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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Reply of August 24, 2026.
Claims 9-18 have been cancelled.
Claims 19-30 have been added.
The drawings were received on August 24, 2026. These drawings are accepted and overcome the previously presented objection thereto.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-3, 7, and 8 overcome the previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejection thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that neither Brooks nor Manning teach a plurality of limiters through which cables are passed.
The recitation of “a plurality of limiters” in claim 1 is considered broad. Brooks discloses that the straps 22 pass through two components 46, 48 that can be considered limiters as they limit the movement of the straps. The straps would be said to pass through the components by being wrapped around the associated pins 52.
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 19-28 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.
Regarding claim 19: Claim 19 is considered indefinite for the following reasons:
In lines 2-4 of claim 1, the phrase "in which the metallic structure and the blanket fully enclose an expansion joint by cables" is considered generally confusing. It is understood that the metallic structure and blanket fully enclose the expansion joint however the purpose of the cables is unknown. They have not been correlated to any other structure or given any specific function. Correction is required.
Line 6 requires a “tie” passing “through an edge end of the blanket”. There is no correlation between the tie and the remainder of the device, other than it’s location on the blanket, and the sealing of a gas leak or any other function.
Regarding claims 20-28: These claims are considered indefinite due to their dependence on claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (US 2013/0186502, Brooks) in view of Manning (GB 2492417 A).
Regarding claim 1: Brooks discloses a device for eliminating gas leaks repairing – [0002], repairing leaky pipes – 7:3-19 of Brooks et al. (US 7,938,146, Brooks ‘146) incorporated by reference in [0014], [0023], comprising a metallic structure 58 – based on cross-hatching in Figure 14 of Brooks ‘146 containing a sealing blanket 26 of Brooks/54, 56 of Brooks ‘146, in which the metallic structure and the blanket fully enclose a pipe 24 by straps 22 – Fig 3 passing through a plurality of limiters surrounding the blanket 46, 48 – surrounding on portion of the blanket and the straps pass through the limiters by being wrapped around the corresponding pins 52, wherein the metallic structure is configured to seal a gas leak in the expansion joint arranged between two pipes misaligned with each other used to repair a leaky pipe; specifically being used to seal a gas leak in an expansion joint arranged between two pipes misaligned with each other is considered intended use.
It is noted that using the device to specifically eliminate gas leaks in an expansion joint arranged between two pipes misaligned with each other is considered intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Brooks discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except for the use of cables.
Manning discloses a pipe repair kit that uses a sleeve segments that are clamped in place by a tensioning means such as a wire or strap 5:10-22.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brooks to use cables instead of straps, as taught by Manning, since the examiner notes the equivalence of cables and straps for their use in the pipe repair art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to use in Brooks would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Manning.
Regarding claim 5: Wherein the blanket comprises a series of overlapping materials 26A, 26B of Brooks configured to seal a gas leak in pipes subjected to high temperatures, wherein the overlapping materials comprise a material selected from the group consisting of a fiberglass fabric coated with silicone, a ceramic fiber blanket, an aramid fabric ceramic, fiber fabric, or combinations thereof [0023], [0024] of Brooks.
Regarding claim 8: Brooks, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except for specifically teaching that a size of a total length of the device is determined by what is necessary to enclose the expansion joint completely, wherein a start and an end of the device are coincident with and at ends of the cables that are cut and secured.
However, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the device of Brooks, as modified, would have been designed and manufactured a device to eliminate a leak on a pipe so that the device completely covered the area of the leak, regardless of the size of that area. This would have achieved the predictable results of ensuring that the leak was fully covered and eliminated and reduced the likelihood that a leak would reoccur at that location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 29, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a device for eliminating a gas leak in an expansion joint, wherein the device includes a metallic structure that includes a plurality of limiters arranged at an acute angle with respect to each other, the limiters comprising three metallic pipes forming joined edges in a U-shape, wherein two edges are parallel and vertically arranged, and joined to a region of two nodes, one at each of its ends, with a third edge horizontal in relation to the two edges that are parallelly and vertically arranged, wherein the third edge has three through holes, of which one is centrally arranged, while two remaining through holes are arranged, each, at a first distance and a second distance, opposite to each other and counted from each of the ends of the third edge as recited in the claimed combination.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 29, and 30: These claims are considered allowable due to their dependence on claim 2.
Regarding claim 19: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a sealing blanket that is part of a metallic structure and has a tie, comprising a metallic thread, that passes through an edge end of the blanket as recited in the claimed combination.
Regarding claims 20-28: These claims are considered allowable due to their dependence on claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weber (2,239,307) discloses a system similar to that of Brooks. Weber discloses the use of straps 16 that pass through a plurality of limiters 17.
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 JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
9/15/2026
Prosecution Insights