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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the back of the hand tool" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verbiar (U.S. 2,915,330). Verbiar teaches a pressurized vessel system, comprising a first tri clamp, shown in figure 2), the first tri clamp having a first nut 26, the first tri clamp having a first clamp arm 20, the first clamp arm having a tri clamp extension 23, the first tri clamp having a second clamp arm at lead line 26, the first tri clamp having a plurality of attachment features 24, 25, a first tri clamp nut 27, the first tri clamp nut having a threaded fitting at lead line 27, the first tri clamp nut having a head (on element 27; figure 2), the head of the first tri clamp nut having a head thread (threads of 27), wherein the tri clamp extension is shaped to block or impede traditional tools from access to the first nut of the first tri clamp (figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbiar (U.S. 2,915,330) in view of Oliveira et al. (U.S. BR P10702533A).
Regarding claims 2 and 8-10, Verbiar discloses the claimed invention except for the pressurized vessel. Oliveira et al. teaches that it is known to provide a pressurized vessel (see figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Verbiar with a pressure vessel, as taught by Oliveira et al., in order to secure the elements of the pressure vessel together using a clamping mechanism.
Further regarding claim 2, a pressurized vessel (shown in figure 5 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel extending a length from a first end to a second end (upper and lower end of 14 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an outer wall (at 54, 56 of Oliveira et al. ), the pressurized vessel having an inner wall (of 14 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an exterior surface (figure 5 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an interior surface (interior surface of 14 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an insulated layer (42 of Oliveira et al. provides insulation), the pressurized vessel having a plurality of handles (60 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a plurality of apertures (at 32 and the opening of 54 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a base (below 56 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a first lid (22 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a second lid (54 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a pressure relief system (36 of Oliveira et al.).
Further regarding claim 8, a pressurized vessel (figure 5 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel extending a length from a first end to a second end (figure 5 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an outer wall (at 54, 56 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an exterior surface (figure 5 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an interior surface (interior surface of 14 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a plurality of apertures (at 32 and the opening of 54 of Oliveira et al.).
Further regarding claim 9, a pressurized vessel (shown in figure 5 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel extending a length from a first end to a second end (figure 5 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an outer wall (at 54, 56 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an inner wall (of 14 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an exterior surface (figure 5 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an interior surface (interior surface of 14 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having an insulated layer (42 of Oliveira et al. provides insulation), the pressurized vessel having a plurality of handles (60 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a plurality of apertures (at 32 and the opening of 54 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a base (below 56 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a first lid (22 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a second lid (54 of Oliveira et al.), the pressurized vessel having a pressure relief system (36 of Oliveira et al.).
Further regarding claim 10, a pressure relief valve (36 of Oliveira et al.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbiar (U.S. 2,915,330) in view of Mehta et al. (U.S. 2010/0025404).
Regarding claim 3, Verbiar discloses the claimed invention except for the second tri clamp. Mehta et al. teaches that it is known to provide a system with a second tri clamp (see figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Verbiar with a second tri clamp, as taught by Mehta et al., in order to give the clamping ring greater flexibility to expand so that it may be applied to the container more easily.
Further regarding claim 3, a second tri clamp is structured as the first trip clamp of Verbiar, the second tri clamp having a second nut 26, the second tri clamp having a first clamp arm 20, the first clamp arm of the second tri clamp having a tri clamp extension 23, the second tri clamp having a second clamp arm at lead line 26, the second tri clamp having a plurality of attachment features24, 25, a second tri clamp nut 27, the second tri clamp nut having a threaded fitting at 27, the second tri clamp nut having a head (figure 2), the head of the second tri clamp nut having a plurality of prong fittings (see the head of 27 in figure 3), the head of the second tri clamp nut having a head thread (threads of 27), wherein the tri clamp extension of the second tri clamp is shaped to block or impede traditional tools from access to the second nut of the second tri clamp (figure 3), the head extending a length from a first end to a second end (figure 3), the head of the first tri clamp nut having a plurality of prong fittings (see two prongs at head of 27 in figure 3), the plurality of prong fittings located at the first end of the head, wherein the tri clamp extension prevents access to the side of the head of the first nut (figure 3), wherein preventing access to the side provides for access to the first end of the head of the second tri clamp nut (figure 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbiar (U.S. 2,915,330) in view of Parker et al. (U.S. 6,053,078).
Regarding claim 4, Verbiar discloses the claimed invention except for the hand tool. Parker et al. teaches that it is known to provide a system with a hand tool (see element 42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Verbiar with a hand tool, as taught by Parker et al., in order to restrict access to vessel by having a specific tool to engage the and release the clamp.
Further regarding claim 4, a hand tool (42 of Parker et al.), the hand tool extending a length from a first end to a second end (TL; figure 3B or Parker et al.), the hand tool having a back and a front, the hand tool having a head (20 of Parker et al.) with a plurality of prongs (34 of Parker et al.) and an aperture (defined by 28 of Parker et al.), the hand tool having a grip (upper end of 42 of Parker et al.).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbiar (U.S. 2,915,330) in view of Riedel et al. (CN 113833889A).
Regarding claim 5, Verbiar discloses the claimed invention except for the hand tool. Riedel et al. teaches that it is known to provide a system with a hand tool (see figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Verbiar with a hand tool, as taught by Riedel et al., in order to restrict access to vessel by having a specific tool to engage the and release the clamp.
Further regarding claim 5, a hand tool(shown in figure 4 of Riedel et al.), a cable attachment feature (aperture defined by 246 of Riedel et al.), wherein the cable attachment feature is secured near the back of the hand tool (figure 4 of Riedel et al.), the cable attachment feature connected to a cable (250 of Riedel et al.) which is connected to a cable pin (248 of Riedel et al.), wherein the cable pin connects to the vessel (capable of connecting to vessel of modified invention).
Further regarding claim 11, a cable attachment feature (aperture defined by 246 of Riedel et al.), wherein the cable attachment feature is secured near the back of the hand tool (figure 4 of Riedel et al.), the cable attachment feature connected to a cable (250 of Riedel et al.) which is connected to a cable pin (248 of Riedel et al.), wherein the cable pin connects to the vessel (capable of connecting to vessel of modified invention).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verbiar (U.S. 2,915,330) in view of Oliveira et al. (U.S. BR P10702533A) and Parker et al. (U.S. 6,053,078).
Regarding claim 20, Verbiar discloses the claimed invention except for the pressurized vessel. Oliveira et al. teaches that it is known to provide a pressurized vessel (see figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Verbiar with a pressure vessel, as taught by Oliveira et al., in order to secure the elements of the pressure vessel together using a clamping mechanism.
The modified method Verbiar teaches providing a pressurized vessel (as modified by Oliveira et al. above), providing a tri clamp (shown in figure 2), the tri clamp having a tri clamp extension 21, 23, the tri clamp having a release nut 28, preventing access to the release nut by the tri clamp extension covering the side of the release nut (figure 3),
Further regarding claim 20, the modified method of Verbiar discloses the claimed invention except for the hand tool. Parker et al. teaches that it is known to provide a system with a hand tool (see element 42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Verbiar with a hand tool, as taught by Parker et al., in order to restrict access to vessel by having a specific tool to engage the and release the clamp.
The modified Verbiar method teaches providing an access tool (as modified by Parker et al. above), wherein the access tool causes the release nut to rotate by accessing the top of the nut (figures 4A and 4B of Parker et al.), engaging a plurality of prongs of the access tool with a plurality of prong apertures of the release nut so as to cause the release nut to disengage (see 34 of Parker et al.), where disengaging is rotating about a threaded fitting releasing the tri clamp.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Claims 12-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach a pressure relief device comprising a pressurized vessel, a first and a second tri clamp, a first and a second tri clamp nut, a hand tool, a cable attachment feature and a pressure relief valve wherein the hand tool is secured to the pressure relief valve such that pressure of the pressurized vessel must be released so that the hand tool can be used to remove the first tri clamp and the second tri clamp and wherein releasing the hand tool requires pulling the cable a distance to use the hand tool so that the hand tool can reach the first tri clamp and second tri clamp such that the distance is less than the length of the cable securing the hand tool to the pressurized vessel. Further wherein the first tri clamp having a first nut, a first clamp arm with a tri clamp extension, a second clamp arm, a plurality of attachment features, a first tri clamp nut with a threaded fitting and head having prong fittings. Further wherein, the second tri clamp having a second nut, a first clamp arm having a tri clamp extension, a second clamp arm, a plurality of attachment features, a second tri clamp nut with a threaded fitting and head having prong fittings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the clamp mechanism.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m..
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736