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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 recites “the diameter;” it might be assumed by the claimed structure that parts of the retaining member are inherently cylindrical and have a diameter but for clarity applicant should use “a diameter.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5-6, 12 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.
Regarding claim 3, the language “one end of an extension direction” is unclear. The term “extension direction” is arbitrary when there is no claimed shape of the reinforcing member. With no defined shape, how can one determine what direction an “extension direction” would be in? For the purposes of examination, “an extension direction” is interpreted as being along an axis between a surfaces of the cover and a surface of the body of the tank body as claim 2 recites that the reinforcement member “extends” between those surfaces. The direction is still somewhat arbitrary because the shape of the body and cover are unknown.
Regarding claim 5, the language, “a tank cover surface configured to cover the tank body space” is unclear since claim 1 already introduces “a tank cover configured to cover the tank body space.” How is does the limitation, “a tank cover surface configured to cover the tank body space” further the structure? The limitation is redundant.
Also in claim 5, the limitation, “a tank cover penetration hole positioned inside the tank cover surface and formed through the extension direction of the reinforcing body,” is unclear.
The penetration hole is through the tank cover not inside the tank cover or tank cover surface. In addition, the hole is not through the reinforcing body. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean that the reinforcing member extends through a hole in the tank cover.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the diameter of a cross-section of the reinforcing head" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “The diameter” of the reinforcing head lacks antecedent basis since the reinforcement part is never claimed as having a circular or cylindrical shape.
The claims not addressed above are rejected since they depend from 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borrman (US 18,035).
Regarding claim 1, Borrman discloses a tank fully capable of holding water, comprising:
a tank body (at ‘a ’) having a tank body space formed therein;
a tank cover (at ‘i’) configured to cover the tank body space and be coupled to the tank body;
a reinforcing member (at ‘c’) that is at least partially accommodated in the tank body space and is respectively coupled to the tank body and the tank cover to reinforce rigidity of the tank body or the tank cover; and
a fastening part (at ‘d’) configured to couple the reinforcing member and the tank cover.
Regarding claim 2, Borrman discloses, see figure, that the tank body comprises a tank body surface that surrounds the tank body space on one side opposite to the tank cover, and wherein the reinforcing member extends between the tank body surface and the tank cover and is respectively coupled to the tank body surface and the tank cover.
Regarding claim 3, Borrman discloses that one end of an extension direction of the reinforcing member is fixedly coupled to the tank body surface, (at the bottom ‘b’ of the body by the head of the bolt and the stem of the bolt extending through an aperture at the bottom), col. 1, mid column.
Regarding claim 4, Borrman discloses that the reinforcing member comprises:
a reinforcing body (bolt stem) accommodated in the tank body space, one end of which in an extension direction is coupled to the tank body surface (at the base); and
a reinforcing head (threaded end portion) that is continuous with the other end of an extension direction of the reinforcing body, and is exposed to the outside of the tank body space, see fig., and is arranged to face the tank body space with the tank cover interposed therebetween.
Regarding claim 5, Borrman discloses a tank cover surface (inner side of the tank cover) configured to cover the tank body space; and
a tank cover penetration hole (col. 1, near the bottom, “f is a circular plate, perforated at its center to admit the screw-bolt), through which the reinforcing member is penetrated and coupled.
Regarding claim 6, Borrman discloses that the tank cover comprises:
a tank cover recessed part, toward the outer sides of ‘i’ near the top of the figure, formed to be recessed on the tank cover surface toward the tank body space; and
a tank cover boss part, above ‘i’ at the top of the figure, positioned in the tank cover recessed part and formed to protrude in a direction opposite to the tank body space.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation, “an O-ring member coupling part that is continuous with the other end of the extension direction of the reinforcing body and penetrates the tank cover” does not define any structure only what the coupling part does, that is couples an O-ring. With this in mind, the limitation is taken broadly, the reinforcing member of Borrman has an end that penetrates the tank cover and is coupled with a gasket, k, but forms a seal between the cover and the O-ring coupling part. The seal of Borrman is not an O-ring but the section of the reinforcing member that holds gasket k is fully capable of supporting an O-ring.
Borrman further discloses the reinforcing member comprises:
a nut member coupling part, threaded head, that is continuous with the O-ring member coupling part and is coupled to the fastening part (coupled to a nut).
A threaded part of the reinforcing member that is above the nut ‘d’ is fully capable of coupling with a snap ring and as such is considered to meet the limitation, “a snap ring member coupling part that is continuous with the nut member coupling part and the reinforcing head,” the threaded part above the nut is continuous with the threaded part that the nut is coupled to and therefore meets the limitation, “a snap ring member coupling part… is coupled to the fastening part.”
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyatt (US 445180).
Regarding claim 1, Hyatt discloses a tank fully capable of holding water, col. 1: 10-15, comprising, fig. 1:
a tank body (at ‘a’) having a tank body space formed therein;
a tank cover (at ‘c’) configured to cover the tank body space and be coupled to the tank body;
a reinforcing member (at ‘d’) that is at least partially accommodated in the tank body space and is respectively coupled to the tank body and the tank cover to reinforce rigidity of the tank body or the tank cover; and
a fastening part (at ‘f’) configured to couple the reinforcing member and the tank cover.
