DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on April 7, 2026, the objections to the specification and the 112(b) rejection in the previous office action (dated 12/10/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1 and 3-6 have been amended,
Claims 2 and 7-12 were previously presented, and
Claims 13-20 have been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application(s) filed in China on September 5, 2023 and August 21, 2024 (respectively). It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202311139607.3 AND CN202411156538.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, ln. 2-3, the phrase in each instance, “…the sealant body…” should read “…the ring shaped sealant body…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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.
Claims 8-11 and 13-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 8, ln. 2-4, the phrases, “…the hole of the component to be sealed…” “…a hole edge of the hole of the component to be sealed…” and “…the component to be sealed…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant established the bracket in reference to “the hole of the component to be sealed” and “a hole edge of the hole of the component to be sealed” WHICH ALL HAVE NOT BEEN POSITIVELY RECITED; therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 9, ln. 4-5, the phrases, “…the hole edge of the hole…” and “…the component to be sealed…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because the applicant established the bracket in reference to “the hole edge of the hole” and “the component to be sealed” WHICH ALL HAVE NOT BEEN POSITIVELY RECITED; therefore, it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. Further clarification is required.
In claim 13, ln. 3, the phrase, “…a hole of a component to be sealed…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is encompassing the same “a hole of a component to be sealed” (claim 13, ln. 1) OR a different “hole of a component to be sealed” in this occurrence? Further clarification is required.
As for claims 10-11 and 14-20, due to their dependencies from claims 8, 9 and 13 (respectively), they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pavur et al. (US 5702133 A – art of record; hereinafter Pavur).
Regarding claim 1, Pavur discloses a sealing plug embodiment (210; as shown in Figs. 15-16a) comprising:
a sealing cover (216) configured to cover a hole of a component (221) to be sealed, the sealing cover having at least one receiving space and a cover body (i.e. the region to right of rim (234) and central hub (260) AND to the region to left of rim (238) and central hub (260) is what examiner equates to the claimed cover body – as shown annotated Pavur Fig. 16 below; emphasis added);
a sealant (218) disposed around the cover body, the sealant being at least partially received in the at least one receiving space; and
a bracket (220) connected to the sealing cover;
wherein the sealing cover and the bracket are configured such that when the sealant melts, the sealing cover and the bracket at least partially restrict flow of the sealant (Pavur Col. 7 ln. 39 - Col. 8 ln. 55).
PNG
media_image1.png
855
1533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Pavur further discloses wherein the at least one receiving space comprises a receiving groove, wherein the receiving groove extends from a bottom of the sealing cover towards a top of the sealing cover, the receiving groove forms a bottom opening at the bottom of the sealing cover, and the sealant is at least partially received in the receiving groove through the bottom opening; and
the bracket is connected below the sealing cover and at least partially shields the bottom opening, such that the sealant is sandwiched between the sealing cover and the bracket (see annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 3, Pavur further discloses wherein the sealing plug has an axis (A), the receiving groove extending from the bottom of the sealing cover towards the top of the sealing cover in the direction of the axis, and the receiving groove and the sealant is ring-shaped extending around the axis (see annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 4, Pavur further discloses wherein the sealant comprises:
a sealing top portion received in the receiving groove (i.e. the portion of the pad (218) that is directly abutting the inner surface of the sealing cover (216) is what examiner equates to the claimed sealing top portion in annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above); and
a sealing bottom portion (i.e. outer edge (226) of the sealing pad) connected to the sealing top portion, the sealing bottom portion configured to be disposed around the hole of the component to be sealed (see annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 7, Pavur further discloses wherein the sealant comprises a sealant body, wherein the sealing top portion extends inwards from a top of the sealant body, and the sealing bottom portion extends outwards from a bottom of the sealant body (see annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 8, Pavur further discloses wherein the bracket is configured such that when the sealing plug seals the hole of the component to be sealed, the bracket is snap-fitted with a hole edge of the hole of the component to be sealed to retain the sealing plug in the component to be sealed (see annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 9, Pavur further discloses wherein the bracket comprises at least two clips (50 and 54), wherein each of the at least two clips extends downwards from an edge of the bracket, and each clip comprises a resilient leg configured to be resiliently deflected to abut against the hole edge of the hole to retain the sealing plug in the component to be sealed (see annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavur et al. (US 5702133 A – art of record; hereinafter Pavur) in view of Griffin (US 3018535 A – art of record; hereinafter Griffin).
Regarding claim 10, Pavur as above teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1-2, 8 and 9 (respectively), except for wherein each clip has a window; the resilient leg comprises an upper leg portion, a bent portion and a lower leg portion, the bent portion being connected between the upper leg portion and the lower leg portion, the upper leg portion extending obliquely outwards from a top end of the upper leg portion to the bent portion, and the lower leg portion extending obliquely inwards from the bent portion to a bottom end of the lower leg portion; and the bottom end of the lower leg portion is connected to an edge of the window, and the top end of the upper leg portion forms a free end.
Griffin is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Pavur, which is a sealing plug. Griffin teaches a sealing plug comprising a sealing plug embodiment (as shown in Figs. 1-4; wherein the sealing plug has a bracket that is unitarily or single-piece constructed with the sealing plug), wherein the bracket is configured such that when the sealing plug seals a hole (6) of a component (7) to be sealed, the bracket is snap-fitted with a hole edge of the hole of the component to be sealed to retain the sealing plug in the component to be sealed, the bracket comprising at least two clips (i.e. yieldable attaching arms (3)), wherein each of the at least two clips extends downwards from an edge of the bracket, and each clip comprises a resilient leg (i.e. main engaging portions (4)) configured to be resiliently deflected to abut against the hole edge of the hole to retain the sealing plug in the component to be sealed; and wherein each clip has a window; the resilient leg comprises an upper leg portion (5), a bent portion and a lower leg portion, the bent portion being connected between the upper leg portion and the lower leg portion, the upper leg portion extending obliquely outwards from a top end of the upper leg portion to the bent portion, and the lower leg portion extending obliquely inwards from the bent portion to a bottom end of the lower leg portion; and the bottom end of the lower leg portion is connected to an edge of the window, and the top end of the upper leg portion forms a free end (Griffin Col. 1 ln. 42-66 and see annotated Griffin Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
602
781
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least two clips (of Pavur) to have a similar clip structure(s) (as taught by Griffin) because the resultant structure(s) will work equally well, and since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B)
Regarding claim 11, modified Pavur further teaches wherein the resilient leg further comprises a top portion, wherein the top portion is connected to a top of the upper leg portion, and the top portion is disposed at an inner side of the sealing bottom portion of the sealant (see annotated Griffin Fig. 1 below).
Claims 12-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavur et al. (US 5702133 A; hereinafter Pavur) in view of Janke (US 20090078704 A1 – art of record; hereinafter Janke).
Regarding claim 12, Pavur teaches wherein the sealing cover is metal material (Pavur Col. 3 ln. 34-37).
Thus, Pavur fails to teach the bracket being made of metal material.
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the bracket (of Pavur) out a metal material to the bracket more durable, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Lastly, Pavur fails to teach the sealant is made of hot melt adhesive.
Janke is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Pavur, which is a sealing plug. Janke teaches a sealing plug embodiment (as shown in Fig. 2) comprising:
a sealing cover (10) configured to cover a hole of a component (1) to be sealed, the sealing cover having at least one receiving space, wherein the at least one receiving space has a receiving groove (12 and 50; which examiner equates to the claimed arched portion (12) that is arching upwards relative to a sealing lip and the sealing lip being disposed around the arched portion and at a periphery of the arched portion), and the receiving groove being disposed in the arched portion;
a sealant (i.e. heat-melt seal or adhesive (14)) disposed around the hole of the component to be sealed, the sealant being at least partially received in the at least one receiving space; and a bracket (20) connected to the sealing cover; wherein the sealing cover and the bracket are configured such that when the sealant melts, the sealing cover and the bracket at least partially restrict flow of the sealant (Janke [0029-0046] and Figs. 1-4).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hot-melt adhesive (as taught by Janke) FOR the sealant (of Pavur) to enhance the sealing properties of the overall sealing plug (since hot-melt adhesive is better conforms to the shape or geometry of where it is being used). Since, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Regarding claim 13, Pavur teaches a sealing plug embodiment (210; as shown in Figs 15-16a – for sealing a hole of a component (221) to be sealed), the sealing plug comprising:
a sealing cover (216) configured to cover a hole of a component to be sealed, the sealing cover having a sealing lip (230), at least one receiving space and a cover body (i.e. the region to right of rim (234) and central hub (260) AND to the region to left of rim (238) and central hub (260) is what examiner equates to the claimed cover body – as shown annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above; emphasis added);
a sealant (218) disposed around the cover body, the sealant being at least partially received in the at least one receiving space; and
wherein the sealing cover and the bracket are configured such that when the sealant melts, the sealing cover and the bracket at least partially restrict flow of the sealant (Pavur Col. 7 ln. 39 - Col. 8 ln. 55).
However, Pavur fails to teach the sealing cover having an arched portion and the receiving groove being disposed in the arched portion.
Janke is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Pavur, which is a sealing plug. Janke teaches a sealing plug embodiment (as shown in Fig. 2) comprising:
a sealing cover (10) configured to cover a hole of a component (1) to be sealed, the sealing cover having at least one receiving space, wherein the at least one receiving space has a receiving groove (12 and 50; which examiner equates to the claimed arched portion (12) that is arching upwards relative to a sealing lip and the sealing lip being disposed around the arched portion and at a periphery of the arched portion), and the receiving groove being disposed in the arched portion;
a sealant (i.e. heat-melt seal or adhesive (14)) disposed around the hole of the component to be sealed, the sealant being at least partially received in the at least one receiving space; and a bracket (20) connected to the sealing cover; wherein the sealing cover and the bracket are configured such that when the sealant melts, the sealing cover and the bracket at least partially restrict flow of the sealant (Janke [0029-0046] and Figs. 1-4).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealing cover (of Pavur) to have an arched portion (as taught Janke) to enhance the anchoring structure or geometry of the sealant relative to the sealing cover. By providing a U-shaped (arched) portion in the sealing cover, the sealant is more confined and prevents excessive movement during use (i.e. minimizing the chances of the sealant from getting dislodged).
Further, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B)
Regarding claim 14, modified Pavur as above further teaches wherein the cover body contacts the bracket and is configured to limit the flow of sealant inward (see annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 15, modified Pavur as above further teaches wherein the cover body comprises a positioning post (i.e. in the form of central hub (260); as shown in annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 16, modified Pavur as above further teaches wherein the bracket comprises a positioning hole (i.e. in the form of central hole (262); as shown in annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 17, modified Pavur as above further teaches wherein the bracket comprises at least two clips (48 and 50), wherein each of the at least two clips extend downwards from an edge of the bracket, and each clip comprises a resilient leg with a lower, upper and top portion (see annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 19, modified Pavur as above further teaches wherein the sealant comprises a ring shaped sealant body, wherein a sealing top portion extends towards the center from a top of the sealant body, and a sealing bottom portion extends outwards from a bottom of the sealant body.
Regarding claim 20, modified Pavur as above further teaches wherein the sealing top portion is received in the at least one receiving space and the sealing bottom portion extends below the sealing lip (see annotated Pavur Fig. 16 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 18 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (in particular claims 1-4 and 13-17, respectively), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and/or rewritten or amended 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered but they ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues that the applied art (specifically Pavur) fails to clearly identify a cover body as recited amended ind. claims 1 and 13, respectively. Applicant further argues that since Pavur does not disclose or teach the claimed cover body, the 102 rejection(s) are improper and should be withdrawn (see Remarks pg. 8-9).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion. Although, Pavur does not explicit have a reference character for a cover body. Examiner further clarified in the art rejection above, as to what structure of Pavur is construed and/or considered to be the cover body.
Applicant’s argument: applicant further argues that the 103 rejections are improper for the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 (i.e. Pavur is deficient in teaching the new limitations (i.e. cover body); see Remarks pg. 8-9).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion because examiner explained as to how Pavur still discloses or teaches the new limitation(s) in the art rejection above. Therefore, examiner maintains the previous 103 rejection(s).
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights