DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 3 September 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the inventions share an inventive concept and that Invention II is directed to a mold specifically configured to produce Invention I. This is not found persuasive because Invention II recites none of the structure, apart from “cover” of Invention I. The parts broadly included in Invention II (“allow the cover to be configured…”) recite none of the structure of Invention I. Simply, while Invention II could be used to produce Invention I, there are no recitations which in any way link the two inventions. For this reason, the inventions are distinct, the searches are distinct and there would be a serious burden in examination of both inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonnenberg et al. (EP 2 857 589).
Sonnenberg discloses a cover (11) having a plurality of ribs (18). There are air vents (16, for example) which have channels (15) configured to vent air. The cover is round and, therefore, does not have four sides. The examiner takes Official notice that covers having four sides are well known alternatives to round covers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Sonnenberg in this manner in order to fit a rectangular frame, as is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Figure 2 shows that there are more spaces than vents. Because the vents are fewer in number than the spaces, and because the entire area under the cover is vented, claim limitations are met.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonnenberg et al. (EP 2 857 589), as applied above, and further in view of Box et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0385951).
Regarding the strength, because devices like Sonnenberg are typically placed in roadways and subject to vehicular traffic, it is standard practice to make the strength suitable for heavy loads. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Sonnenberg to be the recited strength in order to be suitable for its intended purpose. Sonnenberg does not teach the metal as claimed. Box teaches placing metal (26A, 26B) in a non-metallic lid in order to increase strength and detectability by metal detectors. For either or both of these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Sonnenberg as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach covers having vents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights