DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stulp (U.S. Patent Number 1,189,404, cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Stulp teaches a clamp assembly (figure 1; page 1, lines 1 - 7) comprising: first and second curved clamp halves (figures 2 and 3, element 2 being the ‘first curved clamp half’ and element 7 being the ‘second curved clamp half’; page 1, lines 43 - 63). Examiner recognizes that Stulp teaches the first and second curved clamp halves being different sizes (figures 2 and 3, elements 2 and 7). However, “half” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “one of a pair.” Therefore, regardless of relative size, elements 2 and 7 of Stulp may reasonably be considered ‘halves.’ Stulp further teaches that each of the first and second curved clamp halves circumferentially extends between first and second ends (figures 2 and 3, element 3 indicating the ‘first end of the first curved clamp half,’ element 4 being the ‘second end of the first curved clamp half,’ element 9 being the ‘first end of the second curved clamp half,’ and element 11 being the ‘second end of the second curved clamp half’; page 1, lines 43 – 51 and 57 – 64), each of said first and second clamp halves terminating in a clamp member at said first end thereof (figures 2 and 3, elements 3 and 9 being the ‘clamp members’; page 1, lines 43 - 63), and wherein for each of said first and second clamp halves, said second end does not circumferentially extend past both of said clamp members (figures 1 – 3, elements 4, 11, 3, and 9). Examiner notes that this can be found for several reasons. First, Examiner notes that Stulp teaches that the first and second curved clamp halves may be disconnected from each other (figures 2 and 3, elements 2 and 7), such that the second end of the first and second curved clamp halves do not “circumferentially extend past both of clamp members.” Examiner notes that second ends of the first and second curved clamp halves of Stulp are defined end portions of the first and second curved clamp halves (figures 1 – 3, elements 4 and 11), and that these end portions do not ‘circumferentially extend’ past the first ends of the first and second curved clamp halves (figures 1 – 3, elements 4, 11, 3, and 9). Alternatively explained, while a second half of the first curved clamp half may ‘circumferentially extend past both of said clamp members,’ the second ends of the first and second curved clamp halves do not ‘circumferentially extend past both of said clamp members.' Stulp further teaches a fastener for fastening said clamp members towards each other so as to apply a radially-inward clamping force (figure 1, elements 3 and 9; page 1, lines 91 - 95); and a multiple-degree-of-freedom hinge that couples said first and second clamp halves to each other so that said first and second clamp halves can translate and rotate with respect to each other (figures 1 – 3, elements 13 and 5 being the ‘multiple-degree-of-freedom hinge’; page 1, lines 51 – 90); wherein said multiple-degree-of-freedom hinge comprises a male portion on said first clamp half that is configured to translate and rotate with respect to any one of multiple female portions formed on said second clamp half (figure 3, element 13 being the ‘male portion’ and elements 5 being the ‘multiple female portions’; page 1, lines 51 – 56 and 63 - 72), which allows for different circumferential position for said male portion to couple with said second clamp half (figures 1 – 3, elements 13 and 2; page 1, lines 63 – 90).
As to claim 2, Stulp teaches that said multiple-degree-of-freedom hinge is formed as integral parts of said first and second clamp halves (figures 1 – 3, elements 5 and 13; machine translation page 1, lines 51 – 72).
As to claim 3, Stulp teaches that at each one of said different circumferential positions, said first and second clamp halves can rotate with respect to each other about a longitudinal axis of said clamp assembly (figures 1 – 3, elements 5, 13, 2, and 7; page 1, lines 63 – 90).
As to claim 4, Stulp teaches that at each one of said different circumferential positions, said first and second clamp halves can translate with respect to each other so that a position of a longitudinal axis of said clamp assembly moves in translation (figures 1 – 3, elements 5, 10, 2, and 7; page 1, lines 63 – 90).
As to claim 5, Stulp teaches that said male portion comprises multiple straight edges (figure 3, elements 10 and 11’ being the ‘multiple straight edges’).
As to claim 6, Stulp teaches that said female portion comprises multiple straight edges (figures 2 and 5, element 5 being the ‘multiple straight edges’).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 3, that Stulp does not each ‘second ends of first and second clamp halves that do not circumferentially extend past clamp members of the first and second clamp halves.’ Examiner disagrees. As explained above, Stulp teaches first and second curved clamp halves (figures 2 and 3, element 2 being the ‘first curved clamp half’ and element 7 being the ‘second curved clamp half), wherein each of the first and second clamp halves having a first end and a second end (figures 2 and 3, element 3 indicating the ‘first end of the first curved clamp half,’ element 4 being the ‘second end of the first curved clamp half,’ element 9 being the ‘first end of the second curved clamp half,’ and element 11 being the ‘second end of the second curved clamp half’; page 1, lines 43 – 51 and 57 – 64) and the first end of each of the first and second curved clamp halves includes a clamp member (figures 2 and 3, elements 3 and 9 being the ‘clamp members’). It is further the position of the Examiner that “for each of said first and second clamp halves, said second end does not circumferentially extend path both of said clamp members.” Examiner notes that this can be found for several reasons. First, Examiner notes that Stulp teaches that the first and second curved clamp halves may be disconnected from each other (figures 2 and 3, elements 2 and 7), such that the second end of the first and second curved clamp halves do not “circumferentially extend past both of clamp members.” Examiner notes that second ends of the first and second curved clamp halves of Stulp are defined end portions of the first and second curved clamp halves (figures 1 – 3, elements 4 and 11), and that these end portions do not ‘circumferentially extend’ past the first ends of the first and second curved clamp halves (figures 1 – 3, elements 4, 11, 3, and 9). Alternatively explained, while a second half of the first curved clamp half may ‘circumferentially extend past both of said clamp members,’ the second ends of the first and second curved clamp halves do not ‘circumferentially extend past both of said clamp members.'
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights