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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the rotating body defines a ramp surface, and the ramp surface is configured to contact and advance the valve extension portion of the first and second valve element toward each other” (claim 3 and 20) and “an end of the rotating body is configured to contact and advance the valve extension portion of at least one of the first and second valve elements toward each other” (cl 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The “valve extension portion” has been defined as element 132 [0037, Fig 5]. The ramp surface is 118 [0041]. The drawing fails to show the rotating body having a ramp surface or an “end” of the rotating body configured to contact the valve extension portion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 19-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3544060 (Stoltz).
Regarding claim 1-7, 19-26, Stoltz teaches a fluid clamp (Fig 13-19), comprising: a clamp body (73); a first and second valve element at least partially disposed within the clamp body (with jaw members 81 and valve extension portions annotated below; first valve element on the left, second valve element on the right), wherein each valve element comprises: a valve extension portion (annotated below); and a valve end portion extending from the valve extension portion (81); wherein the valve end portion of the first and second valve elements are disposed opposite to each other and configured to allow a tubing to pass between the valve end portion of the first and second valve elements (tubing 11 between the end portions); and a rotating body rotatably coupled to the clamp body (rotating body 71), wherein the rotating body is configured to rotate and move the valve end portion of at least one of the first and second valve elements inward to compress the tubing and reduce the flow rate through the tubing and outward to release the tubing and increase the flow rate through the tubing (col 4 l. 21-42; rotation in one direction would constrict the tubing and rotation in the other direction would open the tubing, thereby adjusting the flow rate through the tubing), the rotating body is in threaded coupling with the clamp body (col 4 l. 21-42), the rotating body defines a ramp surface, and the ramp surface is configured to contact and advance the valve extension portion of the first and second valve element toward each other (ramp surface 79), wherein an upper end of the rotating body is configured to contact and advance the valve extension portion of at least one of the first and second valve elements toward each other (an “upper end of the rotating body” is construed as including the ramp surface), an outer surface of the rotating body defines one or more grooves (grooves construed as the grooves of the threaded portion 75 on an outer surface of 71); the clamp body comprises a shroud disposed at least partially around the rotating body (shroud annotated below, and may also include 85); wherein the shroud defines a circumferential opening (annotated below), wherein the clamp body defines threads (annotated below), wherein the threads are disposed around the valve extension portions (annotated below), wherein each of the valve extension portions are biasing members (col 4 l. 21-42; valve extension portions are biased outwards such that the tubing is open until the ramp surface of the rotating body pushes against the bias to close the valve elements), wherein each of the valve end portions are wedge shaped (Fig 19; end portions 81 are tapered – e.g. wedge shaped – towards the tubing),
PNG
media_image1.png
511
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
205
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19-20, Stoltz teaches a fluid clamp (Fig 7-11), comprising: a clamp body (65, 63); a first and second valve element (annotated below), wherein each valve element comprises: a valve extension portion (annotated below); and a valve end portion extending from the valve extension portion (annotated below); wherein the valve end portion of the first and second valve elements are disposed opposite to each other and configured to allow a tubing to pass between the valve end portion of the first and second valve elements (Fig 10-11; tubing 11 between the end portions); and a rotating body rotatably coupled to the clamp body (rotating body 51, 55), wherein rotation of the rotating body configured to move the valve end portion of at least one of the first and second valve elements inward to compress the tubing and reduce the flow rate through the tubing and outward to release the tubing and increase the flow rate through the tubing (col 3 l. 66-col 4 l. 20; rotation in one direction would constrict the tubing and rotation in the other direction would open the tubing, thereby adjusting the flow rate through the tubing), the rotating body is in threaded coupling with the clamp body (via threading 57, 65), the rotating body defines a ramp surface, and the ramp surface is configured to contact and advance the valve extension portion of the first and second valve element toward each other (annotated below; ramp surface 59).
PNG
media_image3.png
752
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3544060 (Stoltz) in view of US 4456030 (Bogossian).
Regarding claim 24, Stoltz teaches the valve end portions being wedge shaped. However, even if Stoltz did not teach the end portions being wedge shaped, Bogossian teaches wedge-shaped end portions (Fig 2-3; wedge shaped clamping members 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the valve end portions being wedge shaped, as taught by Bogossian. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, the valve end portions being wedge shaped yields predictable results (closing the tube).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the drawing amendments, Examiner notes that it is unclear what changes were made to the drawings. The drawings remain objected to for the reasons presented above.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references are not understood to disclose or teach each and every feature of independent Claim 19, particularly with regard to the features of ‘a clamp body,’ ‘a first and second valve element,’ and ‘a rotating body rotatably coupled to the clamp body.’”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stoltz teaches each of the elements, as discussed above.
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 ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Phutthiwat (Pat) Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights