Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/456,550

CLAMP DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 28, 2023
Examiner
WILEY, DANIEL J
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
556 granted / 781 resolved
+19.2% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
805
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 781 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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. Claims 1-20 are 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. In Claims 1, 13, and 20, it is unclear what structural limitations (if any) are being imparted by the recitation “which allows full travel of a CV boot with no abrasion and for maximum accessibility of an angle to all the CV boot to run efficiently.” First, what exactly is the thing that allows full travel, etc.? Second, what constitutes “maximum accessibility of an angle? Third, an angle between what and what? Claims 2-12 and 14-19 are likewise rejected due to their dependence from claims 1 and 13. Finally, in Claims 2 and 17, it is unclear what constitutes a “typical” CV joint. 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4936811 to Baker (hereinafter “Baker”). -From Claim 1: Baker discloses a clamp device for a CV boot for a vehicle, the clamp device comprising: a body component 22; and a band component 23; wherein the body component is segmented into three equal parts 22, 22, 22; and further wherein the band component 23 locks the three equal parts together to form a tubular formation (Fig. 3), which allows full travel of a CV boot with no abrasion damage and for maximum accessibility of an angle to all the CV boot to run efficiently. -From Claim 2: Baker discloses wherein a convoluted boot 12 is mounted on a body of a typical constant velocity (CV) joint to form the CV boot. -From Claim 3: Baker discloses wherein the CV boot 12 is formed with a plurality of convolutions which extend along a length of the CV boot. -From Claim 4: Baker discloses wherein the CV boot comprises an annular groove 37. -From Claim 5: Baker discloses wherein the body component is segmented into three equal parts 22 with different diameters (note the variable thickness of 22, thus creating different diameters within each) to accommodate different drive shafts. -From Claim 11: Baker discloses wherein the three equal parts 22, once secured together, comprise a first end with the annular groove 23 for the band component to sit. -From Claim 12: Baker discloses wherein the three equal parts 22, once secured together, comprise a second end which comprises an inside bore 18, where the CV boots sits. 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(s) 6, 7, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of US 2007/0142116 to Nakamura (hereinafter “Nakamura”). -From Claim 6: Baker does not disclose wherein silicone or grease is utilized to hold the three equal parts together. Nakamura teaches the use of silicone to adhere components of a segmented boot/clamp (¶¶ 84-85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baker by utilizing silicone as taught by Nakamura in order to provide greater adhesion/connection between the three segmented body parts. -From Claim 7: Baker discloses wherein the band component 23 is secured around the annular groove to assemble the three equal parts. -From Claim 20: Baker discloses a method of securing a clamp to a CV boot, the method comprising the following steps: providing a clamp device comprising a segmented body component 22, forming three equal parts, which are held together by a band component 23; securing the three equal parts together; and positioning the band 23 over the segmented body component, to secure it together; and applying the device to a CV boot 12, to allow full travel of the boot with no abrasion damage. However, Baker does not disclose wherein silicone or grease is utilized to hold the three equal parts together. Nakamura teaches the use of silicone to adhere components of a segmented boot/clamp (¶¶ 84-85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baker by utilizing silicone as taught by Nakamura in order to provide greater adhesion/connection between the three segmented body parts. Claim(s) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Nakamura and US 6099788 to Sadr et al. (hereinafter “Sadr”). -From Claim 13: Baker discloses a clamp device for a CV boot for a vehicle, the clamp device comprising: a body component 22; and a band component 23; wherein the body component is segmented into three equal parts 22 with different diameters to accommodate different drive shafts; wherein the band component 23 is secured around an annular groove 37 to assemble the three equal parts; wherein the three equal parts 22, once secured together, comprise a first (lower) end with the annular groove for the band component to sit; wherein the three equal parts, once secured together, comprise a second end 18 which comprises an inside bore, where a CV boots sits; and further wherein the clamp device allows full travel of the CV boot with no abrasion damage and for maximum accessibility of an angle to allow the CV boot to run efficiently. However, Baker does not disclose: [A] wherein silicone or grease is utilized to hold the three equal parts together; or [B] wherein the band component is locked in place around the three equal parts via a locking Clamp. As to [A], Nakamura teaches the use of silicone to adhere components of a segmented boot/clamp (¶¶ 84-85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Baker by utilizing silicone as taught by Nakamura in order to provide greater adhesion/connection between the three segmented body parts. As to [B], Sadr teaches a band component 12 locked in place via a locking clamp 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baker by adding a locking clamp as taught by Sadr in order to prevent inadvertent removal of the band component. -From Claim 14: Baker discloses a plurality of indicia (e.g., notches 40). -From Claim 15: Baker does not specifically disclose wherein the band component is manufactured of steel. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the band component out of steel given its ready availability and strength, and 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. -From Claim 16: Baker does not specifically disclose wherein the band component is manufactured of aluminum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the band component out of aluminum given its ready availability and strength, and 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. -From Claim 17: Baker discloses wherein a convoluted boot 12 is mounted on a body of a typical constant velocity (CV) joint to form the CV boot. -From Claim 18: Baker discloses wherein the CV boot 12 is formed with a plurality of convolutions which extend along a length of the CV boot. -From Claim 19: Baker discloses wherein the clamp device 23 is secured to the CV boot, so as to form a seal between the CV boot and the clamp device, providing a gripping force to resist axial dislodgement, over a wide variety of operating conditions. Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker in view of Nakamura and further in view of Sadr. -From Claim 8: Baker does not discloses wherein the band component is locked in place around the three equal parts via a locking clamp. However, Sadr teaches a band component 12 locked in place via a locking clamp 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baker by adding a locking clamp as taught by Sadr in order to prevent inadvertent removal of the band component. -From Claim 9: Baker does not specifically disclose wherein the band component is manufactured of steel. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the band component out of steel given its ready availability and strength, and 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. -From Claim 10: Baker does not specifically disclose wherein the band component is manufactured of aluminum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the band component out of aluminum given its ready availability and strength, and 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as the cited references include structure similar to that of the presently claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J WILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7324. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm PST. 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 5712705281. 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. /DANIEL J WILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 1/8/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601367
CONNECTING MEMBER AND ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594867
DEVICE FOR ATTACHING A TUBE ONTO A HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577018
PACKING FASTENER AND PACKING BOX COUPLED TOGETHER THEREWITH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571215
SURFACE MOUNT CABLE INFILL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565962
MODULAR UTILITY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 781 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month