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 .
Claim Notes
All claims should be accompanied by proper status identifiers. Normally, a lack of proper status identifiers would result in a Non-Compliant filing, but in the instant case the lack of proper identifiers was not noticed until after the examination process took place, and it would simply delay prosecution, to file a Non-compliant office action without properly rejecting the claims.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to a man hole cover but never actually positively recites a manhole cover or structure used as a manhole cover. The only items positively recited are “at least one locking device” and “a monitoring device”, but there is not manhole cover itself or a relationship between the locking device, monitoring device, and the manhole cover.
Since all claims are either dependent from claim 1, or are short hand notation to include claim 1, all claims 1-13 are therefore rejected for the reasons stated above.
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 (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.
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) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101692806 B1 to Kim (See translation) in view of EP 1 867 791 B1 to Schlueter.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a manhole cover (10, Fig.7) for a manhole covering comprising at least one locking device (50) for locking the manhole cover to a shaft frame (90) of the manhole covering, wherein the locking device has a latch (121) which is movable between an unlocking position (Fig.5) and a locking position (Fig.6 and 7), wherein the latch is movable from the locking position (Fig.7) into a pressing position (Fig.8) in order to press the manhole cover firmly against the shaft frame during use (Fig.8).
Kim does not disclose a monitoring device for monitoring the locking, wherein the monitoring device is designed to detect the unlocking position, the locking position, and the pressing position of the latch.
Schlueter discloses providing a manhole cover with a monitoring device for monitoring the locking, wherein the monitoring device is designed to detect the unlocking position, the locking position, and the position of the lid (Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the manhole assembly of Kim with a monitoring device as taught by Schlueter so to enable one to both monitor the placement and safety of the manhole cover from a distance and also to allow access to the manhole cover, thereby preventing unwanted access to the manhole cover.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the locking device has at least one screw (130, Fig.7) actuatable from an outer side (top of Fig.7) of the manhole cover, which in use moves the latch between the locking position (Fig.7) and the pressing position (Fig.8).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the screw is adapted to move the latch between the unlocking position and the locking position (screw 130 is turned to loosen, grooves 111 in screw housing are used to turn to unlock).
Regarding claim 4 Kim discloses wherein the locking device has a stop (40 and 41, Fig.4) in each case for the latch in the unlocking position and in the locking position.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses wherein the manhole cover has at least two locking devices (Fig. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the locking devices are arranged distributed in the circumferential direction (Fig. 5) of the manhole cover.
Regarding claim 7, Schlueter discloses wherein the monitoring device has at least one sensor (20, 22; Paragraph [0035]) for detecting the position of the latch.
Regarding claim 8, Schlueter discloses wherein the monitoring device has an antenna (10) in order to transmit the information about the position of the latch wirelessly to a monitoring center (Paragraphs [0017] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Schlueter discloses wherein the monitoring device is arranged in a protected housing (Paragraph [0035]) on an inner side of the manhole cover.
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Schlueter disclose a manhole covering having a manhole cover according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above), and Kim also discloses a shaft frame (90) for receiving the manhole cover (Fig.4 and 7), wherein the manhole cover rests on a support surface (91, Fig.7) of the shaft frame.
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses wherein the latch (121) of the locking device in the locking position engages behind the shaft frame (Fig.7), and in the pressing position presses against the shaft frame (Fig.8), so that the manhole cover is pressed firmly against the support surface of the shaft frame (Fig.8).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Schlueter disclose a monitoring system having at least one manhole covering according to claim 11 (See claim 11 above) and a monitoring center (Paragraphs [0017] and [0031]), wherein the monitoring center is designed to receive the information about the position of the latch from the monitoring device and to visualize the position of the latch (Paragraphs [0017] and [0031]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101692806 B1 to Kim (See translation) in view of EP 1 867 791 B1 to Schlueter in view of Lanham et al.
Regarding claim 9, although Schlueter discloses the use of electronic locks, and also teaches using devices such as antennas, sensors, etc.; Kim in view of Schlueter do not specifically disclose wherein the monitoring device has at least one energy storage device for autonomous energy supply.
Lanham et al. disclose wherein the monitoring device has at least one energy storage device (64) for autonomous energy supply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a battery source to the assembly of Kim in view of Schlueter as taught by Lanham et al. so to provide a power source to the assembly without the need for hard wiring or other ele3ctronic means, thereby making the assembly more portable and less prone to larger, more expensive issues if damaged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights