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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 28 September 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: locator component in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If 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 § 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 4 and 10 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the plurality of ribs" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the plurality or ribs is a newly recited structure or refers back to “a plurality of radially-extending ribs”.
The limitation of claim 10 that “the meter pit frame is molded from one of plastic and composite” is led to be indefinite. Claim 1 requires “the meter pit frame molded from plastic”. Claim 10 indicates that the meter pit frame can be molded from composite instead of plastic while claim 1 requires that the meter pit frame be molded from plastic. The claim will be interpreted as if the meter pit frame is molded from one of plastic and a plastic composite.
The limitation of claim 22 that “the meter pit frame is molded from one of glass reinforced polypropylene and resins” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear if the options are glass reinforced polypropylene and resins or if the options are glass reinforced polypropylene and glass reinforced resins. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKinnon (US 5535915).
Claim 1: McKinnon discloses a meter pit frame configured to enclose an opening of a meter pit, the meter pit frame comprising: an outer frame edge; a circular inner wall defining a central opening and from which extends an annular wall 105 (lip) for receiving and supporting a lid 111 (cover); and two lugs 53 (plurality of radially-extending ribs) positioned between the inner wall and the outer frame edge and configured to enable the meter pit frame to support vertical loading, the two lugs 53 (plurality of ribs) disposed entirely on an underside of the meter pit frame, the meter pit frame molded from plastic [see C. 2 L. 58-59] and configured to enable transmission of data signals therethrough (see annotated fig. 8 below and fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
205
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: McKinnon discloses the lid 111 (cover) supported within the central opening by the annular wall 105 (lip) (see annotated fig. 8 above).
Claim 3: McKinnon discloses two other lugs 53 (one or more retention or location members) configured to retain or locate the meter pit frame to a meter pit (see fig. 8-9).
The one or more retention or location members for retaining or locating the meter pit frame to a meter pit is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as protrusions extending downwardly from a lower surface, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 4: McKinnon discloses wherein the two lugs 53 (plurality of ribs) include a lug 53 (circular rib) surrounding the central opening and which is also disposed entirely on the underside of the meter pit frame (see fig. 9).
Claim 10: McKinnon discloses wherein the meter pit frame may be molded from plastic (see C. 2 L. 58-59). “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by POLYMER Meter Pit Frames as evidenced by NPL ref. U.
Claim 1: POLYMER Meter Pit Frames discloses a meter pit frame configured to enclose an opening of a meter pit, the meter pit frame comprising: an outer frame edge; a circular inner wall defining a central opening and from which extends a lip for receiving and supporting a Type-A inset style lid (cover) [see Page 2 / Catalog Page E-3]; and a plurality of radially-extending ribs positioned between the inner wall and the outer frame edge and configured to enable the meter pit frame to support vertical loading, the plurality of ribs disposed entirely on an underside of the meter pit frame, the meter pit frame molded from plastic and configured to enable transmission of data signals therethrough (see annotated partial Page 4 / Catalog Page E-4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
614
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: POLYMER Meter Pit Frames discloses the Type-A inset style lid (cover) [see Page 2 / Catalog Page E-3] supported within the central opening by the lip (see annotated partial Page 4 / Catalog Page E-4 above).
Claim 3: POLYMER Meter Pit Frames discloses one or more retention or location members configured to retain or locate the meter pit frame to a meter pit (see annotated partial Page 4 / Catalog Page E-4 above).
The one or more retention or location members for retaining or locating the meter pit frame to a meter pit is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as protrusions extending downwardly from a lower surface, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 4: POLYMER Meter Pit Frames discloses wherein the plurality of ribs include a circular rib surrounding the central opening and which is also disposed entirely on the underside of the meter pit frame (see annotated partial Page 4 / Catalog Page E-4 above).
Claim 10: POLYMER Meter Pit Frames discloses wherein the meter pit frame may be molded from polymer (plastic). “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinnon (US 5535915) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Frederic (FR 2952387).
Claim 21: McKinnon discloses the claimed invention except for the meter pit frame being molded from polypropylene.
Frederic teaches a body 3 made of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers and a bugger 4 made of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers (see fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the meter pit frame out of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers, as taught by Frederic, in order to have increased strength and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 22: McKinnon discloses the claimed invention except for the meter pit frame being molded from one of glass reinforced polypropylene and resins.
Frederic teaches a body 3 made of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers and a bugger 4 made of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers (see fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the meter pit frame out of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers (glass reinforced polypropylene), as taught by Frederic, in order to have increased strength and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POLYMER Meter Pit Frames as evidenced by NPL ref. U as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Frederic (FR 2952387).
Claim 21: POLYMER Meter Pit Frames discloses the claimed invention except for the meter pit frame being molded from polypropylene.
Frederic teaches a body 3 made of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers and a bugger 4 made of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers (see fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the meter pit frame out of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers, as taught by Frederic, in order to have increased strength and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 22: POLYMER Meter Pit Frames discloses the claimed invention except for the meter pit frame being molded from one of glass reinforced polypropylene and resins.
Frederic teaches a body 3 made of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers and a bugger 4 made of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers (see fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the meter pit frame out of polypropylene reinforced with glass fibers (glass reinforced polypropylene), as taught by Frederic, in order to have increased strength and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POLYMER Meter Pit Frames (NPL ref. U) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nolen (US 20250171980).
Claim 5: POLYMER Meter Pit Frames discloses adding a magnet for locating the meter pit frame when the meter pit frame is underground or below grade (see Page 2 / Catalog Page E-3).
POLYMER Meter Pit Frames does not disclose a locator component mounted to the circular rib and configured to be detectable to help locate the meter pit frame when the meter pit frame is underground or below grade.
Nolen teaches a utility cover 10 having an opening 17 for a flip top window and a plurality of ribs 22 that support and stiffen the cover and position an overmolded metal grid 26 (locator component) of cast iron or steel about the bottom of the opening 17 (see fig. 1-2 and 8-9 & P. 0035-0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the meter pit frame to have a metal grid 26 (locator component) of cast iron or steel overmolded on the circular ribs and about the bottom of the circular inner wall, as taught by Nolen, in order to stiffen the meter pit frame to provide greater strength, to reduce buoyancy and prevent the meter pit frame from floating, and to assist in locating by metal detector.
The locator component for being detectable to help locate the meter pit frame when the meter pit frame is underground or below grade is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a metal locator ring, metal locator plate, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the metal grid 26 (locator component) is a metal ring or plate, as at least the portion overmolded to the bottom of the circular inner wall takes the form of a ring, the portion overmolded to the underside of the meter pit frame between the ribs and circular inner wall takes the form of a ring/plate, and the portion overmolded to the outer surfaces of the ribs takes the form of a thin piece of metal, configured to be detected by a metal detector when the meter pit frame is underground or below grade (see annotated partial Page 4 / Catalog Page E-4 above and fig. 8-9 ‘980).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in paragraphs 4-10 of office action dated 24 August 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 28 September 2026.
The specification objections in paragraphs 11-12 of office action dated 24 August 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended disclosure filed 28 September 2026.
The claim objections in paragraph 13 of office action dated 24 August 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 28 September 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections in paragraphs 17-21 of office action dated 24 August 2026 are withdrawn in light of the amended claims filed 28 September 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 28 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the lugs 53 of McKinnon are not “ribs” at all, the Examiner responds that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Applicant has made no attempt at explaining how the lugs 53 distinguish from “ribs”. The disclosure has not presented a special definition for “rib”. Under a broadest most reasonable interpretation “rib” is given its plain meaning. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “rib” as “an elongated ridge”. As the lugs 53 are both elongated and ridges they meet the BRI of “rib”.
In response to applicant’s argument that the lugs 53 of McKinnon certainly are not “radially-extending” ribs, the Examiner replies that arguments by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record MPEP 716.01(c) II. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Applicant has made no attempt at explaining how the lugs 53 distinguish from “radially-extending ribs”. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “radial” as “relating to, placed like, or moving along a radius”. As can be seen from figure 9, the lugs 53 have a radial extent and therefore are “radially-extending”.
In response to applicant’s argument that the only so-called ribs that are disclosed in the POLYMER reference and that are “disposed entirely on an underside of the meter pit frame” as required by claim 1 are the ribs which the examiner explicitly identifies in his annotated figure above as being “circular ribs” NOT radially-extending ribs as required by amended claim 1, the Examiner initially replies that the ribs which the examiner annotated as “ribs / circular ribs” are not the only ribs disclosed in the POLYMER reference that are disposed entirely on an underside of the meter pit frame. Further, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “radial” as “relating to, placed like, or moving along a radius”. As can be seen from annotated partial Page 4 / Catalog Page E-4 above, the ribs annotated “radially-extending ribs / circular ribs” have a radial extent and therefore are “radially extending”.
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 ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
