DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-10 and 12-17 are rejected and claim 11 is cancelled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-10 and 12-17 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 8 that Mallory does not disclose a constant thickness, the examiner respectfully disagrees because a “constant thickness from a first end … to a second end” is a broad recitation that only requires a portion of the first portion to have a constant thickness (ex., a first end and a second end as shown in annotated figure below; ex., also see fig. 1B which appears to show the thickness is uniform even with a bend; ex., the depression of Mallory would not cause the first portion of Mallory to not teach a “constant thickness”).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicants arguments on page 10 that Mallory does not disclose a constant thickness, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitation “the three rails have a constant thickness across an entire length of each of the three rails” appears to be met as shown in fig. 1B where the thickness appears to be constant even in the outwardly protruding depression area (see annotated fig. 1b below; it is noted herein that while the view is showing the bottom portion of 106 with the fastener, both ends are labeled as 106 and would comprise the same shape).
PNG
media_image2.png
239
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s remaining arguments (ex., the width of the ledge) with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory (U.S. Patent No. 8,220,845) in view of Jones (U.S. Patent No. 4,109,694) and in further view of Landis et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,344,894).
In regards to claim 1, Mallory discloses:
A clamp (see figs. 1A-1C) for joining pipes with flanges of an exhaust pipe (1:15-17), the clamp comprising:
a body with a first portion (see annotated figs. 1A, 1B, 1C below) that is rectangular and lies in a first plane (see annotated fig. 1A) and a second portion (see annotated fig. 1A) that defines a ledge that lies in a second plane (see annotated fig. 1C);
the first portion has an opening (see annotated fig. 1A) that is configured to fit over a flange associated with a first pipe; and
the ledge has a semi-circular groove (see fig. 1B) that is configured to receive a fastener that is dimensioned to pass through an aperture in a second pipe,
whereby the pipes are joined by locating the first portion on the flange associated with the first pipe (ex., see fig. 2),
locating the fastener in the aperture in the second pipe (ex., see fig. 2), and
applying a closure to the fastener (110; ex., see fig. 2, where a nut is place on the threaded fastener),
but does not disclose:
the ledge has a through hole,
the fastener includes a head with serrations on an underside of the head; and
a width of the ledge extending in a direction of the second plane is greater than a diameter of the head of the fastener.
In regards to the through hole, Jones discloses a similar device (see figs. 1-2 hereinafter) used to repair a muffler flanged connection (1:5-9 which explains repairs; 2:19-24, where a muffler is used), comprising:
a clamp (11, figs. 1-2) comprising a ledge (16) further comprising a through hole,
wherein the ledge is perpendicular to a hook (14) used to hook onto a flange (24) of an adjacent pipe (see fig. 1),
a bolt (see near 32) comprising a head (34) and threads (32),
wherein the through hole of the ledge retains the head of the bolt permitting the bolt to be used in assembly (2:19-24) such that a nut (36) is screwed onto the threaded end of the bolt to form a tight joint (2:25-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the semi-circular hole and fastener/nut of Mallory with the through hole and fastener/nut of Jones such that the ledge of Mallory in view of Jones is comprised of a perpendicular ledge comprising a through hole because the device of Mallory only differs by the replacement of the through hole and fastener/nut of Jones, Jones discloses a similar device also used in the repair of exhaust pipes (2:19-24) which comprises a ledge comprising a through hole that is perpendicular to a hook (see fig. 2), Jones further discloses that providing a through hole to a perpendicular ledge of a clamp retains the head of a bolt such that the through hole permits the bolt to be used in assembly (2:19-24) to form a tight joint via a nut (2:25-26), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have made the replacement of a semi-circular hole on a ledge with a through hole on a perpendicular ledge because modifying a ledge to be perpendicular and comprised of a through hole to hold a fastener comprising a head as opposed to a semi-circular hole which is welded to a fastener would not have produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to the serrations, Landis discloses a threaded fastener (see fig. 4) comprising serrations (31) adjacent to a head to provide the benefit of preventing rotation of the fastener via an interference fit while a nut is being screwed onto the threaded end (6:16-19; ex., see nut 17 in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the fastener of Mallory in view of Jones with the provision of serrations adjacent to the head to provide the benefit of preventing rotation of the fastener via an interference fit while a nut is being screwed onto the threaded end, as taught by Landis (6:16-19).
In regards to the width of the ledge, while Mallory in view of Jones and Landis does not disclose “a width of the ledge extending in a direction of the second plane is greater than a diameter of the head of the fastener”, modifying the size of the “width” of the ledge and/or the “diameter of the head of the fastener” would have been an obvious matter of design choice as modifying the size of the width of the ledge or the diameter of the head of the fastener would not have produced any new or unexpected results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of Mallory in view of Jones and Landis such that the width of the ledge extending in a direction of the second plane is greater than a diameter of the head of the fastener (ex., either reducing size of the head of the fastener or enlarging the width of the ledge) because the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions, changing the dimensions of either the width of the ledge or the diameter of the head to meet the limitations of the claim would not produce any new or unexpected results, and it has been held that if 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. See In re Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Furthermore, applicant's specification does not explain the criticality regarding the width of the ledge being greater than the diameter of the head of the fastener (ex., 0018:2 discloses “The fastener has a head that is dimensioned to rest on member 24” which is the only mention in the specification). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the width of the ledge or the diameter of the head of the fastener to meet the limitation of the claim as desired for the intended use.
PNG
media_image3.png
830
978
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Mallory in view of Jones and Landis further discloses:
The clamp of claim 1, wherein the first plane and the second plane are non-parallel planes (it is inherent that providing a ledge that is perpendicular with a through-hole, as taught by Jones, would meet the limitations of the claim).
In regards to claim 3, Mallory in view of Jones and Landis further discloses:
The clamp of claim 1, wherein the first plane and the second plane are perpendicular planes (it is inherent that providing a ledge that is perpendicular with a through-hole, as taught by Jones, would meet the limitations of the claim).
In regards to claim 4, Mallory further discloses:
The clamp of claim 1, wherein the opening in the first portion of the body is defined by three rails (see annotated figs. 1A, 1B, 1C above hereinafter).
In regards to claim 5, Mallory further discloses:
The clamp of claim 4, wherein the three rails are linear (see annotated fig. 1A).
In regards to claim 6, Mallory in view of Jones and Landis further discloses:
The clamp of claim 1, wherein the fastener is pressed in the through hole of the ledge (it is inherent that providing serrations to the head of Mallory in view of Jones causing an interference fit would meet the limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 7, Mallory in view of Jones and Landis further discloses:
The clamp of claim 1, wherein the fastener is threaded and the head abuts the ledge, and the serrations form a press fit with the ledge (it is inherent that providing serrations to the head of Mallory in view of Jones causing an interference fit would meet the limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 8, Mallory discloses:
A clamp (see annotated figs. 1A, 1B, 1C above hereinafter) for joining exhaust pipes (1:15-17) with flanges, the clamp comprising:
a body with a first portion (see annotated fig. 1A) that is rectangular and lies in a first plane (see annotated fig. 1C) and a second portion (see annotated figs. 1A and 1B) that defines a ledge that lies in a second plane (see annotated fig. 1C);
the first portion has an opening (see annotated fig. 1A) that is dimensioned to fit over a flange associated with an exhaust manifold pipe (ex., see fig. 2); and
the ledge has a semi-circular hole (see fig. 1B) that is dimensioned to receive a fastener that is sized to pass through an aperture in a pipe associated with an exhaust discharge system (ex., see fig. 2);
whereby the pipes are joined by locating the first portion on a flange associated with the exhaust manifold pipe (ex., see fig. 2), locating the fastener in the aperture in the pipe associated with the exhaust discharge system (ex., see fig. 2), and
applying a closure (110, annotated fig. 1A) to the fastener;
the first portion having a constant thickness from a first end of the first portion to a second end of the first portion (ex., see fig. 1B of Mallory where the thickness appears to be uniform and would therefore meet the limitation of the claim; ex., see other example in response to arguments above),
but does not disclose:
the ledge has a through hole,
wherein the fastener is press-fit into the through hole of the ledge.
In regards to the through hole, Jones discloses a similar device (see figs. 1-2 hereinafter) used to repair a muffler flanged connection (1:5-9 which explains repairs; 2:19-24, where a muffler is used), comprising:
a clamp (11, figs. 1-2) comprising a ledge (16) further comprising a through hole,
wherein the ledge is perpendicular to a hook (14) used to hook onto a flange (24) of an adjacent pipe (see fig. 1),
a bolt (see near 32) comprising a head (34) and threads (32),
wherein the through hole of the ledge retains the head of the bolt permitting the bolt to be used in assembly (2:19-24) such that a nut (36) is screwed onto the threaded end of the bolt to form a tight joint (2:25-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the semi-circular hole and fastener/nut of Mallory with the through hole and fastener/nut of Jones such that the ledge of Mallory in view of Jones is comprised of a perpendicular ledge comprising a through hole because the device of Mallory only differs by the replacement of the through hole and fastener/nut of Jones, Jones discloses a similar device also used in the repair of exhaust pipes (2:19-24) which comprises a ledge comprising a through hole that is perpendicular to a hook (see fig. 2), Jones further discloses that providing a through hole to a perpendicular ledge of a clamp retains the head of a bolt such that the through hole permits the bolt to be used in assembly (2:19-24) to form a tight joint via a nut (2:25-26), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have made the replacement of a semi-circular hole on a ledge with a through hole on a perpendicular ledge because modifying a ledge to be perpendicular and comprised of a through hole to hold a fastener comprising a head as opposed to a semi-circular hole which is welded to a fastener would not have produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to the serrations/press-fit, Landis discloses a threaded fastener (see fig. 4) comprising serrations (31) adjacent to a head to provide the benefit of preventing rotation of the fastener via an interference fit while a nut is being screwed onto the threaded end (6:16-19; ex., see nut 17 in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the fastener of Mallory in view of Jones with the provision of serrations adjacent to the head to provide the benefit of preventing rotation of the fastener via an interference fit while a nut is being screwed onto the threaded end, as taught by Landis (6:16-19).
In regards to claim 9, Mallory in view of Jones and Landis further discloses:
The clamp of claim 8, wherein the first plane and the second plane are non-parallel planes (it is inherent that providing a ledge that is perpendicular with a through-hole, as taught by Jones, would meet the limitations of the claim).
In regards to claim 10, Mallory in view of Jones and Landis further discloses:
The clamp of claim 8, wherein the fastener is threaded and has a head that abuts the ledge.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory (U.S. Patent No. 8,220,845) in view of Jones (U.S. Patent No. 4,109,694).
In regards to claim 12, Mallory discloses:
A clamp (see annotated figs. 1A, 1B, 1C) for joining two pipes with flanges, the clamp comprising:
a stamped body (3:1-2) having a rectangular portion (ex., the first portion in annotated fig. 1A) with an opening (see annotated fig. 1A) that is dimensioned to fit over a flange associated with a first pipe (ex., see fig. 2), and
a ledge (ex., the second portion in annotated fig. 1A) that extends from the rectangular portion,
the opening being defined by three rails and the ledge (ex., see annotated fig. 1A); and
a fastener (104, annotated fig. 1A) having a threaded portion (108, annotated fig. 1A) sized to pass through an aperture in a second pipe (ex., see fig. 2),
whereby the pipes are joined by locating the rectangular portion on the flange associated with the first pipe (ex., see fig. 2), locating the fastener in the aperture in the second pipe (ex., see fig. 2), and
applying a closure (110, annotated fig. 1A) to the fastener (ex., see fig. 2),
wherein the three rails have a constant thickness across an entire length of each of the three rails (ex., see fig. 1B of Mallory where the thickness appears to be uniform and would therefore meet the limitation of the claim),
but does not disclose:
the fastener is pressed into an aperture in the ledge.
In regards to the aperture, Jones discloses a similar device (see figs. 1-2 hereinafter) used to repair a muffler flanged connection (1:5-9 which explains repairs; 2:19-24, where a muffler is used), comprising:
a clamp (11, figs. 1-2) comprising a ledge (16) further comprising a through hole,
wherein the ledge is perpendicular to a hook (14) used to hook onto a flange (24) of an adjacent pipe (see fig. 1),
a bolt (see near 32) comprising a head (34) and threads (32),
wherein the through hole of the ledge retains the head of the bolt permitting the bolt to be used in assembly (2:19-24) such that a nut (36) is screwed onto the threaded end of the bolt to form a tight joint (2:25-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to replace the semi-circular hole and fastener/nut of Mallory with the through hole and fastener/nut of Jones such that the ledge of Mallory in view of Jones is comprised of a perpendicular ledge comprising a through hole because the device of Mallory only differs by the replacement of the through hole and fastener/nut of Jones, Jones discloses a similar device also used in the repair of exhaust pipes (2:19-24) which comprises a ledge comprising a through hole that is perpendicular to a hook (see fig. 2), Jones further discloses that providing a through hole to a perpendicular ledge of a clamp retains the head of a bolt such that the through hole permits the bolt to be used in assembly (2:19-24) to form a tight joint via a nut (2:25-26), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have made the replacement of a semi-circular hole on a ledge with a through hole on a perpendicular ledge because modifying a ledge to be perpendicular and comprised of a through hole to hold a fastener comprising a head as opposed to a semi-circular hole which is welded to a fastener would not have produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to claim 13, Mallory in view of Jones further discloses:
The clamp of claim 12, wherein the fastener has a head that abuts the ledge (it is inherent that providing the fastener of Jones would meet the limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 14, Mallory in view of Jones further discloses:
The clamp of claim 12, wherein the fastener is pre-positioned in the ledge to align with through holes in a pair of flanges (it is inherent that providing the fastener of Jones would meet the limitation of the claim).
In regards to claim 17, Mallory in view of Jones further discloses:
The clamp of claim 12, wherein the opening is defined and oriented within an outer perimeter of the rectangular portion and the ledge (ex., see fig. 2 of Mallory).
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallory in view of Jones as applied to claim 12 above and in further view of Landis.
In regards to claim 15, Mallory in view of Jones discloses:
The clamp of claim 12,
but does not disclose:
the fastener is press-fit into the aperture of the ledge.
In regards to the press-fit, Landis discloses a threaded fastener (see fig. 4) comprising serrations (31) adjacent to a head to provide the benefit of preventing rotation of the fastener via an interference fit while a nut is being screwed onto the threaded end (6:16-19; ex., see nut 17 in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the fastener of Mallory in view of Jones with the provision of serrations adjacent to the head to provide the benefit of preventing rotation of the fastener via an interference fit while a nut is being screwed onto the threaded end, as taught by Landis (6:16-19).
In regards to claim 16, Mallory in view of Jones discloses:
The clamp of claim 12,
but does not disclose:
the fastener includes a head with serrations on an underside of the head.
In regards to the serrations, Landis discloses a threaded fastener (see fig. 4) comprising serrations (31) adjacent to a head to provide the benefit of preventing rotation of the fastener via an interference fit while a nut is being screwed onto the threaded end (6:16-19; ex., see nut 17 in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the fastener of Mallory in view of Jones with the provision of serrations adjacent to the head to provide the benefit of preventing rotation of the fastener via an interference fit while a nut is being screwed onto the threaded end, as taught by Landis (6:16-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights