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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-18 have withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 27, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species I in the reply filed on March 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions and species set forth in the Restriction share many features and thus it would not be a serious burden on the examiner to examine all of the inventions and species listed. This is not found persuasive because, while there are some similarities, there are significant differences as well.
The product of Invention I requires features that are not required in the method of use in Invention II. This includes a metallic structure and limiters. Similarly, the method of use includes features not found in Invention I such as a thermal blanket. These differences would amount to a different search and the application of different art.
The same can be said for Species I and II. Species I requires such features as a metallic structure with a sealing blanket, cables, and a plurality of limiters while Species II requires a sealing blanket, cables, straps, and fastening elements. The only features shared are the cables and sealing blanket. As such, the embodiments in Species I and II would require a different search and the application of different art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Brazil on October 21, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Brazilian application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 16 and 17 include lead lines with no associated reference numbers. 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 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 1-8 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 1: 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.
Regarding claim 2: Line 6 includes the pronoun “its”. The use of pronouns in a claim render that claim indefinite as it is unclear as to which element or step is being further limited. As such the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Structural limitations and steps must always be referred to by name.
Regarding claim 3: In lines 3 and 4, the phrase “on the cable in a region of passages of these cables by limiters” is considered generally confusing. This phrase reads as if the cables have the passages and it is unclear how the limiters relate. Are the passages referring to the “through holes” in claim 2? Correction is required.
Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 positively requires “limiters” in line 4 however claim 2 also positively requires “limiters”. As such, it is unclear if the limiters of claims 2 and 3 are the same feature or different elements. For the purpose of examination, they are being treated as the same feature.
Regarding claim 7: Lines 3 and 4 require “exert[ing] pressure on the blanket over the expansion joint to be repaired”. There is no previous requirement or recitation of repairing an expansion joint or equating the elimination of the leak to repairing. Correction is required.
Regarding claim 8: Line 5 requires “the cables that are cut and secured” however there is no previous recitation of cutting or securing the cables. Where or why are the cables cut and where are they secured?
Regarding claims 4-6: These claims are considered indefinite due to their dependence on one of the above claims.
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, 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, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten 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 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:
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, and 7: These claims are considered allowable due to their dependence on claim 2.
Conclusion
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
4/13/2026