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 .
The amendment filed 4/1/26 has been entered.
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 12-31 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.
Claims 12, 24, and 31 recite “providing a substantially fluid-tight seal between the first mating surface and a corresponding second mating surface”. It is unclear as to where the second mating surface is located. Since the claims are only directed to a panel, the second mating surface is being treated as merely intended use.
Claims 13-23 and 25-30 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 12-17, 19-22, and 24-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Abe et al. (US Patent No. 6,073938).
Regarding claims 12 and 31, the Abe et al. (hereinafter Abe) reference discloses a panel (40) capable of being used for a section tank, comprising a first mating surface (e.g. upper surface of 40) having provided thereon a gasket arrangement (Figs. 21-23) for providing a substantially fluid-tight seal between the first mating surface and a corresponding second mating surface (e.g. mating surface of object going against upper surface of 40), the gasket arrangement comprising:
a first member (48, e.g. top right 42 in Fig. 21) and a second member (47, e.g. top right 42 in Fig. 21), the second member being arranged at least in part to provide a fluid-tight seal about the first member so as to inhibit fluid contact by fluid from within the sectional tank with the first member (Figs. 21-23),
wherein the second member is capable of deforming the first member while maintaining the fluid-tight seal when compressed (Figs. 21-23). The method of claim 31 is obvious in view of the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the Abe reference discloses the first member is more compressible than the second member (Abe. Col.. 8, Lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 14, the Abe reference discloses the second member is arranged to be applied to the mating surface as a coating (Figs. 21-23).
Regarding claim 15, the Abe reference discloses the second member comprises an elastomeric material (Col. 5, Line 65-Col. 6, Line 31).
Regarding claim 16, the Abe reference discloses the second member is arranged to completely cover the first member when provided on a mating surface (Figs. 21-23).
Regarding claim 17, the Abe reference discloses the second member is arranged to substantially encapsulate the first member (Figs. 21-23).
Regarding claim 19, the Abe reference discloses the second member comprises at least one of rubber, silicon, a resin, a polymer, and an acrylic (Col. 5, Line 65-Col. 6, Line 31).
Regarding claim 20, the Abe reference discloses the first member is arranged as a substantially elongate member (e.g. Figs. 17, 21, 23).
Regarding claim 21, the Abe reference discloses the first member is arranged as a strip member (e.g. Figs. 17,21,23).
Regarding claim 22, the Abe reference discloses the first member comprises at least one of rubber, plastic, silicon, cork, graphite, resin, rubber, polyethylene, PTFE, neoprene, polystyrene, and polyurethane (Col. 5, Line 65-Col. 6, Line 31).
Regarding claim 24, the Abe reference discloses a surface (e.g. upper surface of 40) for a panel (40) capable of being used for a sectional tank, the surface having provided thereon a gasket arrangement (Figs. 21-23) for providing a substantially fluid-tight seal between a first mating surface (e.g. upper surface of 40) and a corresponding second mating surface (e.g. mating surface of object going against upper surface of 40), the gasket arrangement comprising:
a first member (48, e.g. top right 42 in Fig. 21) and a second member (47, e.g. top right 42 in Fig. 21), the second member being arranged at least in part to provide a fluid-tight seal about the first member so as to inhibit fluid contact by fluid from within the sectional tank with the first member (Figs. 21-23),
wherein the second member is capable of deforming the first member while maintaining the fluid-tight seal when compressed (Abe. Col.. 8, Lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 25, the Abe reference discloses the second member is arranged as a coating on at least part of the surface (Figs. 21-23).
Regarding claim 26, the Abe reference discloses the second member is arranged as a coating that covers substantially the entire surface (Figs. 21-23).
Regarding claim 27, the Abe reference discloses the exposed surface of the second member is arranged such that it does not adhere to another surface (Figs. 21-23).
Regarding claim 28, the Abe reference discloses the first member is arranged on the surface such that it is covered by the second member (Figs. 21-23).
Regarding claim 29, the Abe reference discloses the first member is arranged around substantially the entire perimeter of the surface (Figs. 21-23).
Regarding claim 30, the Abe reference discloses a plurality of holes are provided through at least part of the surface for receiving securing means for securing the surface to another surface having a corresponding plurality of holes (Fig. 17).
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe.
Regarding claim 18, the Abe reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 12.
However, the Abe reference fails to explicitly disclose the second member has a thickness of less than 10mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the thickness of the second member less than 10mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and in order to provide optimal sealing pressure. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 23, the Abe reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 12.
However, the Abe reference fails to explicitly disclose the first member has a thickness of less than 20mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the thickness of the first member less than 20mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and in order to provide optimal sealing pressure. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights