DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-27 are currently pending.
Claims 17-27 are currently withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/18/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have made moot the previous drawing objection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by King, Jr. et al. (US 2004/0080158), (hereinafter, King).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
PNG
media_image1.png
765
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Clm 1: King discloses a tapping sleeve (see Figs 1-8 and the Fig. above) comprising:
a flow channel (see Figs. 1-3, the central opening through the structure and such an opening can allow a fluid to flow through it, additionally or alternatively, this flow channel can allow fluid to flow through it when a tubular member is installed, for example as in Fig. 2, tubular member 15, when fluid flows through the installed tubular member it is also flowing through the clamp’s channel) comprising an inlet (the end extending out of the page) and an outlet (the end extending into of the page and/or19); and
a shell (2001) partially surrounding the flow channel (see above), the shell comprising:
a tapped shell portion (2002, the portion above line 1000);
a cap shell portion (2003, the portion in the box) opposite the tapped shell portion (see above);
a clamp (3001) comprising a spanner (20, 21, and 22) extending across a circumferential reach (see Figs. 1-8) extending between the tapped shell portion and the cap shell portion (see above), the spanner configured to couple (couple being defined as links or joins) the tapped shell portion to the cap shell portion when the clamp is in a closed position (the spanner is made to or is capable of being configured in such a manner to couple the tapped shell portion to the cap shell portion when the clamp is in a closed position); and
a flexible shell region (2004, note that Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate that 2004 is flexible as Fig. 2 illustrates an elongated 2004 and Fig. 1 shows a more rounded 2004) interposed between (see above) and more flexible than the tapped shell portion and the cap shell portion (see Figs. 1 and 2, and this region being more flexible is also a condition of how and where a force is applied, such as, when a tortional or twisting force or a compression force is applied at the boundaries/side loading 3002, the flexible shell region will only, mainly, or mostly flex in 2004, thus, 2004 is more flexible than the tapped shell portion and the cap shell portion),
the flexible shell region being integral with the tapped shell portion and the cap shell portion (integral being defined as essential or necessary for completeness, and thus, the flexible shell region is essential or necessary with the tapped shell portion and the cap shell portion for being/forming the complete structure; note that applicant has the right to be their own lexicographer by providing a specific or unique definition in the original specification for a given word and in the absence of said specific or unique definition then the broadest reasonable interpretation of a word, in the claim, may be applied) so that the tapped shell portion is monolithic with the cap shell portion (see above),
wherein the spanner is rotatably secured (secured does not require directly secured to but rather a broader understanding of fastened with or fixed with) to one of the tapped shell portion and the cap shell portion (via 12, which is flexible and either end of the clamp can rotate via 12).
Re Clm 2: King discloses wherein the outlet is a first outlet and the inlet is in fluid communication with the first outlet and a second outlet (see above and Figs. 2 and 3).
Re Clm 4: King discloses wherein the flexible shell region comprises between 40- 60% of a side-sleeve (4001) extending through the flexible shell region from a top to a bottom of the flexible shell region in a circumferential direction (the flexible shell region extends through the flexible shell region from a top (the top of 4001) to a bottom (the bottom of 4001 of the flexible shell region in a circumferential direction, see above).
Re Clm 8: King discloses wherein the clamp further comprises a spanner (3001) that couples the tapped shell portion to the cap shell portion and extends across the circumferential reach (see Figs. 3-5), the spanner being configured to close the clamp (see above).
Re Clm 10: King discloses wherein the flexible shell region comprises a variable thickness (see above) that fluctuates between a maximum thickness (at 5002, where the thickness include a portion the rib) and a minimum thickness (at 5001).
Re Clm 11: King discloses wherein the maximum thickness is less than or equal to a thickness of the tapped shell portion (at 6001) and a thickness of the cap shell portion (at 7001, where the thickness include a portion the rib).
Re Clm 12: King discloses wherein the minimum thickness is equal to or less than half of the maximum thickness (see above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 5-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King, Jr. et al. (US 2004/0080158), (hereinafter, King)as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 10-12 above.
Re Clm 3: King discloses wherein the flexible shell region defines an axial kerf (8001 or 9001, note that a keft is a groove or notch) extending through at least an axial direction of the flexible shell region (see above).
The recitation “kerf” is a process which can be used to make the product claimed. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art was made by a different process”. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 946, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
King fails to disclose that the disclosed axial kerf extending through at least 40% of the disclosed axial direction of the disclosed flexible shell region, even though, it appears that the axial kerf’s of King appear to be or appear to be approaching at least 40% of the disclosed axial direction.
Axial kerf(s), in this instance, have an influence on the flexibility and/or strength of the material/structure(s) which they extend through, for the purpose of allowing said material/structure(s) to be able to be manipulated in a manner which would allow for either the instillation or removal or the material/structure(s) on/from another member.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of King, to have had the disclosed axial kerf extend through at least 40% of the disclosed axial direction of the disclosed flexible shell region, with a reasonable expectation of success because King already appears to disclose such and having a minimum axial kerf would have been a foreseeable option, for the purpose of allowing said material/structure(s) to be able to be manipulated in a manner which would allow for either the instillation or removal or the material/structure(s) from another member in order to form a joint or connection or to disassemble such.
Note that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Clm 5: King discloses that there can be hoop stress in the flexible shell region, the tapped shell portion and the cap shell portion.
King fails to disclose that the disclosed hoop stress in the disclosed flexible shell region is at least double of the disclosed hoop stress in the disclosed tapped shell portion and the disclosed hoop stress in the disclosed cap shell portion.
Having or ensuring that a structure has or can withstand a given amount of hoop stress would ensure the safety/life of the component, in this instance, a cylindrical component being exposed to or experiencing a given pressure or force. So, ensuring that a desired portion of a structure can withstand or have at least double the amount of hoop stress than other portions of the structure will allow for a predictable outcome for the structure which has at least double the hoop stress, alternately, a structure that can withstand or have at least double the amount of hoop stress than other portions of the structure would yield the same predictable result of allowing said structure to form and make a secure connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of King, to have had the disclosed hoop stress in the disclosed flexible shell region is at least double of the disclosed hoop stress in the disclosed tapped shell portion and the disclosed hoop stress in the disclosed cap shell portion, with a reasonable expectation of success because King already appears to disclose a structure that has at least double of the hoop stress in the tapped shell portion because of its thickness, for the purpose of insuring that a desired portion of a structure can withstand or have at least double the amount of hoop stress than other portions of the same structure, alternately, a structure that can withstand or have at least double the amount of hoop stress than other portions of the structure would yield the same predictable result of allowing said structure to form and make a secure connection.
Note that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Additionally, or alternatively, a change is size and/or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955) and/or Gardener v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Re Clm 6: King discloses a thickness of the shell.
King fails to disclose that the disclosed thickness of the disclosed shell is at least 0.100 inches thick.
The thickness of the shell, in this instance, has an influence on the flexibility and/or strength of the structure, for the purpose of insuring that the structure does not prematurely or undesirably fail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of King, to have had the disclosed thickness of the disclosed shell is at least 0.100 inches thick, with a reasonable expectation of success because King already discloses a thickness of the shell and having a minimum thickness for the shell would have been a foreseeable option, for the purpose of insuring that the structure does not prematurely or undesirably fail.
Note that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Clm 7: King discloses a thickness of the tapped shell portion, the cap shell portion, and a thickness of the flexible shell region.
King fails to disclose that the disclosed thickness of the disclosed tapped shell portion and the disclosed cap shell portion of the disclosed shell is at least 0.100 inches thick, and a disclosed thickness of the disclosed flexible shell region is equal to or less than 0.100 inches thick.
The thickness of the shell portion, the cap shell portion, and the flexible shell region, in this instance, has an influence on the flexibility and/or strength of the structure, for the purpose of insuring that the structure(s) do not prematurely or undesirably fail but is/are still flexible enough for instillation and removal purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of King, to have had flexible shell region, with a reasonable expectation of success because King already discloses thickness for these three structures and having said thickness ranges would have been a foreseeable option, for the purpose of insuring that the structure(s) do not prematurely or undesirably fail but is/are still flexible enough for instillation and removal purposes.
Note that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Clm 9: King discloses the spanner, the tapped shell portion, and the cap shell portion.
King fails to disclose that the disclosed spanner is a bolt extending from a protrusion on the disclosed tapped shell portion to a receiving bar captured within the disclosed cap shell portion, and the bolt threadedly engages the receiving bar to tighten the clamp.
Having a bolt extending from a protrusion on a portion to a receiving bar captured within another portion, and the bolt threadedly engages the receiving bar to tighten a clamp is an alternative means for securing a clamp around a tubular member, for the purpose of being able to secure a clamping member around a tubular member, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would yield the same predictable result of forming a securing mechanism of a clamp that is then used for forming a leak free joint.
Accordingly, the examiner is taking Official notice that it is old and well-known to have employed a bolt extending from a protrusion on a portion to a receiving bar captured within another portion, and the bolt threadedly engages the receiving bar to tighten a clamp is an alternative means for securing a clamp around a tubular member, for the purpose of being able to secure a clamping member around a tubular member, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would yield the same predictable result of forming a securing mechanism of a clamp that is then used for forming a leak free joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of King, to have employed the disclosed spanner is a bolt extending from a protrusion on the disclosed tapped shell portion to a receiving bar captured within the disclosed cap shell portion, and the bolt threadedly engages the receiving bar to tighten the clamp, with a reasonable expectation of success because one clamping/securing means, for a clamp, is being replaced with an alternative clamping/securing means, for the clamp, for the purpose of being able to secure a clamping member around a tubular member, alternatively, such a structural arrangement would yield the same predictable result of forming a securing mechanism of a clamp that is then used for forming a leak free joint.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King, Jr. et al. (US 2004/0080158), (hereinafter, King) as applied to claims 1-12 above in view of (EP 3001087), (hereinafter, EP-087).
Re Clm 13: King discloses the flexible shell region, an outer surface of the shell, and an inner surface of the shell.
King fails to disclose a slot that extends from the disclosed outer surface of the shell to the disclosed inner surface of the shell, and the slot extends entirely through the disclosed shell.
However, EP-087 discloses a clamp member, similar to that of King. EP-087 also teaches (see Fig. 5) a slot (see the slots that extend through element 5) that extend from an outer surface of the band to an inner surface of the band, and the slot extends entirely through the band (see Fig. 5). Where such a structural configuration would allow for a reduction of weight of the clamp or where such a structural configuration would allow for greater flexibility of the band, alternatively, such a structural configuration would yield the same predictable result of allowing to band to function/work in a manner to form/make a leak free joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of King, to have included a slot that extends from the disclosed outer surface of the shell to the disclosed inner surface of the shell, and the slot extends entirely through the disclosed shell, as taught by EP-087, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely modifying a known structure with another known structure, for the purpose of allowing for a reduction of weight of the clamp or where such a structural configuration would allow for greater flexibility of the band, alternatively, such a structural configuration would yield the same predictable result of allowing to band to function/work in a manner to form/make a leak free joint.
Re Clm 14: King discloses the flexible shell region.
King fails to disclose that the disclosed flexible shell region defines a plurality of slots.
However, EP-087 discloses a clamp member, similar to that of King. EP-087 also teaches (see Fig. 5) a plurality of slots (see the slots that extend through element 5). Where such a structural configuration would allow for a reduction of weight of the clamp or where such a structural configuration would allow for greater flexibility of the band, alternatively, such a structural configuration would yield the same predictable result of allowing to band to function/work in a manner to form/make a leak free joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of King, to have included within the disclosed flexible shell region a plurality of slots, as taught by EP-087, with a reasonable expectation of success because one is merely modifying a known structure with another known structure, for the purpose of allowing for a reduction of weight of the clamp or where such a structural configuration would allow for greater flexibility of the band, alternatively, such a structural configuration would yield the same predictable result of allowing to band to function/work in a manner to form/make a leak free joint.
Re Clm 15: King as modified by EP-087 above, discloses the limitations wherein the plurality of slots are parallel to an axial axis extending through a flow direction in the flow channel of the sleeve (this is because at least a portion of each slot is parallel to an axial axis extending through a flow direction in the flow channel of the sleeve).
Re Clm 16: King as modified by EP-087 above, discloses the limitations wherein the plurality of slots are parallel to a transverse axis extending perpendicular to a flow direction in the flow channel of the sleeve (this is because at least a portion of each slot is parallel to a transverse axis extending perpendicular to a flow direction in the flow channel of the sleeve).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 6 line 1 through page 8 the last line, that King fails to disclose a clamp comprising a spanner and wherein the spanner is rotatably secured.
This is not persuasive.
King disclose that the clamp is element 3001, the spanner being elements 20, 21, and 22, and wherein the spanner is rotatably secured (note that secured does not require directly secured to but rather a broader understanding of fastened with or fixed with) to one of the tapped shell portion and the cap shell portion (where element 12 is flexible and either end of the clamp can rotate via 12 depending on how the clamp is positioned, secured, and closed).
All claims not specifically argued will stand or fall with the claim(s) from which it/they depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
02/04/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679