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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/20/2026. As directed by the amendment, claim 1 has been amended and claims 2-8 have been added. Thus, claims 1-8 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome the grounds of objection and rejection under 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action Mailed November 20th, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/20/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons (US 4652023) in view of Ferdinand et. al. (US 4413374) and Miller (US 5066053).
Regarding claim 1, Timmons teaches: a lower part (Fig 1. Part 12, Col. 3 Lines 35-36) comprising a circumferential edge, a longitudinal edge (Fig. 1 Part 12 represents an edge that is circumferential to wrap around pipe and longitudinal edges along the flange portion Parts 16 and 18 – Col. 3 Lines 38-40), and a flanged portion (Fig. 1 Parts 16 and 18 – Col. 3 Lines 38-40); an upper part (Fig 1. Part 10 - Col. 3 Lines 35-36) comprising a circumferential edge, a longitudinal edge (Fig. 1 Part 10 represents an edge that is circumferential to wrap around pipe and longitudinal edges along the flange portion Parts 16 and 18 – Col. 3 Lines 38-40), and a flanged portion (Fig. 1 Parts 16 and 18 – Col. 3 Lines 38-40); the flanged portion of the upper and lower part comprise of at least one recess to accommodate at least one bolt-nut assembly (Fig. 1 represents 2 recesses, Part 35 – Col. 4 Lines 16-17, on all flanges and Fig. 3 represents the nut-bolt assembly, Part 32 and 34 – Col. 4 Lines 7-9, being used in the embodiment).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Timmons fails to teach plugging discs positioned adjacent to the nut-bolt assembly and subsequent welding creating a hermetic seal, and a weld being placed along the circumferential and longitudinal edges with contact between the upper and lower parts and the pipe. Furthermore, Timmons fails to teach the bolt-nut assembly comprising a first material having a weldability and the lower part, upper part, and plugging disc comprising a second material having a second weldability, where the first weldability is lower than the second weldability.
Ferdinand et. al. teaches: plugging disc positioned adjacent to the nut-bolt assembly (Fig. 1 Part 40 representing the plug/cap, Col. 3 Lines 1-3, and Fig.4 representing the placement of said cap with respect to bolt) and welding to a surface forming a hermetic seal (Col. 3, Lines 46-48, describe the joining of cap to surface by means of welding. Securing by means of welding also outlined in claim 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
324
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Timmons to incorporate Ferdinand et. al. by applying the known technique of utilizing and fixing a cap over a bolt or nut, in order to prevent the fastener from dislodging or loosening which would yield a predictable result of keeping said fastener in place (Col. 3, Lines 56-57).
Miller teaches: wherein the bolt-nut assembly comprises a first material having a first weldability (made of ASTM A-574 [Col. 9, lines 23-33]) and wherein the lower part, the upper part, and the plugging disc comprise a second material having a second weldability (Clamp materials consist of carbon steel ASTM A-216-grade WCC [Col. 6, lines 30-33]); and wherein the first weldability is lower than the second weldability (ASTM A-216 selected for reliability of welding [Col. 6, lines 26-29] while the ASTM A-574 is selected for higher strength and thus lower weldability [Col. 9, lines 26- 33]); wherein the circumferential edges of the lower part and the upper part are welded to a pipe and wherein the longitudinal edges of the upper and lower flanges are welded together (Col. 10, Lines 63-67, described the location of welds to pipeline and between clamp members, where clamp members are shown Fig. 1 Elements 12.1 and 12.2 – Col. 8 Lines 13-14).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Timmons to incorporate the teachings of Miller to weld the upper and lower clamp members together and to the pipe, in order to make the fixture permanent and reduce the dependency on the seal supplied by the clamp (Col. 3, Lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al., and Miller teaches: The bolted and welded clamp-type repair with recessed bolts of claim 1, wherein the longitudinal edge of the lower part is aligned with the longitudinal edge of the upper part (Timmons - longitudinal edges align [Fig. 17]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al., and Miller teaches: The bolted and welded clamp-type repair with recessed bolts of claim 1, wherein the bolt-nut assembly is fastened through the recess in the upper part and the recess in the lower part to attach the upper part to the lower part (bolt-nut assembly is shown to be fastened through the recesses of the upper and lower parts [Timmons - Fig. 17]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al., and Miller teaches: The bolted and welded clamp-type repair with recessed bolts of claim 3, wherein the bolt-nut assembly is at least partially recessed in the recess in the upper part and is at least partially recessed in the recess in the lower part (the bolt-nut assembly is at least partially recessed in both recesses of the upper and lower parts [Timmons – Fig. 17]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al., and Miller teaches: The bolted and welded clamp-type repair with recessed bolts of claim 4, further comprising a second plugging disc positioned adjacent to the bolt-nut assembly and welded to a surface of the flanged portion of the lower part to form the hermetic seal (Ferdinand et. al. - Fig. 1 Part 40 representing the plug/cap, Col. 3 Lines 1-3, and Fig.4 representing the placement of said cap with respect to recess and bolt and/or nut and Col. 3, Lines 46-48, describes the joining of cap to surface by means of welding. Securing by means of welding also outlined in claim 5.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al., and Miller teaches: The bolted and welded clamp-type repair with recessed bolts of claim 1, wherein the lower part further comprises a second flanged portion opposite from the flanged portion and the upper further comprises a second flanged portion opposite from the flanged portion (Upper and lower parts comprises a second flange opposite of the first flange [Timmons - Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al., and Miller teaches: The bolted and welded clamp-type repair with recessed bolts of claim 1, wherein the flanged portion of the lower part and the flanged portion of the upper part each comprises 3 or more recesses (Four recesses in upper and lower part [Timmons - Fig. 8]. Furthermore, three locations for bolt-nut assemblies is taught by Miller [Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al., and Miller teaches: The bolted and welded clamp-type repair with recessed bolts of claim 7, further comprising 3 or more bolt-nut assemblies, wherein each of the 3 or more bolt-nut assemblies is fastened through one of the 3 or more recesses of the lower part and one of the 3 or more recesses of the upper part (Four recesses in upper and lower parts which include a bolt-nut assembly to fasten the upper and lower parts [Timmons - Fig. 8 and 17]. Furthermore, three bolt-nut assemblies to fasten an upper and lower part is taught by Miller [Fig. 1]).
Response to Arguments
As stated in the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 above, applicant’s amendments to claim 1, as well as new claims 2-8, are unpatentable over the prior art. Applicant's arguments filed 0 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons stated below.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that “Miller does not remedy the deficiencies of Timmons and Ferdinand” as it relates to the amendment of claim 1: “the bolt-nut assembly comprises a first material having a first weldability and wherein the lower part, the upper part, and the plugging disc comprise a second material having a second weldability,” “wherein the first weldability is lower than the second weldability.” However, as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al. and Miller sufficiently teaches the added limitations as Miller discloses the material selection for the bolt-nut assembly and clamp elements as being separate metals in which vary the weldability in the same manner as expressed in the amended claim.
Further, applicant argues the teachings of Ferdinand et. al. does not meet the limitations of the amended claims as they cite “a plugging disc positioned adjacent to the bolt-nut assembly and welded to a surface of the flanged portion of the upper part to form a hermetic seal” and Timmons and Miller would not remedy the deficiencies of Ferdinand et. al. However, it is reasonable to interpret the teachings of Ferdinand et. al. does encompass the plugging disc as “adjacent” to the bolt-nut assembly as that verbiage is essentially describing the same locational relationship and the use of ultrasonic welding of Ferdinand et. al. would create a hermetic seal as is described in the amended claim. If Ferdinand et. al. is not reasonably seen to teach the hermetic seal, the limitations would be obvious as described in the Non-Final Office action and rejections above with the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al., and Miller as Miller is shown to teach welding of clamp components which is specifically to prevent leaking through the clamp (Col. 3, lines 3-14).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For example, applicant argues that Ferdinand does not teach plugging disc adjacent to bolt-nut assembly and welded to flange to form a hermetic seal and Timmons and Miller do not remedy the stated deficiencies. However, as described in the rejection above, the combination of Timmons, Ferdinand et. al., and Miller teaches the amended limitation.
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 JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. If Craig Schneider cannot be reached, please contact Kenneth Rinehart 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.
/JOSHUA D LEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/DAVID R DEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753