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 .
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 RDIF tag on the chain hook of claim 2 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1,7, 10,11,19,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmin (US 20140124043 A1 ), hereafter known as Helmin, in view of Kuntze (DE 596816 C), hereafter known as Kuntze, in further view of RUD’s product, “ICE Identification tag”, hereafter known as ID Tag.
Regarding claim 1, Helmin discloses a sleeve clamp assembly (fig 6, sleeve clamps 234 and 236, Helmin), comprising:
a jack cap(fig 6, 202a, or fig 7, 202b, Helmin);
a steel chain having a plurality of interconnected steel links (fig 6, chain 208 has links but is not specified to be steel, Pipeline Repair), the steel chain having a length that is sufficient to extend around a circumference of a steel pipe (fig 6, chain is long enough to extend around the pipe, but neither is specified to be steel, Helmin);
the steel chain having a first end fixed to the jack cap (fig 6, left side of chain is fixed to jack cap 202a, Helmin) a second end fixed to the jack cap (fig 6, right side of chain is fixed to jack cap 202a, Helmin), and an intermediate section between the first end and the second end (fig 6, intermediate portion of chain 208 is wrapped around pipe and is between the first and second ends, Helmin);
the intermediate section includes a chain grab hook that detachably connects to a free section of the steel chain (not disclosed);
and the steel chain includes at least one of the following (not disclosed):
a) a chain identifier fixed to the steel chain that uniquely identifies the steel chain;
b) a heat indicator that indicates overheating of the steel chain;
c) a tension indicator link secured to the intermediate section; the tension indicator link indicates tension applied to the steel chain;
d) at least one radio frequency identification tag.
Helmin does not disclose the chain and pipe being constructed of steel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the chain and pipe of Helmin out of steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Helmin does not disclose the chain intermediate section including a chain grab hook that detachably connects to a free section of the steel chain. However, Kuntze teaches a jack with a chain intermediate section including a chain grab hook that detachably connects to a free section of the steel chain (fig 1, Kuntze, chain 2 has a hook 11 that grabs the free end of chain 2). Kuntze describes a pipe jack with a chain that goes around the pipe, a field closely related to Helmin and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Kuntze into Helmin and add the hook of Kuntze in to the chain of Helmin. The hook of Kuntze connects chains together, allowing two shorter chains to be joined into one long chain for use on pipes with large circumferences.
Helmin does not disclose a chain identifier fixed to the chain that uniquely identifies the chain. However, ID Tag teaches a chain identifier fixed to the chain that uniquely identifies the chain (first product image, chain identifier is of unique size to a particular chain and can be fixed to the chain via the top hook, ID Tag). ID Tag is a product page for a chain accessory, a field related to Helmin, Kuntze, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the features of ID Tag into Helmin in view of Kuntze and attach the tag to the chain of Helmin view of Kuntze. The ID Tag would allow personal to easily determine if a chain is suitable for a certain task.
Regarding claim 7 Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 1, further comprising a jack that is securable to the jack cap (fig 6, jack 204, Helmin).
Regarding claim 10, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 7, further comprising a plurality of base cradles (figs 12, 13, base plate 206 acts as the base cradle, and can exist in several different sizes and ratings per paragraph 0042, Helmin) having a first, flat surface that in use supports a base of the jack (figs 12, 13, top surface of 206, Helmin), and a second, curved surface opposite the first, flat surface (fig 12, surface 226 is curved to meet the surface of pipes or pipe repair sleeves, Helmin). Helmin in view of ID Tag does not disclose the plurality of base cradles having curved second surfaces of different curvatures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to adjust the curvature of the surfaces of different instances of base plate 206, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Different sized pipes require different sized base plates with different curvatures, so adjusting the curvatures of the base plates allows the jack to be used to repair a wider variety of pipe sizes.
Regarding claim 11, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses a method of pipe repair, comprising:
arranging a pipe repair sleeve on one or more pipes in need of repair (fig 6, para 0051 sleeve clamps 234 and 236 are arranged on pipe in need of repair, Helmin);
securing the pipe repair sleeve to the one or more pipes using the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 1 (para 0051, fig 6, the repair device is used to secure the pipe repair sleeves to the pipe, Helmin).
Regarding claim 19, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID tag discloses the method of pipe repair of claim 11, wherein securing the pipe repair sleeve comprises connecting the chain grab hook to one of the steel links of the free section of the steel chain (para 0006, the hook of Kuntze us hooked to one of the links in the free section of chain).
Regarding claim 21, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the first end and the second end are directly opposite each other (fig 7, para 0044, jack cap 202b is shaped such that the sprocket portions are coplanar, and thus the first and second ends of the chain are directly opposite each other, Helmin).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag, in further view of RUD’s products “VIP-MAXI”, “VIP Overload control”, and “RUD ID-TAG® - The HANG ON option”, hereafter known as Maxi, Control Link, and RFID Tag, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the steel chain includes a), but dies not disclose b), c) and d),
However, Maxi teaches a heat indicating powder coating for chains (page 3, pic 5, 4th bullet point of “General Information” section, Maxi). Maxi is a user manual for a steel chain, a field related to Helmin, Kuntze, ID Tag, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the features of Maxi into Helmin in view of ID Tag and coat chain 208 of Helmin with the powder coat of Maxi. The powder coat not only provides resistance against corrosion, but also indicates weakening caused by high temperatures.
Helmin in view of Kuntze, ID Tag and Maxi does not disclose c). However, Control Link teaches a tension indicator link secured to an intermediate section of a chain that indicates tension applied to the chain (first product image, Control Link, page 95 of Control Link product description). Control link is a product page for a chain safety device, a field related to Helmin, Kuntze, ID Tag, Maxi, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the features of Control Link into Helmin in view of ID Tag and Maxi and add the tension indicator link of Control Link into chain 208 of Helmin. The tension indicator link will warn personnel of chain overloading before failure occurs.
Helmin in view of Kuntze, ID Tag, Maxi, and Control Link does not disclose d), however, RFID Tag teaches a radio frequency identification tag (product page, RFID Tag). RFID tag is a product page for a chain accessory, a field related to Helmin, Kuntze, ID Tag, Maxi, Control Link, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the features of Control Link into Helmin in view of ID Tag, Maxi, and Control Link and add an RFID tag onto chain 208 of Helmin. The RFID tag allows chain information to be stored in a digital database, allowing the information to be viewed remotely.
Helmin in view of Kuntze, ID Tag, Maxi, Control Link, and RFID Tag does not disclose wherein the at least one radio frequency identification tag comprises a first radio frequency identification tag on the chain grab hook, a second radio frequency identification tag on the jack cap, and a third radio frequency identification tag on the tension indicator link. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add more RFID Tags to the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Similarly, it would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the locations of the RFID Tags to the chain hook, tension indicator link, and jack cap, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag, in further view of H-Lift’s product “Safe Working Load Tag”, hereafter known as H-Lift.
Regarding claim 3, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 1, wherein the chain identifier comprises a gauge tag that is fixed to the steel chain (product image, description, the identification tag has a testing gauge integrated in, ID Tag, which is then secured to the chain of Helmin) but does not disclose a serial number on the gauge tag. However, H-Lift teaches a serial number on a chain tag (Safe Working Load Tag section, H-Lift). H-Lift is a product page for chains and accessories for chains under tension, a field related to Helmin, Kuntze, ID Tag, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the features of H-Lift into Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag and add a serial number to the tag of ID Tag. The use of serial numbers for identification is well known in the art, and would allow for easier tracking of chain 208 of Helmin.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag, in further view of Maxi.
Regarding claim 4, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the heat indicator comprises a coating on the steel chain that permanently changes color when the steel chain is overheated. However, Maxi teaches a heat indicating powder coating for chains (page 3, pic 5, 4th bullet point of “General Information” section, Maxi). Maxi is a user manual for a steel chain, a field related to Helmin, Kuntze, ID Tag, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the features of Maxi into Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag and coat chain 208 of Helmin, which includes hook 11 of Kuntze, with the powder coat of Maxi. The powder coat not only provides resistance against corrosion, but also indicates weakening caused by high temperatures.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag, in further view of Control Link.
Regarding claim 5, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the tension indicator link is disposed between two of the steel links. However, Control Link teaches a tension indicator link between two chain links (first product image, page 95, Application note, Control Link). Control link is a product page for a chain safety device, a field related to Helmin, Kuntze, and ID Tag, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the features of Control Link into Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag and add the tension indicator link of Control Link into chain 208 of Helmin. The tension indicator link will warn personnel of chain overloading before failure occurs.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag, in further view of Hayes (US 20110283816 A1), hereafter known as Hayes.
Regarding claim 6, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a strain gauge connected to the jack cap. However, Hayes teaches a load cell connected to the piston plate of a jack (paragraph 0017, strain gauge 103, Hayes). Hayes describes a system of strain gauges for a jack, a field closely related to Helmin, Kuntze, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the features of Hayes into Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag and add the strain gauge of Hayes into jack cap 202a of Helmin. The strain gauge can determine the load experienced by the jack, preventing overloading of the jack system.
Claims 8,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag, in further view of Zhu (CN 201268565 Y), hereafter known as Zhu.
Regarding claim 8, Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the jack comprises a journal jack. However, Zhu teaches a journal jack (fig 2, the screw jack also fits the description of a journal jack, Zhu). Zhu describes a movable jack, a field related to Helmin, Kuntze, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the features of Zhu into Helmin in view of Kuntze and ID Tag and use the journal jack of Zhu in place of the hydraulic jack of Helmin. Journal jacks are more simple in operation and maintenance, increasing reliability of the device of Helmin in view of ID Tag.
Regarding claim 9, Helmin in view of Kuntze, ID Tag, and Zhu discloses the sleeve clamp assembly of claim 8, further comprising a torque wrench that actuates the journal jack (fig 1 and 3, page 3, paragraph 1, torque wrench 27 is attached to handle 21 of the jack, Zhu).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baron (US 20170113908 A1) discloses a jack with RFID tags and sensors.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, Kenneth Rinehart, can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights