DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I comprising claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 1, “support assembly” (because A – “support assembly” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to support the TID” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “support assembly” is understood as equivalent to “means for supporting the TID”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is comprised of opposed clamping blocks #324 (see ¶ [0068] of specification) or equivalent.
If the applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre –AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakubas (US 4,957,317) in view of Lundberg (US 4,008,585), and in further view of Wollar (US 4,709,841).
Regarding claim 1, Jakubas teaches a system for installing tamper-indicating assemblies relative to drum enclosure assemblies (Shown in figure 1), the system comprising:
a drum enclosure assembly (Shown in figures 1 and 2) including a lid ring (Figure 1, #12) extending from a first flanged end to a second flanged end (Figure 1, #18 shows the first and second flanged ends of the lid ring), the drum enclosure assembly further including a closure bolt (Figures 1 and 2, #22) extending through the first and second flanged ends (Figure 1 illustrates that the bolt #22 extends through the first and second flanged ends #18).
Jakubas does not specifically teach a tamper-indicating device (TID) defining a cavity configured to receive at least a portion of the closure bolt and the first and second flanged ends of the lid ring, the TID defining a bore relative to the cavity; a pin configured to extend through the bore of the TID and across the cavity of the TID, the pin including a pin body extending from a body end to a head end; an installation tool for installing and securing the pin relative to the TID, the installation tool comprising: a support assembly configured to support the TID; a pin deformation assembly having first and second pin actuators, the first pin actuator being configured to push the pin through the bore of the TID, the second pin actuator being configured to deform the head end of the pin relative to the TID.
Lundberg teaches a tamper-indicating device (TID) (Figures 1-3, #10) defining a cavity (Figure 2 illustrates that the TID #10 comprises a cavity) configured to receive at least a portion of the closure bolt and the first and second flanged ends of the lid ring (Figure 2 illustrates that the TID #10 receives a portion of the closure bolt #16 and the first and second flanged ends of the lid ring #12), the TID defining a bore relative to the cavity (Figure 2, #58);
a pin (Figure 3, #20) configured to extend through the bore of the TID and across the cavity of the TID (Shown in figure 3), the pin including a pin body extending from a body end to a head end (Figure 3 illustrates the pin #20 includes a pin body and a pin head).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakubas to incorporate the teachings of Lundberg to include a tamper-indicating device with the motivation of providing a means by which attempts to remove a locking structure can be detected, as recognized by Jakubas in col 1, lines 45-50.
However, Jakubas in view of Lundberg does not specifically teach an installation tool for installing and securing the pin relative to the TID, the installation tool comprising: a support assembly configured to support the TID; a pin deformation assembly having first and second pin actuators, the first pin actuator being configured to push the pin through the bore of the TID, the second pin actuator being configured to deform the head end of the pin relative to the TID.
Wollar teaches an installation tool for installing and securing the pin relative to the TID (Described in abstract and col 1, lines 5-11), the installation tool comprising:
a support assembly (Figures 2 & 7, #26) configured to support the TID (Shown in figure 2 & 7);
a pin deformation assembly having first and second pin actuators (Figure 2, #36 & #34), the first pin actuator being configured to push the pin through the bore of the TID (Figure 2, #34), the second pin actuator being configured to deform the head end of the pin relative to the TID (Figure 2, #36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakubas in view of Lundberg to incorporate the teachings of Wollar to include an installation tool to install the TID, with the motivation of providing a structure by which alleviates the issues caused by hand installation, namely reducing the time needed, reducing cost, and increasing efficiency, as recognized by Wollar in col 1, lines 32-39.
Regarding claim 2, Jakubas does not specifically teach wherein the TID includes a first side wall and a second side wall and wherein the bore includes a first bore portion defined through the first side wall and a second bore portion defined through the second side wall, the pin being configured to extend through the first bore portion across the cavity and into the second bore portion.
Lundberg teaches wherein the TID includes a first side wall (Figure 2, #26) and a second side wall (Figure 2, #28) and wherein the bore includes a first bore portion (Figure 2, #40) defined through the first side wall (Shown in figure 2) and a second bore portion (Figure 2, #42) defined through the second side wall (Shown in figure 2), the pin being configured to extend through the first bore portion across the cavity and into the second bore portion (Illustrated in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakubas to incorporate the teachings of Lundberg to include a tamper-indicating device with the motivation of providing a means by which attempts to remove a locking structure can be detected, as recognized by Jakubas in col 1, lines 45-50.
Regarding claim 3, Jakubas in view of Lundberg does not specifically teach wherein the first pin actuator is configured to be actuated such that a push rod of the first pin actuator contacts the body end of the pin and pushes the pin through the first bore portion across the cavity and into the second bore portion in an installation direction.
Wollar teaches wherein the first pin actuator is configured to be actuated such that a push rod of the first pin actuator contacts the body end of the pin and pushes the pin through the first bore portion across the cavity and into the second bore portion in an installation direction (Shown in figures 2, 7, and 8).
a pin deformation assembly having first and second pin actuators (Figure 2, #36 & #34), the first pin actuator being configured to push the pin through the bore of the TID (Figure 2, #34), the second pin actuator being configured to deform the head end of the pin relative to the TID (Figure 2, #36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakubas in view of Lundberg to incorporate the teachings of Wollar to include an installation tool to install the TID, with the motivation of providing a structure by which alleviates the issues caused by hand installation, namely reducing the time needed, reducing cost, and increasing efficiency, as recognized by Wollar in col 1, lines 32-39.
Regarding claim 5, Jakubas does not specifically teach wherein the second bore portion of the bore is sized such that the head end of the pin body is configured to be received within the second bore portion but at least a portion of the pin body extending from the head end is not configured to be received within the second bore portion, the first pin actuator being configured to push the pin through the bore until the at least a portion of the body contacts against an inner side of the second side wall and the head end of the pin is exposed along an opposed, outer side of the second side wall.
Lundberg teaches wherein the second bore portion of the bore (Figure 2, #42) is sized such that the head end of the pin body is configured to be received within the second bore portion but at least a portion of the pin body extending from the head end is not configured to be received within the second bore portion, the first pin actuator being configured to push the pin through the bore until the at least a portion of the body contacts against an inner side of the second side wall and the head end of the pin is exposed along an opposed, outer side of the second side wall (Figure 2 illustrates that the pin body #46 is configured to fit through the bore portions #42 & #40, however, the pin head portion #20 does not fit through the bore portions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakubas to incorporate the teachings of Lundberg to include a tamper-indicating device with the motivation of providing a means by which attempts to remove a locking structure can be detected, as recognized by Jakubas in col 1, lines 45-50.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakubas in view of Lundberg, in further view of Wollar, and in further view of Brewer (US 5,104,024).
Regarding claim 13, Jakubas in view of Lundberg and Wollar does not specifically teach a robotic arm coupled to the installation tool and being configured to position the installation tool relative to the drum enclosure assembly.
Brewer teaches a robotic arm coupled to the installation tool and being configured to position the installation tool relative to the drum enclosure assembly (Figure 1 illustrates a robotic arm coupled to and controlling an apparatus for installing fasteners).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jakubas in view of Lundberg and Wollar to incorporate the teachings of Brewer to include a robotic arm coupled to an installation tool for applying the TIDs with the motivation of reducing the overall installation time of the TIDs, as recognized by Brewer in col 1, lines 19-54.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fattori (US 7,740,292) teaches a mechanical tamper evident device for using with a shipping container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731