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 § 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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the squeezing surfaces are at least as long as the width of the flexible tube or hose…" in line 2, rendering claim indefinite because the scope for the size of the squeezing surface is vague. The claim is indefinite, since the limitation for an element of the claimed invention depends on a size of an intended workpiece, which sets no boundaries for the claimed size.
It is also noted that Applicant may wish to avoid inconsistent terminologies, e.g., “second”, “secondary”….
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bissell (5,152,497).
PNG
media_image1.png
583
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bissell discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a clamp for clamping a flexible tube or hose Abstract, the clamp having:
first 16 and 102 primary pieces that are hinged together at a primary hinge 128, Fig. 3, each primary piece having an extending handle section proximal ends, Fig. 2 and an intermediate hinge point @154, Fig. 2 and 124, Fig. 3 that is positioned laterally between the primary hinge 128 and the extending handle section on that primary piece Fig. 3;
a clamping linking piece 18 that has a first aperture 50 that is hinged to the intermediate hinge point 154 on the first primary piece 16, and a second aperture 152 that is spaced from the first aperture Fig. 3;
a secondary linking piece 140 that that has a first aperture 150 that is hinged to the intermediate hinge point 124 on the second primary piece 102, and a second aperture 152 that is spaced from the first aperture 50 on that linking piece Fig. 3;
a secondary hinge @67 that connects the secondary apertures 152 on the clamping linking piece 18 and the secondary linking piece 140; and
PNG
media_image2.png
315
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
squeezing surfaces pressing C that are on the first primary piece @34 and on the clamping linking piece @54 between the two apertures on that piece Fig. 2, and are sized and configured to squeeze a flexible tube or hose sufficiently during the clamping process to effectively prevent or reduce the flow of fluid through the flexible tube or hose Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, as best understood, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the squeezing surfaces @C, Fig. 2 are at least as long as the width of the flexible tube or hose when the flexible tube or hose is in a collapsed state Fig. 2; and
the clamp is configured to rotate between
a) a closed position in which the squeezing surfaces are close enough to squeeze a flexible tube or hose sufficiently to effectively prevent or significantly reduce the flow of fluid through the flexible tube or hose Fig. 2, and
b) an open position in which distal ends of the squeezing surfaces are spaced at a distance that exceeds one-and-a-half times the diameter of a flexible tube or hose for a tube sized 1/3 of the opening Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 5, PA meets the limitations, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the clamp has a closed position in which the squeezing surfaces are close enough to squeeze a flexible tube or hose sufficiently to effectively prevent or reduce the flow of fluid through the flexible tube or hose Fig. 2; and
when moving to the closed position, the intermediate hinge point 124 on the 1second primary arm 102 moves a) from a distal side of a line D Fig. 2 that runs between the primary hinge 128 and the secondary hinge @67 to b) a proximal side of that line over-the-center line D, Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the first primary piece 14 has a straight arm between 30 and 23 that forms the extending handle section and bears the squeezing surface Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which the first primary piece has:
a handle axis that extends from the intermediate hinge point @67 on that primary piece along the handle section; and
an arm that extends at an angle to the handle axis @30, Fig. 2, to which arm the second primary piece 102 is hinged at a distance above the squeezing surface on that primary piece Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 9, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the squeezing surface @C, Fig. 2 on the clamping linking piece is not collinear with an axis between the points where that clamping linking piece is hinged to a primary piece @67 and to the secondary linking piece squeezing surface offset relative to a line connecting 50 and 76, Fig. 2.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dykstra et al. (5,961,109 “Dykstra”).
PNG
media_image3.png
429
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dykstra discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a clamp for capable of clamping a flexible tube or hose Abstract, the clamp having:
first 120 and 40 primary pieces that are hinged together at a primary hinge 82a, each primary piece having an extending handle section 50 hingedly coupled to 120 & 43, Fig. 2 and an intermediate hinge point 72a, and 47a that is positioned laterally between the primary hinge 82a and the extending handle section 50 (similar to 22, 26 and handle section 32, instant application Fig. 1) on that primary piece Fig. 1;
a clamping linking piece 60 that has a first aperture @72a that is hinged to the intermediate hinge point Fig. 1 on the first primary piece 120, and a second aperture @47b that is spaced from the first aperture Fig. 1;
a secondary linking piece 46 that that has a first aperture @47a that is hinged to the intermediate hinge point Fig. 1 on the second primary piece 40, and a second aperture @47b that is spaced from the first aperture 47a, Fig. 1 on that linking piece 46;
a secondary hinge @47b that connects the secondary apertures @47a and 47b on the clamping linking piece 60 and the secondary linking piece 46; and
squeezing surfaces 110, 97 that are on the first primary piece 110 on 120 and on the clamping linking piece 60 between the two apertures on that piece laterally Fig. 1, 110 between 72a, 82a, Fig. 2, 97 between 47a and 47b, and are sized and configured to squeeze a flexible tube or hose sufficiently during the clamping process to effectively prevent or reduce the flow of fluid through the flexible tube or hose partial Figs. 1 and 2 with examples of squeezing surfaces annotated here.
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Dykstra) meets the limitations, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which the intermediate hinge point on the first primary piece @72a is positioned laterally between the squeezing surface on that primary piece 110 and the primary hinge 82a, e.g., annotated Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, as best understood, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the squeezing surfaces 100, 97 are at least as long as the width of the flexible tube or hose when the flexible tube or hose is in a collapsed state Fig. 2; and
the clamp is configured to rotate between
a) a closed position Fig. 2 in which the squeezing surfaces are close enough to squeeze a flexible tube or hose sufficiently to effectively prevent or significantly reduce the flow of fluid through the flexible tube or hose Fig. 2, and
b) an open position Fig. 1 in which distal ends of the squeezing surfaces are spaced at a distance that exceeds one-and-a-half times the diameter of a flexible tube or hose for a tube sized 1/3 of the opening Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 5, PA meets the limitations, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the clamp has a closed position in which the squeezing surfaces are close enough to squeeze a flexible tube or hose sufficiently to effectively prevent or reduce the flow of fluid through the flexible tube or hose Fig. 2; and
when moving to the closed position, the intermediate hinge point 47a on the second primary arm 40 moves a) from a distal side of a line that runs between the primary hinge 82a and the secondary hinge 47b to b) a proximal side of that line annotated Figs. 1 and 2. Please note that although claims' limitations are interpreted in light of the specifications, limitations from specification are not read into the claims.
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the squeezing surface 110 that is on the first primary piece 120 is positioned between the intermediate aperture @72a on that primary piece and the outer end free end of handle 50 of the handle section on that primary piece 120, Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the first primary piece 120 has a straight arm 50 that forms the extending handle section and bears the squeezing surface Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., a clamp as recited in claim 1, in which the first primary piece 120 has:
a handle axis defined by 50 that extends from the intermediate hinge point @72a on that primary piece along the handle section; and
an arm 80 that extends horizontally at an angle to the handle axis Fig. 1, to which arm the second primary piece 40 is hinged at a distance above the squeezing surface on that primary piece Fig. 2, at least when squeezing surface is defined by the shoulder 110.
Regarding claim 9, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the squeezing surface 97 on the clamping linking piece is not collinear with an axis between the points where that clamping linking piece 60 is hinged to a primary piece e.g., @72a and to the secondary linking piece 46 @ 47b, Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the clamp as recited in claim 1, in which:
the second primary piece 40 has a recessed surface about the front elbow that accommodates the secondary linking piece 46 when the clamp is closed Fig. 2.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA.
PA (prior art, either Bissell or Dykstra) as applied to claim 1 above meets the limitations, i.e., except for the clamp, in the closed position, to be no more than 11" long in its longest dimension. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size, e.g., 11 inches long in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Settele, Glotzback et al. and Pirsch are cited to show related inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
November 14, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723