DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-18 are rejected.
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 with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Manner of Making Amendments
With respect to the manner of making amendments, applicants are reminded of the use of underlining added subject matter to a claim. In this instance, claim 1 has added “monolithic” in lines 22-24 and 29 to the claim but was not underlined. See 37 CFR 1.121 (c). All future submissions must use proper markings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(c), or the response will be held to be non-compliant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 18 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.
In regards to claim 1, claim 1 recites "monolithic shaft component" in the limitation “opposite the monolithic shaft component first end … monolithic shaft component pivot hole … monolithic shaft component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 18, the limitation “the assembly at the monolithic shaft component first end” lack antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear what elements/components are being referred to by this limitation.
To proceed with prosecution, the limitation “the assembly at the monolithic shaft component first end” will be interpreted as “an assembly at the monolithic shaft component first end”.
It is suggested wherein Applicant further label this assembly with a modifier term (e.g. <modifier term> assembly) such that it is not confused with the releasable clamp assembly, or “The assembly”, as has been presented in the preamble of the claims.
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 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linhorst et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,201,852).
Claims 1 and 2, Linhorst discloses:
A releasable clamp assembly (see fig. 7 hereinafter) comprising
an upper clamp ring (22),
a lower clamp ring (24),
a monolithic shaft component (64), and
a latch (60);
the upper clamp ring comprising
an upper clamp ring first end (66),
an upper clamp ring second end (26),
with the upper clamp ring first end having an upper clamp ring clevis (see near 66) having an upper clamp ring first prong (see the left prong near 66) with an upper clamp ring first prong through-hole (see the through hole in the prong to accept a pin) and an upper clamp ring second prong (ex., the opposite prong in fig. 7) with an upper clamp ring second prong through-hole (ex., see the arrow right after the pin near 32);
the lower clamp ring (24) comprising
a lower clamp ring first end (see near 70),
a lower clamp ring second end (see near 30),
with the lower clamp ring first end having a lower clamp ring clevis (see near 70) with the lower clamp ring clevis comprising a space (ex., the space near 70) between a lower clamp clevis first prong (ex., the prong of 70) and a lower clamp clevis second prong (ex., the opposite prong),
with the lower clamp ring first end opposite the lower clamp ring second end (see fig. 7);
the monolithic shaft component comprising
a monolithic shaft component first end (see near 76 which is the threaded area),
a monolithic shaft component second end (ex., the opposite side comprising a pivot hole) opposite the monolithic shaft component first end, and
a pivot area (ex., see near 68 in fig. 26) with a monolithic shaft component pivot hole (see 68 in fig. 27) passing through the monolithic shaft component at the pivot area;
the latch comprising
a latch clevis (ex., see near 36,34 in fig. 2 which shows the latch comprises a clevis);
wherein the monolithic shaft component is pivotally engaged with the latch clevis (ex., see 68 in fig. 6);
the upper clamp ring is pivotally engaged with the latch clevis (ex., see near 66 in fig. 6);
the monolithic shaft component is configured to have an effective length with a fixed clamping force for a given set of fittings (8:42-50, which discloses the effective length between 68 and 70); and
the upper clamp ring second end is pivotally engaged with the lower clamp ring second end (see 26 in fig. 6).
Claim 3, Linhorst discloses:
The assembly of claim 2, wherein the upper clamp ring and the lower clamp ring are pivotally engaged via a joint (ex., pin near 26 going through both holes of each upper and lower clamp ring).
Claim 4, Linhorst discloses:
The assembly of claim 3, wherein the joint is pivotally attached to an upper clamp ring through-hole (ex., the pin is attached to the through hole of the upper clamp ring) and pivotally attached to a lower clamp ring through-hole (ex., the pin is also attached to the through hole of the lower clamp ring).
Claim 18, as best understood, Linhorst discloses:
The assembly of claim 2 wherein “an” assembly at the monolithic shaft component first end cannot pass through the space between the lower clamp clevis first prong and the lower clamp clevis second prong as the latch is engaged (ex., see near 70 where the assembly at the end of the threaded shaft cannot pass through while the latch is engaged otherwise the shaft would come out of the slot).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linhorst as applied to claim 2 above and in view of Sawyer (U.S. Patent No. 3,238,581).
In regards to claim 7, Linhorst discloses:
The assembly of claim 2, wherein the monolithic shaft component effective length configuration is created by having the monolithic shaft component threaded and mated with an adjustable nut (76, fig. 7) that is configured to be torqued (ex., meeting the limitation of a torque nut),
but does not disclose:
a torque nut tip.
In regards to the torque nut tip, Sawyer discloses a similar device (see figs. 1-2) comprising:
a similar monolithic shaft (13) comprising first end comprising a pivot hole (see fig. 1, where pin 12 would go through pivot hole of 14; see 1:48-52, where the eye is perforated with the cross pin 12) and a second threaded end (see near 22) comprising a torque nut (18, 21, and 22; ex., similar to the fasteners of Linhorst in that it adjust the effective length; for naming purposes of the rejection, the adjustable fastener of Sawyer is being considered the torque nut in the claims) comprising a tip end (23, fig. 4) and a lock nut (28, fig. 1), and
a latch (10) directly connected to the shaft (13) via the pin (12) and to an end of a band (3) comprising fasteners (9),
wherein “In order to prevent unintentional change in the adjustment of the nut 18 a second nut or lock nut 28 is employed” (2:18-20), and
wherein “it will be observed that the nut and toggle unit is readily adjusted axially, when the latch is in its secured position shown in FIGURE 1, so that the desired constraining pull may be applied to the flanges and the structure connected therewith” (2:21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the holes and the entire assembly at the threaded end of the shaft of Linhorst (ex., 70 and 76) with semi-circular notches and the entire assembly at the threaded end of the shaft of Sawyer such that the fully circular holes on each side of the lower prongs is semi-circular notches (ex., as opposed to holes near 70) because Linhorst discloses a device which differs from the claimed device by a replacement of the assembly and holes of Linhorst with the assembly and notches of Sawyer, Sawyer discloses a similar device comprising a threaded shaft with fasteners that’s engage a semi-circular notch on two prongs of a lower clamps which provides the benefit of unintentional change of the nut and desired pull applied to the flanges (2:18-25), and one of ordinary skill could have replaced the one known assembly comprising adjusting nuts and holes in each prong for another assembly comprising lock nuts, adjusting nuts comprising a tip end, and semi-circular notches in each prong as such modification would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to claims 8-11, Linhorst in view of Sawyer discloses:
The assembly of claim 7, wherein the torque nut is fixed and torque is required to rotate the torque nut about the shaft component (it is inherent that a torque would need to be applied to nut 18 as shown in fig. 1 of Sawyer),
but does not disclose:
the amount of torque required to rotate the torque nut about the shaft component.
In regards to the torque, while Linhorst in view of Sawyer does not expressly disclose at least 0.5 Nm to 50 Nm of torque is required to rotate the torque nut, the “torque requirement” 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the torque of the torque nut of Linhorst in view of Sawyer to at least 0.5 Nm to 50 Nm, as the “torque” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. 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).
In regards to claims 12-16, Linhorst in view of Sawyer discloses:
The assembly of claim 11, wherein the torque nut is fixed by a lock nut (ex., 28 in fig. 2 of Sawyer) abutting the torque nut (see fig. 2 of Sawyer) with a lock nut torque (it is inherent a lock nut would require a lock nut torque as structurally both the present invention and Sawyer comprise the same configuration of a lock nut abutting a torque nut) which is the torque of the lock nut at the torque nut,
but does not disclose:
the amount of lock nut torque is greater than 0 Nm and less than 50 Nm.
In regards to the torque, while Linhorst in view of Sawyer does not expressly disclose at least 0 Nm to 50 Nm of lock nut torque, the “torque requirement” 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the lock nut torque of Linhorst in view of Sawyer to meet the range of 0 Nm and 50 Nm, as the “torque” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. 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).
It is noted, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality of the range and applicants range covers a broad scope of 100-times the minimal torque requirement. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the lock nut torque requirement from a range of greater than 0 Nm to 50Nm as desired for the intended use.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linhorst in view of Sawyer as applied to claim 7 above and in further view of Loctite (NPL, 2019).
In regards to claim 17, Linhorst in view of Sawyer discloses:
The assembly of claim 7, wherein the torque nut is fixed and torque is required to rotate the torque nut about the shaft component (ex., see fig. 1 of Sawyer) before the assembly is installed on a fitting (see note below),
but does not disclose:
the amount of torque required to rotate the torque nut about the shaft component and the torque nut is fixed by a thread locker.
In regards to using thread locker, Loctite discloses that thread locker is used to prevent the threads from rust and corrosion and prevents loosening from shock and vibration (see page 2 of the NPL provided herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use thread locker on the torque nut of Linhorst in view of Sawyer to prevent the threads of the torque nut of Linhorst in view of Sawyer from rust and corrosion and from further loosening from shock and vibration, as taught by Loctite (see page 2 of the NPL previously provided herein).
In regards to the torque, while Linhorst in view of Sawyer and Loctite does not disclose at least 0.5 Nm of torque is required to rotate the torque nut, the “torque requirement” 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the torque of the torque nut of Linhorst in view of Sawyer and Loctite to at least 0.5 Nm to 50 Nm, as the “torque” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. 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 range and applicants range covers a broad scope of 100-times the minimal torque requirement. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the torque requirement from a range of 0.5 Nm to 50Nm as desired for the intended use.
In regards to the note on assembly steps, “before the assembly is installed on a fitting” 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroulik (U.S. Design Patent 412,972).
In regards to claim 1, Kroulik discloses:
A releasable clamp assembly (see annotated fig. 1 below hereinafter) comprising
an upper clamp ring (see annotated fig. 1),
a lower clamp ring (see annotated fig. 1),
a shaft component (see annotated fig. 1), and
a latch (see annotated fig. 1);
the upper clamp ring comprising
an upper clamp ring first end (see where the latch is),
an upper clamp ring second end (see pivot connection),
with the upper clamp ring first end having an upper clamp ring clevis having an upper clamp ring first prong (see upper prongs in annotated fig. 1) with an upper clamp ring first prong through-hole (see Holes in annotated fig. 1) and an upper clamp ring second prong (ex., the opposite prong) with an upper clamp ring second prong through-hole (see annotated fig. 1);
the lower clamp ring (see annotated fig. 1) comprising
a lower clamp ring first end (ex., see near lower prongs),
a lower clamp ring second end (ex., see near pivot connection),
with the lower clamp ring first end having a lower clamp ring clevis with the lower clamp ring clevis comprising a space (ex., between both lower prongs) between a lower clamp clevis first prong (see annotated fig. 1) and a lower clamp clevis second prong (ex., the opposite prong),
with the lower clamp ring first end opposite the lower clamp ring second end (see annotated fig. 1);
the shaft component comprising
a shaft component first end (see annotated fig. 1),
a shaft component second end (see annotated fig. 1 where it would be opposite the first end) opposite the monolithic shaft component first end, and
a pivot area (see annotated fig. 1) with a shaft component pivot hole (it is inherent the shaft has a pivot hole via the pin) passing through the monolithic shaft component at the pivot area;
the latch comprising
a latch clevis (ex., the space between both prongs);
wherein the monolithic shaft component is pivotally engaged with the latch clevis (ex., see near pivot connection, where the shaft and latch are pivotable even with the pin attached);
the upper clamp ring is pivotally engaged with the latch clevis (ex., see near holes);
the shaft component is configured to have an effective length with a fixed clamping force for a given set of fittings (structurally there is nothing preventing this); and
the upper clamp ring second end is pivotally engaged with the lower clamp ring second end (ex., see pivot connection),
but does not disclose:
the shaft being a monolithic shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the shaft of Kroulik as a single-piece monolithic component because it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) in MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
655
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Kroulik further discloses:
The assembly of claim 2, wherein the monolithic shaft component effective length configuration is created by having the monolithic shaft component first end larger than the space between the lower clamp clevis first prong and the lower clamp clevis second prong (ex., see annotated fig. 1 above).
In regards to claim 6, Kroulik further discloses:
The assembly of claim 5, wherein the monolithic shaft component first end is shaped as a "T".
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 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