DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Balocca fails to teach an irregular, non-threaded external surface geometry, and argues that the foam insert of Balocca will have a smooth surface.
Examiner notes the ground of rejection is modified to add teachings from Kreku. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,557,024 (Roberts) in view of US 6,371,155 (Balocca) and in view of US 4,583,770 (Kreku).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts teaches a universal clamp for threaded neck objects (capable of use in the intended manner by teaching all claimed physical structure) comprising:
a main body (12) having an arcuate length (see arcuate length of 12 extending between 24 and 30 in Figure 1) that provides an opening in the main body configured to receive a first object and a second object therein (Examiner notes the first object and second object are not positively claimed as defined by the preamble of this claim; the clamp of Roberts is capable of receiving a first object and a second object by simply having an internal space) and an inner surface (radially inner surface of body 12) comprising an irregular, non-threaded external surface geometry wherein elements of the external surface geometry are deformable to a shape of threads on the first and/or second objects such that the elements of the surface geometry conform to the threads and the portions therebetween to retain the first and second objects with the clamp and prevent unintentional removal of the clamp from the first and second object, (not taught)
wherein the opening in the main body has dimensions sufficient to secure the second object to the first object within the opening of the clamp such that the first object is vertically aligned with and clamped to the second object (see Figures 2-4 showing a first object 46 secured to a second object 48); and
a strap (28) extending outwardly from a first fixed connection (20) with the main body (see connection of 20 with 12 near 16 in Figure 1),
wherein the main body further supports a strap connection mechanism (22 and 26) on an end of the arcuate length opposite a position of the first fixed connection of the strap to the main body (positioned near end 14 which is opposite end 16, as seen in Figure 1) and wherein a terminal end of the strap is adjustably connectable to the strap connection mechanism (the distal end of strap 28 is connectable between 22 and 26 as best seen in Figure 4).
Roberts fails to teach:
the inner surface comprising an irregular, non-threaded external surface geometry wherein elements of the external surface geometry are deformable to a shape of threads on the first and/or second objects such that the elements of the surface geometry conform to the threads and the portions therebetween to retain the first and second objects with the clamp and prevent unintentional removal of the clamp from the first and second object,
Balocca, analogous to clamps, teaches a main body (26 and 28) with an inner surface (radially inner surface) comprising an irregular, non-threaded surface geometry (compressible material 70; Examiner notes the term “irregular” is relative, and is not read to comprise any structure or function beyond that which explicitly claimed; the material is taught to comprise “closed cell foam rubber” in col. 3, lines 36-37, which inherently comprises irregularities due to individual foam cells) wherein elements of the surface geometry are deformable to a shape of threads on the first and/or second objects such that the elements of the surface geometry conform to the threads and the portions therebetween (“the material will deform to accommodate various shape and sizes of handles”; see col. 3, lines 39-40) to retain the first and second objects with the clamp and prevent unintentional removal of the clamp from the first and second object (Roberts teaches clamping, which inherently prevents removal; see clamping in Figures 2-4; addition of compressible material as taught by Balocca).
Kreku, analogous to clamps, teaches an insert formed of a compressible material (“elastic material, such as rubber; col. 1, lines 64-65), which further includes an irregular surface geometry of flutes formed by recesses (11) and grooves (12), which serve to form a seal against “uneven pipe surfaces” (Abstract) and prevent “minor particles from entering” (col. 3, lines 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of Roberts, providing a compressible material such as that taught by Balocca, motivated by the benefit of conforming to various shaped and sized objects, and further to provide an irregular surface geometry as taught by Kreku, motivated by the benefit of conforming to an uneven surface and preventing entry of particles, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 2, the strap is a flexible strap such that a diameter of the opening in the main body is adjustable by way of connection between the strap and the strap connection mechanism to accommodate objects of a range of sizes therein (col. 4, lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 3, the flexible strap comprises a surface having grooves or teeth thereon (see teeth 32; Figure 1) and configured to mate with a surface of the strap connection mechanism to lock the strap in connection with the strap connect mechanism (mate with teeth 32 on extensions 22 and 26; see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, the strap connection mechanism comprises a ratchet pawl for locking to the strap, the ratchet pawl comprising a flexure-like feature and a pawl to receive the teeth or grooves of the strap therein and to apply a constant force onto the strap for locking the strap in place (teeth 32 ratchet together and prevent removal; see col. 2, lines 41-65).
Regarding claim 5, the strap comprises a separated set of teeth or grooves thereon (Examiner notes the term “separate” does not any kind of spacing or otherwise distinguish the sets of teeth; Roberts teaches a plurality of teeth, and the teeth 32 on the distal edge of the upper side of the strap 28 can be read as the first set, with the remainder as the other set) to temporarily engage a pawl on the of the strap connection mechanism (e.g. the distal-most tooth on the upper extension 22) prior to locking the strap into the strap connection mechanism (distal set of teeth on the upper surface of strap 28 will engage the distal-most tooth on the upper extension 22).
Regarding claim 8, the elements of the surface geometry are conformable to the shape of threads or act to deform the threads of the first and second objects received within the opening of the main body and retain the first and second objects received therein with or without the use adhesives (see Balocca col. 3, lines 39-40).
Regarding claim 11, further comprising an attachment surface on a top portion of the main body (upper surface of 12) that allows a third object to attach securely on to the main body (the object could be secured with adhesive, screw, or other attachment means).
Regarding claim 12, the third object is a cap (a cap is capable of being securely attached to a surface of the clamp such as by adhesive, screw, or other attachment means; Examiner encourages Applicant to claim threads onto which a threaded cap is secured).
Regarding claim 14, a perimeter of the main body comprises a surface geometry that provides two opposing user contact surfaces (each 36; see Figure 1; col. 6, lines 13-19) to allow a user to grip opposing ends of the main body and bring the opposing ends of the main body together and connect the strap to the strap connection mechanism with manual force.
Regarding claim 16, Roberts teaches a universal clamp for securing a first accessory to a device having a threaded end (capable of use in the intended manner by teaching all claimed physical structure) comprising:
a main body (12) comprising a first end (24), a second end (30), an arcuate length extending therebetween (see arcuate length of 12 extending between 24 and 30 in Figure 1), and an inner surface (radially inner surface of 12), the first end comprising a first user interface surface (first of 36) on a perimeter surface thereof and a strap locking mechanism (22 and 26) on an opposing surface thereof and the second end comprising a second user interface surface (other of 36) on a perimeter surface thereof and a strap (28) extending from connection with an opposing surface thereof, wherein the inner surface comprises one or more non-threaded external surface features spaced apart thereon that are deformable or conformable to a shape of threads on the device having a threaded end such that the surface features conform to the threads and the portions therebetween to prevent unintended removal of the universal clamp (not taught).
wherein the strap locking mechanism is configured to receive an end of the strap therein (see 22 and 26 receiving 28 in Figure 4),
wherein the first and second user interface surfaces are manually movable towards one another to reduce a dimension of an opening in the main body as a length of the strap connects to the strap locking mechanism (col. 6, lines 13-19),
wherein the opening in the main body is formed by the closing of the first and second ends with the arcuate length therebetween (col. 5, line 62 through col. 6, line 2), and
wherein the arcuate length is configured to wrap around the threads of the device and a surface of the first accessory and clamp an end of the first accessory to the threaded end of the device (see Figures 2-4 showing the device wrapping around first and second objects 46 and 48).
Roberts fails to teach:
the inner surface comprises one or more non-threaded external surface features spaced apart thereon that are deformable or conformable to a shape of threads on the device having a threaded end such that the surface features conform to the threads and the portions therebetween to prevent unintended removal of the universal clamp.
Balocca, analogous to clamps, the inner surface comprises one or more non-threaded surface features (compressible material 70) spaced apart thereon that are deformable or conformable to a shape of threads on the device having a threaded end such that the surface features conform to the threads and the portions therebetween (“the material will deform to accommodate various shape and sizes of handles”; see col. 3, lines 39-40) to prevent unintended removal of the universal clamp (Roberts teaches clamping, which inherently prevents removal; see clamping in Figures 2-4; addition of compressible material as taught by Balocca).
Kreku, analogous to clamps, teaches an insert formed of a compressible material (“elastic material, such as rubber; col. 1, lines 64-65), which further includes an irregular surface geometry of flutes formed by recesses (11) and grooves (12), which serve to form a seal against “uneven pipe surfaces” (Abstract) and prevent “minor particles from entering” (col. 3, lines 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of Roberts, providing a compressible material such as that taught by Balocca, motivated by the benefit of conforming to various shaped and sized objects, and further to provide an irregular surface geometry as taught by Kreku, motivated by the benefit of conforming to an uneven surface and preventing entry of particles, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Regarding claim 18, the main body further comprises a top surface configured to couple to a second accessory (body 12 has an upper surface, to which an object can be secured with adhesive, screw, or other attachment means).
Regarding claim 19, the device is a container, and the first accessory is a delivery nozzle for contents of the container (the clamp of Roberts is capable of securing a delivery nozzle to a container as long as each has a similar diameter as the internal space within the main body 12).
Regarding claim 20, the device is a container, the first accessory is a delivery nozzle for contents of the container, and the second accessory is a cap (the clamp of Roberts is capable of securing a delivery nozzle to a container as long as each has a similar diameter as the internal space within the main body 12; a cap is capable of being securely attached to a surface of the clamp such as by adhesive, screw, or other attachment means; Examiner encourages Applicant to claim threads onto which a threaded cap is secured).
Regarding claim 21, the threads on the first and second objects do not mate (Examiner notes the first and second objects are not positively claimed per the preamble of claim 16; the device of Roberts in view of Balocca is capable of use in the intended manner of clamping first and second objects that do not mate by having an internal space which could clamp to each object separately if they were the same or similar diameter).
Regarding claim 22, the clamp is configured to operably couple the device and the first accessory together wherein the device and the first accessory have different threaded surfaces that do not mate or wherein the first accessory does not have a threaded surface for connection to the device having the threaded end (Examiner notes the first accessory is not positively claimed per the preamble of claim 16; the clamp, by having an internal space, is capable of use in the intended manner by clamping objects together as long as they have similar diameters to fit radially inside the main body).
Regarding claim 23, Roberts teaches a universal threaded neck clamp comprising:
a main body (12) having an arcuate length (see arcuate length of 12 extending between 24 and 30 in Figure 1) that provides an opening in the main body configured to receive an object therein;
a strap (28) extending outwardly from a first fixed connection (20) with the main body (see connection of 20 with 12 near 16 in Figure 1),
wherein the main body further supports a strap connection mechanism (22 and 26) on an end of the arcuate length opposite a position of the first fixed connection of the strap to the main body (positioned near end 14 which is opposite end 16, as seen in Figure 1) and wherein a terminal end of the strap is adjustably connectable to the strap connection mechanism (the distal end of strap 28 is connectable between 22 and 26 as best seen in Figure 4).
Roberts fails to teach:
an insert configured for positioning in the opening of the main body between the main body and the object received therein and wherein an inner surface of the insert comprises a non-threaded regular or irregular surface geometry and wherein elements of the surface geometry are conformable to a shape of threads and the portions between each thread on the object to prevent unintended removal of the clamp from the object received therein.
Balocca, analogous to clamps, teaches an insert (70) configured for positioning in the opening of the main body (26 and 28) between the main body and the object received therein and wherein an inner surface of the insert comprises a non-threaded regular or irregular surface geometry (Examiner notes the phrase “regular or irregular” accounts for all possible surface geometries, thus covering that of Balocca) and wherein elements of the surface geometry are conformable to a shape of threads and the portions between each thread on the object (“the material will deform to accommodate various shape and sizes of handles”; see col. 3, lines 39-40) to prevent unintended removal of the clamp from the object received therein (Roberts teaches clamping, which inherently prevents removal; see clamping in Figures 2-4; addition of compressible material as taught by Balocca).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of Roberts, providing a compressible material such as that taught by Balocca, motivated by the benefit of conforming to various shaped and sized objects, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,557,024 (Roberts) in view of US 6,371,155 (Balocca) as applied above under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to claim 1, and further in view of US 6,105,908 (Kraus).
Regarding claim 6, Roberts in view of Balocca as applied above fails to teach the clamp further comprising one or a set of breakable plastic connections that attach to the terminal end of the strap body and the main body for providing a strap guide to connection with the main body and/or preventing movement of the strap before use.
Kraus, analogous to clamps using ratcheting mechanisms, teaches a breakable hinge member (10) which must first be broken before a strap (2) and bearing region (6) can be moved relative to each other (col. 4, lines 46-57). Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would find the broader teaching of preventing relative movement before initially fracturing a frangible element. While Kraus fails to explicitly teach the location being at the terminal end of the strap body, Examiner asserts that it is obvious to change the location of the parts of the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roberts in view of Balocca, providing breakable connections as taught by Kraus, and further locating such at the terminal end of the strap body, motivated by the benefit of facilitating disconnection of the ratchet engagement, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. (2007) at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Furthermore, regarding the physical combination, the question is not whether the prior art devices can be physically combined, but whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine different features or elements of known devices in a predictable way. See Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983): "There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims in suit. ...Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference." See MPEP 2145(III).
Regarding the physical location of the connection, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.01(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,557,024 (Roberts) in view of US 6,371,155 (Balocca) as applied above under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to claim 1, and further in view of US 5,911,367 (McInerney).
Regarding claim 7, Roberts in view of Balocca as applied above teaches that the main body is produced by injection molding (Roberts col. 8, lines 44-50) but fails to teach the main body further comprising a window or opening extending from a bottom surface to a top surface of the main body proximate the strap connection mechanism for removal of the main body from a mold during injection molding.
Mclnerney, analogous to ratchet-type clamps, teaches it is known to provide windows (19) to facilitate the injection molding process (col. 2, lines 17-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the main body of Roberts in view of Balocca providing windows such as those taught by Mclnerney, motivated by the benefit of facilitating the injection molding process, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. (2007) at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Furthermore, regarding the physical combination, the question is not whether the prior art devices can be physically combined, but whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine different features or elements of known devices in a predictable way. See Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983): "There is a distinction between trying to physically combine the two separate apparatus disclosed in two prior art references on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to learn enough from the disclosures of the two references to render obvious the claims in suit. ...Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of references, even if the features of one reference cannot be substituted physically into the structure of the other reference." See MPEP 2145(III).
Regarding the physical location of the connection, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.01(VI)(C). In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
6. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,557,024 (Roberts) in view of US 6,371,155 (Balocca) as applied above under 35 USC 102(a)(1) to claim 1, in view of US 9,012,791 (Smith).
Regarding claim 15, Examiner notes the following definition of “spline” from Collins Dictionary online:
PNG
media_image1.png
287
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Roberts in view of Balocca as applied above teaches “grips or corrugations (36)” on the gripping tabs to assist a user in closing the clamp (see Figure 1), thus being read as “long strips”, but such are not located about the rest of the main body.
Smith, analogous to contactable clamps, teaches ribs (52) on the main body for assisting gripping during installation (col. 4, lines 31-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of Roberts in view of Balocca, providing a splined geometry e.g. ribs as taught by Smith, motivated by the benefit of assisting gripping during installation, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
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 JAMES N SMALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733