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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 20 September 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 1 and 4 have been amended, claim 8 is new, claim 5 had been canceled by the Applicant, and claim 7 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least two of the clamping plates that are fixedly arranged on at least two opposite sides” in lines 22-23 and “the at least two clamping plates” in line 26. However, the instant specification discloses having clamping plates arranged on four sides of the bottom surface of the lid body (paragraph 0038 of the instant specification and depicted in Fig. 8). Therefore, the disclosure lacks sufficient basis to support a claim of at least two clamping plates (i.e. having a number of clamping plates other than 4).
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8 are rejected as they depend on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: The term “tightly combined” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised of how tightly the lid body is to combined with the outer container (e.g. how much force is needed to combine or uncombine the two parts or how much wiggle room or manufacturing tolerance is allowable to still be considered “tightly combined”).
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8 are rejected as they depend on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, which has been canceled.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), (b), and (d) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 7 is noted as being currently withdrawn from consideration due to restriction. Should the product claims (i.e. instant claims 1-4, 6, and 8) become allowable, it is noted that withdrawn claim 7 does not recite all the features of the structure of claim 1. Furthermore, should Applicant rewrite claim 7 to depend on claim 1 (i.e. the structure according to claim 1), the following limitations would be considered indefinite due to antecedent basis:
Line 5: “the outer sleeves” (claim 1 does not recite outer sleeves)
Line 10: “an inner ring slot” (claim 1 already introduces an inner ring slot)
Line 16: “the installation steps” (installation steps had not been previously introduced)
Line 17: “the flat ground” (flat ground had not been previously introduced)
Line 18: “the combination of individuals” (this term had not been previously introduced and it is not clear what makes up the combination of individuals)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5-8, filed 20 September 2025, with respect to the prior art, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments inasmuch that the prior art references do not teach the amended limitations. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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 KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784