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 Objections
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities:
“…relative toa…” (line 7) should recite “…relative to a…” for purposes of clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-17, 19 and 26-27 are 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 16 recites the following limitations:
"the blocking wall” (lines 7, 10, 11);
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 16 is dependent upon claim 15, which does provide sufficient antecedent basis for the cited limitations.
Claim 17 recites “an annular sealing element” (line 2). Claim 16, which claim 17 is dependent upon, also recites “an annular sealing element”. It is unclear if both terms are referring to the same annular sealing element or a different annular sealing element. If both recitation refer to the same annular sealing element, Examiner suggests amending claim 17 to recite “the annular sealing element. If both recitations refer to a different annular sealing element, Examiner suggests amending claim 17 to recite “a second annular sealing element”.
Claim 19 recites the following limitations:
"the spacing between two ends of this piece” (line 3);
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 19 is dependent upon claim 15, which does provide sufficient antecedent basis for the cited limitations.
Claim 26 recites the following limitations:
"the delimiting” (line 5);
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 26 is dependent upon claim 15, which does provide sufficient antecedent basis for the cited limitations. Claim 27 also rejected due to dependency on claim 26
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-17, 19-26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zbiral et al. (DE10201913307A), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement, in view of Einoegg et al. (US 2023/0038944). The English machine translation of Zbiral et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 15, Zbiral et al. teaches a degassing unit for arrangement on a container of a battery housing (Para. [0067]) (i.e. an arrangement for pressure compensation for battery compartment) compartment comprising a frame (Fig. 1 ,#12) (i.e. a connection element) that fluidically connects the container to the container environment (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a connection element configured to be mounted in an opening of the compartment and having an annular body extending around a central axis and delimiting a channel for circulation of a gaseous fluid), a protective hood (Fig. 1, #50) which covers the main frame recess area (see Fig. 3) (i.e. a cover for blocking the channel, wherein the cover is mounted on the annular body by nesting along a direction of getting close to the base), a disc membrane (Fig. 4, #38) positioned at the main frame recess and covers the entire flow cross-section released by the main frame recess ensuring that flow can only occur through the disc membrane and via the main frame opening that repels liquids and contaminants but is permeable to gases (Para. [0019]) (i.e. a membrane that is gas permeable to retain dust while allowing filtering a gaseous fluid in the channel), an emergency degassing mandrel provided on the frame hood or on the protective hood, which extends to the disc membrane and whose tip is located at a predetermined distance from an outer surface of the disc membrane, wherein the emergency degassing mandrel is formed in one piece with the frame hood or the protective hood, designed to contact the diaphragm when a predetermined overpressure in the battery housing is exceeded causing the diaphragm to bulge outwards and to puncture an rupture it if the pressure increase further (Para. [0046], [0047]) (i.e. wherein the membrane is deformable with a mobile portion that is movable towards a blocking portion belonging to the cover in response to an overpressure from a side opposite the cover, where a set portion of the channel is axially delimited between the cover and a surface of the membrane facing the cover), a protective hood has a fastening ring (Fig. 4, #72) which is clamped under a folded-over section (Fig. 4, #74) (Para. [0063]) (i.e. at least one locking member locking an axial nesting position of the cover for which the cover blocks without sealing an outlet of the channel, see Fig. 3 and 4, wherein the cover is designed and arranged in said axial nesting position, for piercing or damaging the membrane when the mobile portion is moved towards the blocking portion beyond a critical movement distance, which allows at least a part of the gaseous flow to pass through the membrane without filtration, wherein said at least one locking member which is engaged against at least one edge belonging to the connection element in order to axially retain the cover).
Zbiral et al. does not teach the at least one locking member is configured to disengage from said holding edge by deformation in case of exceeding an overpressure threshold prevailing in the set portion of the channel and thus unlock the nesting of the cover.
However, Einoegg et al. teaches a battery housing comprising a protective cap (Para. [0023], [0024]) comprising locking elements (Para. [0025]) wherein when a pressure is exerted on the protective cap, the connection between the protective cap and the housing wall is released and hot gas escapes from the interior to the surrounding environment (Para. [0026]) (i.e. a locking member configured to disengaged from a holding edge by deformation in case of exceeding an overpressure threshold prevailing and thus unlock the nesting of the cover).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Zbiral et al. to incorporate the teaching of locking elements wherein when a pressure is exerted on the protective cap, the connection between the protective cap and the housing wall is released (i.e. locking member configured to disengage) and hot gas escapes from the interior to the surrounding environment, as such a structure would allow for interior gas to escape reliably and allows for discharge of gas while reliably protecting the degassing element against ambient influences (Para. [0026]). Thus, the proposed modification would provide a locking member configured to disengaged from a holding edge by deformation in case of exceeding an overpressure threshold prevailing in the set portion of the channel of Zbiral et al. and thus unlock the nesting of the cover of Zbiral et al as modified by Einoegg et al..
Regarding Claim 16, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches the emergency degassing mandrel (Fig. 3, #141) (i.e. blocking portion) extends transversely relative to the central axis, wherein a linear nesting movement of the cover relative to the frame (i.e. connection element) is done along a first direction, wherein the annular body has annular base (see Fig. 2, #12) allowing an axial retention against the compartment, via a ring seal (Fig. 2, #48) (i.e. annular sealing element), wherein the annular body has a projection (Fig. 3, #28) (i.e. a free edge distal from the compartment, opposite the base), wherein in the axial nesting position the degassing mandrel (Fig. 3, #141) is axially near the free edge (see Fig. 3) (i.e. the blocking wall is axially near the free edge).
Zbiral et al. does not teach wherein the unlocking of the nesting by deformation of said locking member allows the cover to be moved by the thrust exerted on the blocking wall along a second direction opposite the first direction, because of which a withdrawal of the blocking wall far from the free edge results.
However, Einoegg et al. teaches a battery housing comprising a protective cap (Para. [0023], [0024]) comprising locking elements (Para. [0025]) wherein when a pressure is exerted on the protective cap, the connection between the protective cap and the housing wall is released and hot gas escapes from the interior to the surrounding environment (Para. [0026]) (i.e. the unlocking of the nesting by deformation of a locking member allows the cover to be moved by the thrust exerted along a second direction opposite a first direction).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Zbiral et al. to incorporate the teaching of locking elements wherein when a pressure is exerted on the protective cap, the connection between the protective cap and the housing wall is released and hot gas escapes from the interior to the surrounding environment, as such a structure would allow for interior gas to escape reliably and allows for discharge of gas while reliably protecting the degassing element against ambient influences (Para. [0026]). Thus, the proposed modification would provide unlocking of the nesting by deformation of said locking member allows the cover to be moved by the thrust exerted on the blocking wall along a second direction opposite the first direction, because of which a withdrawal of the blocking wall far from the free edge results, as the emergency degassing mandrel can be provided on the protective hood (Para. [0046]).
Regarding Claim 17, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 16 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches the frame ring (Fig. 2, #16) has a circumferential groove (Fig. 2, #46, located on the base) for receiving a ring seal to prevent ingress of liquids and solids into the container (Para. [0056]) (i.e. the connection element is made of a single piece and bears an annular sealing element, housed in an inner groove of the base which opens out axially opposite the blocking portion, in order to achieve an annular seal with the compartment).
Regarding Claim 19, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches the protective hood has a fastening ring (Fig. 4, #72) which is clamped under a folded-over section (Fig. 4, #74) (Para. [0063]) (i.e. at least one locking member extends annularly around the central axis).
Zbiral et al. does not teach the locking member consist of a piece deformable by modification of the spacing between two ends of this piece which are neighbors to each other.
However, Einoegg et al. teaches a second connection element (i.e. locking element) may be formed as an elastic snap-fit hook element (Para. [0025]) (i.e. the at least one locking member consists of a piece elastically deformable piece).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Zbiral et al. to incorporate the teaching of locking elements comprising an elastic snap-fit hook element, as such a structure would allow for interior gas to escape reliably and allows for discharge of gas while reliably protecting the degassing element against ambient influences (Para. [0026]). Thus, the modified locking member of Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. would provide a locking member would be expected to be deformable by modification of the spacing between two ends of this piece which are neighbors to each other, as the piece is elastic. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 20, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches the folded over section of the frame is supported by a fastening ring (Fig. 4, #72) of the protective hood (i.e. wherein at least one locking member is a locking member supported by the cover).
Regarding Claim 21, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 20 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches the folded over section of the frame (Fig. 4, #74) is supported by a fastening ring of the protective hood (Fig. 4, #50) which is a tubular portion (i.e. wherein the locking member is supported by a tubular portion of the cover, see also Fig. 2) and adapted to engage the fastening ring (Fig. 4, #72) (i.e. adapted to engage against at least holding edge), wherein the fastening ring is formed in an insertion portion of the main frame (see Annotated Fig. 4 below) (i.e. formed in an insertion portion belonging to the annular body) wherein the fastening ring is clamped under the folded-over section (Para. [0063]) (i.e. in order to lock the axial nesting position of the cover, where this locking is implementable only in an overlapping position of the tubular portion around the insertion portion).
Annotated Zbiral et al. – Fig. 4
PNG
media_image1.png
306
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 21 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. does not teach the locking member extends or is inserted in at least one empty space or window of the tubular portion, in order to exert a tightening action against the insertion portion, where the locking member is elastically deformable by radial outward deformation.
However, Einoegg et al. teaches a battery housing comprising a protective cap (Para. [0023], [0024]) comprising locking elements (Fig. 1, #14) extending an at least one empty space of a tubular portion of the protective cap (Fig. 1, #7) (i.e. wherein the locking member extends or is inserted in at least one empty space or window of the tubular portion) and the locking element is a second connection element (Fig. 1, #10) which may be formed as an elastic snap-fit hook element (i.e. exerts a tightening) arranged on a carrier (i.e. insertion portion) of the holding device (Para. [0025]) (i.e. in order to exert a tightening action against the insertion portion, where the locking member is expected be elastically deformable by radial outward deformation as it is elastic). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Zbiral et al. to incorporate the teaching of locking elements comprising an elastic snap-fit hook element, as such a structure would allow for interior gas to escape reliably and allows for discharge of gas while reliably protecting the degassing element against ambient influences (Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 23, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 20 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches the cover has a frame connected to the emergency degassing mandrel (i.e. wherein the cover further has a support part connected to the blocking portion) wherein the frame comprises a folding over section (Fig. 4, #74) that is clamped with the fastening ring of the protective hood (Para. [0063]) (i.e. a peripheral portion laid out for bearing the locking member which extends annularly, see Fig. 2, by following circumferentially along an inner surface of the annular body, a projection (Fig. 2, #28) (i.e. an end projecting axially relative to the ring, by projecting along a direction going opposite the blocking portion) where the projection has the emergency degassing mandrel (Fig. 3, #141) (i.e. where the end has at least one piercing point or member for perforating the mobile portion of the membrane).
Regarding Claim 24, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 23 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. teaches wherein the frame comprises a folding over section (Fig. 4, #74) that is clamped with the fastening ring of the protective hood (Para. [0063]) (i.e. an annular body, see Fig. 2).
Zbiral et al. does not teach wherein the at least one locking member serves to retain the cover axially in the nested position by coming to engage against at least one inner relief included in said inner surface of the annular body, which is made of a single piece of stiff material.
However, Einoegg et al. teaches a battery housing comprising a protective cap (Para. [0023], [0024]) comprising locking elements (Fig. 1, #14) such as second connection element (Fig. 1, #10) which fastens the protective cap to a housing wall of the battery (Para. [0024]) (i.e. wherein the at least one locking member serves to retain the cover axially in the nested position) wherein the locking element is arranged on a carrier (i.e. inner relief) of the holding device (Para. [0025]) (i.e. by coming to engage against at least one inner relief included in an inner surface) and the first connection element (Fig. 1, #9) may be a rigid locking element (i.e. wherein the inner relied is made of a single piece of stiff material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the locking member and inner surface of the annular body of Zbiral et al. to incorporate the teaching of the locking element and carrier with the locking member and inner relief made of a single piece of stiff material, as such a structure would allow for interior gas to escape reliably and allows for discharge of gas while reliably protecting the degassing element against ambient influences (Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 25, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches the frame (Fig. 2, #12) (i.e. the annular body) is configured to be inserted partially in an annular space which is provided in an inner volume of the protection hood (Fig. 2, #50) (i.e. the cover), by inserting it between a skirt of the protection hood and an emergency degassing mandrel which is provided on the protective hood (Para. [0046]) (i.e. and a central piercing stem belonging to the cover).
Regarding Claim 26, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches attaching the elements using conventional joining methods (Para. [0048]) (i.e. an assembly method for assembling the arrangement) wherein the arrangement is designed to rupture the diaphragm (i.e. membrane) if the pressure increases during overpressure in the battery housing (Para. [0047]) (i.e. which is an arrangement for pressure compensation for a battery compartment, by using a membrane) by using an emergency degassing mandrel as a single piece with the protective hood and a frame (Fig. 2, #12) having an annular body and that fluidically connects the container to the container environment (Para. [0018]) (i.e. and a connection element configured to be mounted in an opening of the battery compartment having an annular body extending around a central axis and delimiting a channel for circulation of gaseous fluid) wherein the protective hood covers the main frame (Para. [0057]) (i.e. wherein the arrangement, mounted on the annular body by nesting, comprising a cover for blocking the channel, see Fig. 3) the protective hood having an emergency degassing mandrel (Fig. 3, #141) (i.e. the cover having a blocking portion extending transversely relative to a nesting direction of the cover), wherein the method comprises arranging a disc membrane (Para. [0060]) the disc membrane that repels liquids and contaminants but is permeable to gases (Para. [0019]) (i.e. arranging the membrane transversely, see Fig. 2, in order to allow filtration of the gaseous flow moving in the channel, the membrane being gas permeable and configured to retain dust), the protective hood is arranged on the frame via the mounting ring (Para. [0063]) (i.e. mounting the cover on the annular body by nesting towards the membrane [Fig. 3, #38] along the nesting direction) such that the emergency degassing mandrel (Fig. 3, #141) covers the covers the main frame recess area (see Fig. 2 and 3, #4) (i.e. such that the blocking portion covers an axial outlet of the channel and covers the membrane, while a pointed or cutting end included in the cover is placed facing the membrane, wherein a set portion of the channel is axially delimited between the cover and a surface of the membrane facing the cover) and a protective hood has a fastening ring (Fig. 4, #72) which is clamped under a folded-over section (Fig. 4, #74) (Para. [0063]) (i.e. locking the axial nesting position of the cover by at least one locking member, where the at least one locking member is placed on the cover before nesting, and where the nesting is done such that the at least one locking member comes to engage against at least one holding edge formed laterally on the annular body), wherein the emergency degassing mandrel designed to contact the diaphragm when a predetermined overpressure in the battery housing is exceeded causing the diaphragm to bulge outwards and to puncture an rupture it if the pressure increase further (Para. [0046], [0047]) (i.e. wherein the membrane is deformable and provided with a mobile portion that is movable towards the blocking portion in response to an overpressure from a side opposite the cover).
Zbiral et al. does not teach the at least one locking member remains deformable in order to allow unlocking the nesting of the cover when the overpressure on the gaseous fluid side present in the set portion of the evacuation channel exceeds a threshold.
However, Einoegg et al. teaches a battery housing comprising a protective cap (Para. [0023], [0024]) comprising locking elements (Para. [0025]) wherein when a pressure is exerted on the protective cap, the connection between the protective cap and the housing wall is released and hot gas escapes from the interior to the surrounding environment (Para. [0026]) (i.e. wherein the nesting is done such that the locking member remains deformable in order to allow unlocking the nesting of the cover when overpressure on the gaseous fluid side present in the set portion of the evacuation channel exceeds a threshold).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Zbiral et al. to incorporate the teaching of locking elements wherein when a pressure is exerted on the protective cap, the connection between the protective cap and the housing wall is released (i.e. locking member configured to disengage) and hot gas escapes from the interior to the surrounding environment, as such a structure would allow for interior gas to escape reliably and allows for discharge of gas while reliably protecting the degassing element against ambient influences (Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 28, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. does not explicitly teach the at least one locking member consists of a single elastically deformable piece.
However, Einoegg et al. teaches second connection element (i.e. locking element) may be formed as an elastic snap-fit hook element (Para. [0025]) (i.e. the at least one locking member consists of a single elastically deformable piece).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure of Zbiral et al. to incorporate the teaching of locking elements comprising an elastic snap-fit hook element, as such a structure would allow for interior gas to escape reliably and allows for discharge of gas while reliably protecting the degassing element against ambient influences (Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 29, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches the protective hood (Fig. 2, #50) (i.e. the cover) has a blocking portion without any opening (see protection hood portion in axial direction #26) and gas flows through the protective hood recesses (Fig. 2, #64) located on the external skirt of the protection hood (Para. [0062]) (i.e. the cover being configured to allow an escape of air only around the external skirt of the cover).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zbiral et al. (DE10201913307A) in view of Einoegg et al. (US 2023/0038944) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wan et al. (US 2014/0227565).
Regarding Claim 18, Zbiral et al. as modified by Einoegg et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Zbiral et al. further teaches the protective hood has a fastening ring (Fig. 4, #72) which is clamped under a folded-over section (Fig. 4, #74) (Para. [0063]) (i.e. wherein said at least one locking member surrounds or is surrounded by an overlapping zone between the connection element and the cover).
Zbiral et al. does not teach wherein the at least one locking member is distinct from the cover and the connection element.
However, Wan et al. teaches a battery explosion-proof device (Para. [0023]) comprising a protecting cover (Fig. 1, #3) (i.e. cover), a base portion (Fig. 1. #11) (i.e. a connection element), and a suspension clip portion (Fig. 3, #33) (i.e. a locking member that is distinct from the cover and the connection element) that is clipped with a second opening to connect the protective cover with a side wall of the base portion (Para. [0028]).
The combination of the distinct suspension clip portion (i.e. locking member) as taught by Wan et al., with the arrangement of modified Zbiral et al. would yield the predictable result of fitting the protective cover and the base portion together (Para. [0028]) which yields the same result as the locking member structure of Zbiral et al. (see Para. [0063] of Zbiral et al. which teaches the fastening ring is clamped under the folded over section of the protective hood). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the distinct aspect of the suspension clip portion (i.e. locking member) as taught by Wan et al., with the arrangement of Zbiral et al. as the combination would yield the predictable result of fitting the protective cover and the base portion together (Para. [0028]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: none of the prior art alone or combination teach, suggest or render obvious the invention of at least claim 27.
Claim 27 teaches the assembly method requiring the steps therein. Notably, the claim requires, wherein the at least one locking member is a single piece placed on the cover before nesting, by spreading two opposite ends of said piece that is deformable, before tightening an annular support region belonging to the cover. Zbiral et al. (cited above) teaches a frame (Fig. 1 ,#12) and a protective hood (Fig. 1, #50) which covers the main frame recess area (see Fig. 3) (i.e. a cover and an annular support region belonging to the cover). Einoegg et al. teaches a second connection element (i.e. locking element) may be formed as an elastic snap-fit hook element (Para. [0025]) (i.e. the at least one locking member is single piece elastically placed on the cover before nesting). However, none of the prior art alone or in combination teach, suggest or render obvious the at least one locking member is a single piece placed on the cover before nesting, by spreading two opposite ends of said piece that is deformable, before tightening an annular support region belonging to the cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights