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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to because in figure 3, the numerals “80” and “82” should be swapped. In figure 6C, the upper numeral “80” should be “82”. 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 Objections
Claims 2-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 2-3, the phrase “claim 1 further” should read --claim 1, further. In claim 3, the phrase “claim 2 further” should read --claim 2, further--. In claims 5 and 13 line 1, the phrase “In a tap clamp for use with line conductors, a tap clamp handwheel drive devised for securement to an existing tap clamp bolt” should read -- A tap clamp handwheel drive devised for securement to an existing tap clamp bolt in a tap clamp for use with line conductors--. In claims 6-7, 10, and 12, the phrase “claim 5” should read --claim 5,--. In claim 8, the phrase “claim 7 wherein” should read --claim 7, wherein--. In claim 9, the phrase “claim 8 wherein” should read --claim 8, wherein--. In claim 11, the phrase “claim 9 further”, the phrase --claim 9, further--. In claim 13 line 12, the phrase “first seat configured” should read --first seat pocket configured--. In claim 13 line 17, the phrase “a first seat” should read --the first seat--. In claim 13 line 20, the phrase “a second seat” should read --the second seat--. In claim 14, the phrase “claim 13 further” should read --claim 13, further--. In claim 15, the phrase “claim 14 wherein” should read --claim 14, wherein--. In claim 16, the phrase “claim 15 wherein” should read --claim 15, wherein--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sykes et al. (2021/0296800).
With regard to claim 1, Sykes teaches, as shown in figures 3a-4c and taught in paragraph 14: “In a tap clamp 15 for use with line conductors 23, a tap clamp handwheel drive 20 comprising: a threaded member 20a having: an engagement end (portion of 20a engaged with 19d in figure 3b) disposed operationally coupled with the tap clamp 15, said engagement end engaging the tap clamp 15 between an open position (shown in figure 4a) and a closed position (shown in figure 4b) when the threaded member 20a is rotated in each of a corresponding first direction and a second direction; an exposed end (bottom end of 20 in figure 3a) distally oriented relative to the tap clamp 15; and a handwheel 19b disposed upon the threaded member 20a more proximal the exposed end; wherein the handwheel 19b presents an enlarged outer diameter proximal the exposed end whereby a user can more easily engage the tap clamp 15 between the open position and the closed position by manual engagement with the handwheel 19b, especially when operating in glove mode”.
With regard to claim 2, Sykes teaches: “The tap clamp handwheel drive of claim 1”, as shown above.
Sykes also teaches, as shown in figures 3a-4c: “further comprising a hot stick loop 25 disposed endwise upon the threaded member at the exposed end”.
With regard to claim 3, Sykes teaches: “The tap clam handwheel drive of claim 1”, as shown above.
Sykes also teaches, as shown in figures 3a-4c: “further comprising nonconductive material 9 whereby the tap clamp handwheel drive 15 and 10 insulates contact when the tap clamp 15 is engaged with energized conductors”.
With regard to claim 4, Sykes teaches: “The tap clam handwheel drive of claim 2”, as shown above.
Sykes also teaches, as shown in figures 3a-4c: “further comprising nonconductive material 9 whereby the tap clamp handwheel drive 15 and 10 insulates contact when the tap clamp 15 is engaged with energized conductors”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 5-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sykes et al. (2021/0296800).
With regard to claim 5, Sykes teaches, as shown in figures 3a-4c and taught in paragraph 14: “In a tap clamp 15 for use with line conductors 23, a tap clamp handwheel drive 15 and 10 devised for securement to an existing tap clamp bolt 20a, said tap clamp handwheel drive comprising: a handwheel member 19b configured to secure around a tap clamp bolt head (portion of 20a engaged with 19d in figure 3b) disposed endwise upon the tap clamp bolt 20a, said handwheel member 19b comprising: a first portion (half of 19b in figure 4a) connectable to one side of the tap clamp bolt 20a… a second portion (other half of 19b in figure 4a) connectable to the other side of the tap clamp bolt 20a… a first seat (19c in the first portion in figure 4a) disposed upon an interior surface of the first portion, said first seat configured to house at least a portion of the tap clamp bolt 20a… therein; and a second seat (19c in the second portion in figure 4a) disposed upon an interior surface of the second portion, said second seat configured to house at least the remaining portion of the tap clamp bolt 20a… therein”.
Sykes does not teach the handwheel member situated around the bolt head of the clamp bolt or “wherein the handwheel member is securable to the tap clamp bolt when the tap clamp bolt head is encased in the first and second seats and the first portion is secured to the second portion”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the shape of the handwheel member so that the handwheel member is secured to the bolt head instead of the threaded portion of the bolt in order to grip a larger-width portion of the clamp bolt. Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to form the handwheel member in first and second portions that are secured around the bolt head in order to be able to easily assemble and disassembly the tap clamp handwheel drive. Also, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
With regard to claim 6, Sykes teaches: “The tap clamp handwheel drive of claim 5”, as shown above.
Sykes also teaches, as shown in figures 3a-4c: “wherein the tap clamp bolt head 25 is a hot stick loop”.
With regard to claim 7, Sykes teaches: “The tap clamp handwheel drive of claim 5”, as shown above.
Sykes does not teach: “further comprising a hot stick loop disposed distally projected endwise from handwheel member”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Sykes as modified above to duplicate the hot stick loop so that a hot stick loop is included disposed distally projected endwise from the handwheel member in order to allow attachment to a hook structure after assembly of the handwheel member (Sykes, paragraph 33). Also, 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.
With regard to claim 8, Sykes teaches: “The tap clamp handwheel drive of claim 7”, as shown above.
Sykes does not teach: “wherein the hot stick loop is disposed upon the second portion”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify Sykes as modified above and change the shape of the handwheel member so the hot stick loop is disposed on the second portion in order to allow the hot stick loop to remain integral throughout assembly. Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claim 10, Sykes teaches: “The tap clamp handwheel drive of claim 5”, as shown above.
Sykes also teaches, as shown in figures 3a-4c: “further comprising nonconductive material 9 whereby the tap clamp handwheel drive insulates contact when the tap clamp 15 is engaged with energized conductors”.
With regard to claim 12, Sykes teaches: “The tap clamp handwheel drive of claim 5”, as shown above.
Sykes also teaches, as shown in figures 3a-4c: “further comprising a hot stick loop 25 connectable thereto”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 13, Sykes teaches, as shown in figures 3a-4c and taught in paragraph 14: “In a tap clamp 15 for use with line conductors 23, a tap clamp handwheel drive 15 and 10 devised for securement to an existing tap clamp bolt 20a, said tap clamp handwheel drive comprising: a handwheel member 19b configured to secure around a tap clamp bolt… disposed endwise upon the tap clamp bolt 20a, said handwheel member 19b comprising: a first portion (half of 19b in figure 4a) connectable to one side of the tap clamp bolt… a second portion (other half of 19b in figure 4a) connectable to the other side of the tap clamp bolt 20a… a first seat pocket (19c in the first portion in figure 4a) disposed upon an interior surface of the first portion, said first seat configured to house a first seat (interior surface of the first seat pocket in figure 4a) therein; a second seat pocket (19c in the second portion in figure 4a) disposed upon an interior surface of the second portion, said second seat pocket configured to house a second seat (interior surface of the second seat pocket in figure 4a) therein”.
Sykes does not teach the handwheel member situated around the bolt head of the clamp bolt. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to change the shape of the handwheel member so that the handwheel member is secured to the bolt head instead of the threaded portion of the bolt in order to grip a larger-width portion of the clamp bolt. Also, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Sykes also does not teach: “a first seat devised to secure into the first seat pocket, said first seat configured to house at least a portion of the tap clamp bolt head therein; and a second seat devised to secure into the second seat pocket, said second seat configured to house at least the remaining portion of the tap clamp bolt head therein; wherein the handwheel member is securable to the tap clamp bolt when the tap clamp bolt head is encased in the first and second seats and the first portion is secured to the second portion”. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious all the limitations of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831