Regarding claim 2, Hyatt discloses the tank body comprises a tank body surface that surrounds the tank body space on one side opposite to the tank cover, and wherein the reinforcing member extends between the tank body surface and the tank cover and is respectively coupled to the tank body surface and the tank cover, fig. 1, col. 2: all.
Regarding claim 3, Hyatt discloses that one end of an extension direction of the reinforcing member is fixedly coupled to the tank body surface, (the bottom, not shown, has the same configuration as the top coupling means between the cover and the reinforcing member, see fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hyatt discloses that the reinforcing member comprises:
a reinforcing body (at ‘d’) accommodated in the tank body space, one end of which in an extension direction is coupled to the tank body surface; and
a reinforcing head (threaded portion) that is continuous with the other end of an extension direction of the reinforcing body, and is exposed to the outside of the tank body space and is arranged to face the tank body space with the tank cover interposed therebetween, fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, Hyatt discloses, as seen in fig. 1, a tank cover surface (at ‘c’) configured to cover the tank body space; and
a tank cover penetration hole (stay-rod ‘d’ passes through) positioned inside the tank cover surface and formed through the extension direction of the reinforcing body, through which the reinforcing member is penetrated and coupled.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrman as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 9, the references applied above teach all of claim 7, as applied above. Borrman further discloses a nut member ‘d’ that is through-coupled to the nut member coupling part and is disposed to face the tank cover.
Borrman does not disclose the use of a washer. However, the use of a washer in combination with a washer as a fastening means is well-known. Providing a washer between a nut and a surface allows the clamping load of the nut on the threaded shaft to be distributed over a larger surface area, preventing damage to the surface and decreasing the potential for deformation of the surface as the nut is tightened against the surface.
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 fastening part/means of Borrman to include a washer between the nut and the outer surface of the cover.
Regarding claim 10, the references applied above teach all of claim 9, as applied above. The references applied above do not disclose a hard lock nut. A hard lock nut is known to be less likely to loosen inadvertently.
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 substitute a hard lock nut in place of a nut that is not hard lock wherever it is critical that the nut maintains its tightness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the nut of Borrman with a hard lock nut in order to prevent the nut from inadvertently becoming loose from vibrations that occur during shipping.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borrman as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Compagnie des Produits Chimiques et Raffineries de Berre (GB 1072502), hereinafter Berre.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the references applied above teach all of claim 4, as applied above.
The references applied above do not teach an O-ring member coupling part. Hyatt further discloses a nut member coupling part (threaded part) and a nut (at ‘f’) but does not teach an O-ring coupling part.
Berre is analogous art in regard to fluid containers (at 42) having an internal reinforcing member at 12 (pg. 2:47), fig. 3, between a cover 42 and a body 42’, and teaches an O-ring coupling part at 14 to the threaded end of the internal reinforcing member that includes an O-ring at 50 and a nut at 44 (collar), a nut member (threaded section) coupling part that is continuous with the O-ring member coupling part and is coupled to the fastening part.
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 reinforcing member to have an O-ring seating member (14 of Berre) adjacent to the inner surface through which the reinforcing member extends in order to provide a liquid tight seal at the through hole of the cover.
The end of the threaded section past the nut/collar 44 of Borrman and continuous with the nut member coupling part is capable of receiving a snap-ring and is considered to meet the limitation of: “a snap ring member coupling part that is continuous with the nut member coupling part and the reinforcing head, respectively, and is coupled to the fastening part.”
Regarding claim 9, Hyatt further discloses a washer member (at ‘e’) that is through-coupled to the exterior end of the reinforcing member and as modified above by Berre, thereby also coupled to the O-ring member coupling part and is disposed to face the tank body space with the tank cover interposed therebetween, fig. 1 of Hyatt; and
a nut (at ‘f’) member that is through-coupled to the nut member coupling part and is disposed to face the tank cover with the washer member interposed therebetween, fig. 1 of Hyatt.
Regarding claim 10, the references applied above teach all of claim 9, as applied above. The references applied above do not disclose a hard lock nut. A hard lock nut is known to be less likely to loosen inadvertently.
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 substitute a hard lock nut in place of a nut that is not hard lock wherever it is critical that the nut maintains its tightness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the nut of Hyatt with a hard lock nut in order to prevent the nut from inadvertently becoming loose from vibrations that occur during shipping.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt and Berre as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Saitoh et al. (US 4405274).
Regarding claim 11, the references applied above teach all of claim 7, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a snap ring.
Saitoh is analogous art in regard to preventing loosening of a nut (see title). Saitoh teaches a snap ring at 1, secured onto a threaded section 6a of a bolt 6 for preventing loosening of a nut 4.
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 fastening means of Hyatt to include the addition of a snap ring in order to prevent the nut from loosening as per the teaching of Saitoh.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt and Berre as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Grussenmeyer (US 2012/0009032).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the references applied above teach all of claim 7, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a reduced diameter cross-section for a snap ring.
Grussenmeyer discloses a fastening assembly, fig. 4, that includes the use of a snap ring 132 secured within a snap ring groove 132a, the groove positioned above a retaining nut 126 for the purpose of securing the retaining nut on the threads even when the nut is not fully tightened [0025].
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 threaded end of the retaining member of Hyatt to include a reduced diameter groove for securing a snap ring and a snap ring for ensuring that a nut will be retained even if not fully tightened as per the teaching of Grussenmeyer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799