DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1,3-13,15-19 and 21-23 are rejected and claims 2, 14, and 20 are cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on pages 10-11 regarding a misunderstanding of thermoset chemistry, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner never mentioned that the thermoset was “set” and then “heated”. Instead, the examiner explicitly stated on page 4 of the Non-Final rejection that the rubber material is “uncured” (ex., not “set”).
In response to applicants arguments on page 10 that “The specification list silicone rubber … These are thermosets that cannot be melted to collapse bubbles as the office action suggests”, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiners claim interpretation on page 3 of the non-final rejection on 11/28/2025 only relied on applicants disclosure of forming a skin by melting a thermoset material.
For example:
“In aspects, the layer 302 of the solid polymer that is around the body 301 can be derived from heating a sacrificial layer 401 of the body 301. The sacrificial layer 401 can be a part of the foam body 301 that is heated by a heating device (e.g., a hot air blower, a flame, or a hot metal surface), to form the layer 302 of solid polymer. In such aspects, the solid polymer of the layer 302 and the foam of the body 301 are made of the same monomer units, where the monomer units are polymerized into a foam for the body 301, and the sacrificial layer 401 of the foam of the body 301 is melted to form the solid polymer of the layer 302” (para 0038).
In response to applicants arguments that “the claimed invention encompasses thermoset materials that fundamentally cannot undergo the melting process the office action describes”, the examiner respectfully disagrees because there is no mention in the disclosure of the melting process used to melt the thermoset materials used and the Office Action explicitly stated:
The specification states the skin layer is formed by melting a foamed body (0038 of the specification);
The materials used are thermoset plastics (0036 of the specification);
The examiner interpretation is that a thermoset plastic based on the disclosure is heated up (ex., using a hot metal surface) and that heating up the foamed material would cause collapse of outer later (ex., melting);
The examiner further states that “not a gas-containing matrix” would not mean “gas free” based on the idea of “melting” a “thermoset material” (ex., assuming this is a thermoplastic material, using the language “melted” and “forming a skin”, the outer layer would collapse gas bubbles thus forming a non-foamed skin layer).
In response to applicants arguments on page 11 regarding Takahashi’s process contradicts “Sacrificial Layer Heating”, the examiner respectfully disagrees because “formed by heating a sacrificial layer” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth. In this case, Takahashi technique discloses a gasket that is made of a foamed body and a solid polymer skin layer that is not a gas-containing matrix which structurally would meet the idea of the present invention of a foamed body being melted to form a solid polymer skin layer, thus both skin layers are solid polymers and both bodies are made of foam.
In response to applicant's arguments on page 12 against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument on page 12 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Takahashi explicitly discloses the benefit of using a foamed body gasket comprising a solid polymer skin such that the materials provide the benefit of flexibility, elasticity while being excellent in wear and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265 of Takahashi).
In response to applicants arguments on page 13 that the range is not result effective, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner did not rely on routine experimentation for the thickness range of 0.1mm to 0.5mm as Takahashi explicitly states that the 0.5mm thickness of the skin is a known parameter and that the seal provide the benefit of flexibility, elasticity while being excellent in wear and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265 of Takahashi) using the 0.5mm thickness skin.
In response to applicants arguments on page 14 that Sandman and Takahashi is in non-analogous fields, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Sandman is directed to connection assembly (50, fig. 2) comprising a gasket which connects to a damper (24, fig. 2) of an air conditioning system in a building while Takahashi is directed to damper comprising a gasket of an air conditioning system of a vehicle. Therefore, both Sandman and Takahashi are related to air conditioning systems which is in the same field of the inventors endeavor, Sandman and Takahashi both disclose the use of gaskets for air conditioning systems, and Takahashi explicitly discloses a foamed seal with an outer skin layer that provides the benefit of flexibility, elasticity while being excellent in wear and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265 of Takahashi).
In response to applicants arguments on pages 14-15 that Sandman addresses the critical problem that “metal parts of the duct clamps tend to cut into, shear, or otherwise compromise the integrity of gaskets after a single use, and another gasket is needed in many cases in order to reapply the clamps”, the examiner respectfully disagrees as it appears Sandman does not mention anywhere in the disclosure of the gasket being cut into or otherwise compromise the integrity of the gasket after a single use.
In response to applicants arguments on page 15 that a person of ordinary skill would not reasonably look to permanently install automotive air conditioning seals, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the examiner is not relying on replacing the seal of Sandman with the seal of Takahashi, but instead, modifying the seal of Sandman with the material selection of the seal of Takahashi.
In response to applicants arguments on page 15 that the seals of Takahashi are not optimized for surviving repeated mechanical compression, the examiner respectfully disagrees as Takahashi explicitly discloses a foamed seal with an outer skin layer provides the benefit of flexibility, elasticity while being excellent in wear and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265 of Takahashi) which appears would be excellent for repeated mechanical compression.
In response to applicant's argument on page 15 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicants arguments on page 15 regarding Takahashi’s process contradicts “Sacrificial Layer Heating”, the examiner respectfully disagrees because “formed by heating a sacrificial layer” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth. In this case, Takahashi technique discloses a gasket that is made of a foamed body and a solid polymer skin layer that is not a gas-containing matrix which structurally would meet the idea of the present invention of a foamed body being melted to form a solid polymer skin layer, thus both skin layers are solid polymers and both bodies are made of foam.
In response to applicants arguments on page 16 that the method claim requires a process-defined structure and that Takahashi gasket lacks such structure, the examiner respectfully disagrees as Takahashi technique discloses a gasket that is made of a foamed body and a solid polymer skin layer that is not a gas-containing matrix which structurally would meet the idea of the present invention of a foamed body being melted to form a solid polymer skin layer, thus both skin layers are solid polymers and both bodies are made of foam.
In response to applicant's argument on page that Siblik is nonanalogous art with no gasket structure, the examiner respectfully disagrees as Sandman and Siblik are both related to clamp systems comprising similar latches, simply substituting one known latch system of a clamp for another latch system of a different clamp would not have produced any new or unexpected results, and a simple substitution only requires:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
In response to applicants arguments on page 18 that the range is not result effective, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner did not rely on routine experimentation for the thickness range of 0.1mm to 0.5mm as Takahashi explicitly states that the 0.5mm thickness of the skin is a known parameter and that the seal provide the benefit of flexibility, elasticity while being excellent in wear and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265 of Takahashi) using the 0.5mm thickness skin.
In response to applicants arguments on page 20 that Takahashi is never subjected to removal and reinstallation for maintenance, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner is not relying on the seal of Sandman to be replaced with the seal of Takahashi, but instead, is relying on the benefits of the materials used for the seal of Takahashi.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claims 1, 12, and 16, the limitation “a layer made of solid polymer, which is not a gas-containing matrix” based on the specification is:
“In aspects, the layer 302 of the solid polymer that is around the body 301 can be derived from heating a sacrificial layer 401 of the body 301. The sacrificial layer 401 can be a part of the foam body 301 that is heated by a heating device (e.g., a hot air blower, a flame, or a hot metal surface), to form the layer 302 of solid polymer. In such aspects, the solid polymer of the layer 302 and the foam of the body 301 are made of the same monomer units, where the monomer units are polymerized into a foam for the body 301, and the sacrificial layer 401 of the foam of the body 301 is melted to form the solid polymer of the layer 302” (0038)
It is noted that the thermoset materials used to form the layer based on the specification is:
“In aspects, the solid polymer can include a silicone rubber, a nitrile rubber, an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber, a neoprene rubber, a polyurethane rubber, or a combination thereof” (0036)
The examiners interpretation of the limitation based on the disclosure is that a foam body made of a thermoset material is heated up (ex., melting is being interpreted as softening of the rubber to allow reshaping) to cause the collapse of bubbles in the foam material to form a “solid layer” that “is not a gas-containing matrix”.
In other words, the solid polymer layer can comprise dissolved gas molecules as the bubbles originally formed by the gas have been collapse due to heat (ex., carbonated soda when opened forms both foam on the top which is considered a foam structure/a gas containing matrix and the remaining liquid soda comprising CO2 would be considered a non-gas containing matrix).
Another example, “not a gas-containing matrix” does not mean the solid polymer is “gas-free” because an uncured rubber material that is foamed (ex., using a blowing agent) and then the foam rubbers outer layer is collapsed via heat (ex., softening the outer layer to collapse bubbles) would produce a non-foamed structure comprising dissolved gas molecules (ex., the foamed structure originally produced/expanded by the gas is then collapsed to a non-foamed structure comprising gas molecules).
Therefore, the examiner interprets the limitation “not a gas-containing matrix” as a non-foamed structure that comprises dissolved gas molecules.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,551,505) in view of Takahashi (JP-2003161507).
In regards to claim 1, Sandman discloses:
A duct clamp assembly (see figs. 2-5A) comprising:
a clamp (50, fig. 3) configured to apply pressure around a connection point of two duct segments (see fig. 1); and
a gasket (78, fig. 5A) positioned on an inner surface of the clamp and comprises a body (see fig. 5A),
but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the gasket comprises a body made of a foam having a matrix structure with space occupied by a gas and a layer made of a solid polymer which is not a gas-containing matrix,
wherein the layer extends around an outer surface of the body, and
wherein the layer of the solid polymer has a thickness in a range of from about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm.
In regards to the foamed gasket, Takahashi discloses a similar device (see fig. 5 hereinafter) used for air conditioners (see lines 9-13 of the translated NPL) comprising a foamed gasket (34) comprising an foamed inner body (48) and a solid skin (44) extending around the body to provide the benefit of flexibility and elasticity while being excellent in wear resistance and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265),
wherein the thickness (h1) of the skin is about 0.5mm (see lines 136-137) such that the thickness h1 can be adjusted by changing the setting conditions at the time of 154 molding by the core back type injection foam molding die (see lines 154-155),
wherein the inner layer is bubbled (see lines 212-213) and the outer skin layer is not bubbled (see lines 214-215),
wherein the foams are known to be made of Urethane (see lines 53-54) and the material of the foam is TPO made from polypropylene, rubber, and oil (see lines 141-142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the gasket of Sandman to comprise a inner foam body and an outer skin with a thickness of 0.5mm that does not comprise bubbles because Takahashi discloses that using an inner foamed body comprising an outer skin of the same material with a 0.5 mm thickness provides the benefit of flexibility and elasticity while being excellent in wear resistance and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to the gas matrix, Takahashi explicitly discloses that the outer skin layer does not comprise bubbles (see lines 214-215) and a non-foamed outer skin layer is not a gas-containing matrix.
In regards to claim 5, Sandman in view of Takahashi discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 1,
but does not explicitly disclose:
the gasket has a rectangular cross section (see fig. 5A of Sandman).
In regards to the shape of the gasket, Sandman (hereinafter as Sandman 962’) discloses that clamps comprising a gasket are known to have multiple different cross sections (see figs. 12A-12Q of the U.S. PGPub No. 2009/0083962 reference in Sandman; ex., see col. 8, lines 37-41 of Sandman, where the clamps are the clamps in 962’) such that cross section of the clamp and gasket can be square (see fig. 12G of the 962’ reference in Sandman) or circular (see fig. 12Q of the 962’) which are obvious variants of shape, producing no unexpected results (see paragraph 0030, where there are multiple embodiments of different shapes for cross-sections of clamps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a ring-shaped square clamp and square gasket on the duct clamp assembly of Sandman in view of Takahashi because Sandman discloses the clamps are disclosed in 962’ (8:37-41) and Sandman 962’ (ex., the reference disclosed in Sandman) discloses that both a circular or square shaped clamp and gasket are obvious variants of each other and it has been held that is a change in shape is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Additionally, it appears that a difference of shape of the clamp and gasket would provide no functional difference and either shape would work equally as well.
In regards to claim 6, Sandman in view of Takahashi discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 5, wherein the gasket has thickness and width,
but does not explicitly disclose:
the thickness is in a range of about 0.0625 inch to about 0.500 inch (1.5 mm to 12.7 mm) and a width in a range of about 0.25 inch to about 0.75 inch (6.3 mm to 19.1 mm).
In regards to the dimensions, while Sandman in view of Takahashi does not expressly disclose “gasket has thickness in a range of about 0.0625 inch to about 0.500 inch (1.5 mm to 12.7 mm) and a width in a range of about 0.25 inch to about 0.75 inch (6.3 mm to 19.1 mm)”, the “thickness” and “width” of the gasket may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Takahashi explicitly discloses that the parameter for gaskets are known such that the width and thickness are about 4mm (see line 136).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the gasket of Sandman in view of Takahashi to have a “thickness in a range of about 0.0625 inch to about 0.500 inch (1.5 mm to 12.7 mm) and a width in a range of about 0.25 inch to about 0.75 inch (6.3 mm to 19.1 mm)”, as the “thickness” and “width” of the gasket may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation because Takahashi explicitly discloses these are known parameters (see fig. 5). A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality of the width and thickness of the gasket. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the gasket such that the thickness is in a range of about 0.0625 inch to about 0.500 inch (1.5 mm to 12.7 mm) and a width in a range of about 0.25 inch to about 0.75 inch (6.3 mm to 19.1 mm) as desired for the intended use.
In regards to claim 7, Sandman in view of Takahashi further discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the clamp comprises:
a ring-shaped (see fig. 3 of Sandman) member having a first end facing a second end (see fig. 3 of Sandman, where there are two ends facing each other); and
a latch (see near element 50 in fig. 3 of Sandman) comprising a first portion coupled to an outer surface of the ring-shaped member proximate the first end (see fig. 3 of Sandman where there is a pin connecting the latch to the outer surface of clamp) and
a second portion coupled to the outer surface of the ring-shaped member proximate the second end (see fig. 3 of Sandman where there is a pin connecting another end of the latch on the outer surface near the second end).
In regards to claim 8, Sandman in view of Takahashi further discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 7, wherein the latch further comprises:
at least one bar member that is pivotally connected to the first portion (see fig. 3 of Sandman, where there is a bar connecting to a handle); and
a handle pivotally connected to the at least one bar member (see fig. 3 of Sandman, where a handle is connected to the bar).
In regards to claim 11, Sandman in view of Takahashi further discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 7, wherein the ring-shaped member has a U-shaped cross section (see fig. 10A of Sandman) and the gasket is placed in the U-shaped cross-section.
In regards to claim 12, Sandman discloses:
A method for clamping two segments of duct together, the method comprising:
placing a duct clamp (50, fig. 3) assembly around a connection point of the two segments of duct; and
compressing a gasket of the duct clamp assembly against the connection point (see fig. 4),
but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the gasket comprises a body made of a foam having a matrix structure with space occupied by a gas and a layer made of a solid polymer, which is not a gas-containing matrix, wherein the layer extends around an outer surface of the body, and
the layer of the solid polymer is derived from heating a sacrificial layer of the body,
wherein the layer of the solid polymer has a thickness in a range of from about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm.
In regards to the foamed gasket, Takahashi discloses a similar device (see fig. 5 hereinafter) used for air conditioners (see lines 9-13 of the translated NPL) comprising a foamed gasket (34) comprising an foamed inner body (48) and a solid skin (44) extending around the body to provide the benefit of flexibility and elasticity while being excellent in wear resistance and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265),
wherein the thickness (h1) of the skin is about 0.5mm (see lines 136-137) such that the thickness h1 can be adjusted by changing the setting conditions at the time of 154 molding by the core back type injection foam molding die (see lines 154-155),
wherein the inner layer is bubbled (see lines 212-213) and the outer skin layer is not bubbled (see lines 214-215),
wherein the foams are known to be made of Urethane (see lines 53-54) and the material of the foam is TPO made from polypropylene, rubber, and oil (see lines 141-142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the gasket of Sandman to comprise a inner foam body and an outer skin with a thickness of 0.5mm that does not comprise bubbles because Takahashi discloses that using an inner foamed body comprising an outer skin of the same material with a 0.5 mm thickness provides the benefit of flexibility and elasticity while being excellent in wear resistance and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to the gas matrix, Takahashi explicitly discloses that the outer skin layer does not comprise bubbles (see lines 214-215) and a non-foamed outer skin layer is not a gas-containing matrix.
In regards to claim 15, Sandman in view of Takahashi discloses:
The method of claim 12,
but does not explicitly disclose:
the gasket has a rectangular cross section,
a thickness in a range of about 0.0625 inch to about 0.500 inch (1.5 mm to 12.7 mm), and
a width in a range of about 0.25 inch to about 0.75 inch (6.3 mm to 19.1 mm).
In regards to the shape of the gasket, Sandman (hereinafter as Sandman 962’) discloses that clamps comprising a gasket are known to have multiple different cross sections (see figs. 12A-12Q of the U.S. PGPub No. 2009/0083962 reference in Sandman; ex., see col. 8, lines 37-41 of Sandman, where the clamps are the clamps in 962’) such that cross section of the clamp and gasket can be square (see fig. 12G of the 962’ reference in Sandman) or circular (see fig. 12Q of the 962’) which are obvious variants of shape, producing no unexpected results (see paragraph 0030, where there are multiple embodiments of different shapes for cross-sections of clamps).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a ring-shaped square clamp and square gasket on the duct clamp assembly of Sandman in view of Takahashi because Sandman discloses the clamps are disclosed in 962’ (8:37-41) and Sandman 962’ (ex., the reference disclosed in Sandman) discloses that both a circular or square shaped clamp and gasket are obvious variants of each other and it has been held that is a change in shape is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Additionally, it appears that a difference of shape of the clamp and gasket would provide no functional difference and either shape would work equally as well.
In regards to the dimensions, while Sandman in view of Takahashi does not expressly disclose “gasket has thickness in a range of about 0.0625 inch to about 0.500 inch (1.5 mm to 12.7 mm) and a width in a range of about 0.25 inch to about 0.75 inch (6.3 mm to 19.1 mm)”, the “thickness” and “width” of the gasket may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters because Takahashi explicitly discloses that the parameter for gaskets are known such that the width and thickness are about 4mm (see line 136).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the gasket of Sandman in view of Takahashi to have a “thickness in a range of about 0.0625 inch to about 0.500 inch (1.5 mm to 12.7 mm) and a width in a range of about 0.25 inch to about 0.75 inch (6.3 mm to 19.1 mm)”, as the “thickness” and “width” of the gasket may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation because Takahashi explicitly discloses these are known parameters (see fig. 5). A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality of the width and thickness of the gasket. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the gasket such that the thickness is in a range of about 0.0625 inch to about 0.500 inch (1.5 mm to 12.7 mm) and a width in a range of about 0.25 inch to about 0.75 inch (6.3 mm to 19.1 mm) as desired for the intended use.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandman in view of Takahashi as applied to claims 1 above and in further view of Accurate Felt and Gasket (NPL, 2021).
In regards to claims 3, Sandman in view of Takahashi discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
the type of foam used for claim 3.
In regards to the Foam material, Accurate Felt (AF hereinafter) discloses that multiple foam/sponge rubber materials are known such as EPDM sponge rubber, Closed Cell Silicone Sponge (ex., skinned silicone sponge; see “Closed Cell Silicone” on page 3/5) and skinned Urethane Foam (see “Micro Cellular Urethane Open Cell Foam” on page 5/5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use at least Silicone Sponge or Urethane Foam for the material of the gasket of Sandman in view of Takahashi because Accurate Felt discloses that multiple foam/sponge rubber materials are known such as EPDM sponge rubber, Closed Cell Silicone Sponge and skinned Urethane Foam and it has been held that a selection of a known material (ex., EPDM/Closed Cell Silicone Sponge Rubber or Urethane Foam) based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 4, Sandman in view of Takahashi and AF further discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 3, wherein the solid polymer and the foam are made of the same monomer units (see the process used in Takahashi, where only one material is used and therefore both would be the same monomer units); or
wherein the layer of the solid polymer is derived from heating a sacrificial layer of the body (see note below).
It is noted that “the layer of the solid polymer is derived from heating a sacrificial layer of the body” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth.
In regards to claim 21, Sandman in view of Takahashi discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
the solid polymer comprises a silicone rubber, a nitrile rubber, an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber, a neoprene rubber, or a combination thereof.
In regards to the Foam material, Accurate Felt (AF hereinafter) discloses that multiple foam/sponge rubber materials are known such as EPDM sponge rubber, Closed Cell Silicone Sponge (ex., skinned silicone sponge; see “Closed Cell Silicone” on page 3/5) and skinned Urethane Foam (see “Micro Cellular Urethane Open Cell Foam” on page 5/5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use at least Silicone Sponge for the material of the gasket of Sandman in view of Takahashi because Accurate Felt discloses that multiple foam/sponge rubber materials are known such as EPDM sponge rubber, Closed Cell Silicone Sponge and skinned Urethane Foam and it has been held that a selection of a known material (ex., Closed Cell Silicone Sponge Rubber or Urethane Foam) based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 22, Sandman in view of Takahashi discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
the foam comprises a urethane foam.
In regards to the Foam material, Accurate Felt (AF hereinafter) discloses that multiple foam/sponge rubber materials are known such as EPDM sponge rubber, Closed Cell Silicone Sponge (ex., skinned silicone sponge; see “Closed Cell Silicone” on page 3/5) and skinned Urethane Foam (see “Micro Cellular Urethane Open Cell Foam” on page 5/5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use at least Urethane Foam for the material of the gasket of Sandman in view of Takahashi because Accurate Felt discloses that multiple foam/sponge rubber materials are known such as EPDM sponge rubber, Closed Cell Silicone Sponge and skinned Urethane Foam and it has been held that a selection of a known material (ex., Urethane Foam) based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 23, Sandman in view of Takahashi and AF further discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 3, wherein the foam comprises a urethane foam (see rejection of claim 3 above).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandman in view of Takahashi as applied to claims 8 and 12 above and in further view of Siblik (U.S. Patent No. 4,413,850).
In regards to claim 9, Sandman in view of Takahashi discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 8,
but does not disclose:
the latch comprising a bridge.
In regards to the bridge, Siblik discloses a similar device (see figs. 1-8) comprising a latch system,
wherein the latch system comprises a latch (see fig. 4) which further comprises a bridge member (41, fig. 4) connected to a second portion of the latch,
wherein the latch system further comprises a handle (31, fig. 4) that is configured to receive the bridge member into an under side of the handle (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute the known latch system of Sandman in view of Takahashi with the known latch system of Siblik because the only difference between the claim invention and the prior art is a simple substitution of the latch system of Sandman in view of Takahashi with the latch system of Siblik, both latch systems and their functionalities are known in the art where the latch of Siblik provides the benefit of unwanted ring opening movement (see col. 1, lines 38-42 of Siblik), and simply substituting one known latch system for another known latch system to provide the benefit of unwanted ring opening movement would have been predictable.
In regards to claim 10, Sandman in view of Takahashi and Siblik discloses:
The duct clamp assembly of claim 9, wherein the latch further comprises a locking member (26, fig. 4 of Siblik) pivotally attached to the handle and configured to lock the handle in a closed position by pivoting a locking portion through a slot (25, fig. 4 of Siblik) formed in a side of the handle and into the bridge member (see fig. 3 of Siblik, where the locking member goes through the bridge member).
In regards to claim 13, Sandman in view of Takahashi discloses:
The method of claim 12, wherein the compressing step comprises
moving a latch of the duct clamp assembly from an open position to a closed position,
but does not disclose the method further comprising:
when the latch is in the closed position, pivoting a locking member of the latch into a slot of the latch and then into a bridge member of the latch,
wherein the bridge member is located under a handle of the latch when the duct clamp assembly is in the closed position.
In regards to the bridge member, Siblik discloses a similar device (see figs. 1-8) when a latch is in the closed position (see fig. 4),
pivoting a locking member (26, fig. 4 of Siblik) of the latch into a slot (25, fig. 4) of the latch and then into a bridge member (41, fig. 4) of the latch (see fig. 3, where the locking member goes in both the latch and bridge member),
wherein the bridge member is located under a handle of the latch when the duct clamp assembly is in the closed position (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute the known latch system of Sandman in view of Takahashi with the known latch system of Siblik because the only difference between the claim invention and the prior art is a simple substitution of the latch system of Sandman in view of Takahashi with the latch system of Siblik, both latch systems and their functionalities are known in the art where the latch system of Siblik provides the benefit of unwanted ring opening movement (see col. 1, lines 38-42 of Siblik), and simply substituting one known latch system for another known latch system to provide the benefit of unwanted ring opening movement would have been predictable.
In regards to claim 16, Sandman discloses:
A method for maintaining a connection point of two segments of duct held together by a duct clamp assembly comprising
a clamp and
a gasket compressed between the clamp and the connection point (see fig. 5A), and
removing a compression force from the gasket (see fig. 3, where the clamp is removed from the ducts),
but does not disclose:
a bridge member,
locking member, and
the gasket comprising a body made of a foam having a matrix structure with space occupied by a gas and a layer made of a solid polymer, which is not a gas-containing matrix,
wherein the layer extends around an outer surface of the body, and
wherein the layer of the solid polymer has a thickness in a range of from about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm.
In regards to the foamed gasket, Takahashi discloses a similar device (see fig. 5 hereinafter) used for air conditioners (see lines 9-13 of the translated NPL) comprising a foamed gasket (34) comprising an foamed inner body (48) and a solid skin (44) extending around the body to provide the benefit of flexibility and elasticity while being excellent in wear resistance and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265),
wherein the thickness (h1) of the skin is about 0.5mm (see lines 136-137) such that the thickness h1 can be adjusted by changing the setting conditions at the time of 154 molding by the core back type injection foam molding die (see lines 154-155),
wherein the inner layer is bubbled (see lines 212-213) and the outer skin layer is not bubbled (see lines 214-215),
wherein the foams are known to be made of Urethane (see lines 53-54) and the material of the foam is TPO made from polypropylene, rubber, and oil (see lines 141-142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the gasket of Sandman to comprise a inner foam body and an outer skin with a thickness of 0.5mm that does not comprise bubbles because Takahashi discloses that using an inner foamed body comprising an outer skin of the same material with a 0.5 mm thickness provides the benefit of flexibility and elasticity while being excellent in wear resistance and scratch resistance (see lines 263-265) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to the gas matrix, Takahashi explicitly discloses that the outer skin layer does not comprise bubbles (see lines 214-215) and a non-foamed outer skin layer is not a gas-containing matrix.
In regards to the bridge member and locking member, Siblik discloses a method to a similar device (see figs. 1-8), the method comprising:
pivoting a locking member (26, fig. 4 of Siblik) of a latch (see fig. 4) of the clamp (see fig. 4) out of a bridge member (41, fig. 4) of the latch and then out of a slot (25, fig. 4) of the latch
wherein the bridge member is located under a handle of the latch (see fig. 1) when the duct clamp assembly is in the closed position (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute the known latch system of Sandman in view of Takahashi with the known latch system of Siblik because the only difference between the claim invention and the prior art is a simple substitution of the latch system of Sandman in view of Takahashi with the latch system of Siblik, both latch systems and their functionalities are known in the art where the latch system of Siblik provides the benefit of unwanted ring opening movement (see col. 1, lines 38-42 of Siblik), and simply substituting one known latch system for another known latch system to provide the benefit of unwanted ring opening movement would have been predictable.
In regards to claim 17, Sandman in view of Takahashi and Siblik further discloses:
The method of claim 16, wherein the removing step comprises moving the latch from a closed position to an open position.
It is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art using a latch that a “removing step” would require moving the latch from a closed to open position.
In regards to claim 18, Sandman in view of Takahashi and Siblik further discloses:
The method of claim 16, further comprising:
re-applying the compressing force to the gasket such that the gasket is again compressed between the clamp and the connection point.
It is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art would require “re-applying the compressing force to the gasket such that the gasket is again compressed between the clamp and the connection point” to confirm or fix the connection between the clamp and the ducts.
In regards to claim 19, Sandman in view of Takahashi and Siblik further discloses:
The method of claim 18, wherein the re-applying step comprises:
moving the latch from an open position to a closed position (see fig. 1, where the latch is in the closed position); and
pivoting the locking member into the slot of the latch and then into the bridge member of the latch (see fig. 3 of Siblik, where pivoting would be required while trying to insert the locking member into the bridge member and slot),
wherein the bridge member is located under a handle of the latch when the latch is in the closed position (see fig. 3 of Siblik).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights