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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: CONDUIT BORE PLUGGING TOOL WITH TRIGGER AND EXPANDABLE SEAL
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.
Claims 7 and 17 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the threaded rod" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 17, the phrasing “squeezing the trigger engaging the driving chamber of the motive chamber once more twice” is hard to understand. Is the trigger squeezed only twice or once? Or three times total? Should the limitation say “twice more”? Examiner requests clarification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastener” in claims 1 and 12; “adaptor” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larkin (US 5,884,668).
Claim 1: Larkin discloses a conduit bore plugging apparatus for rapid selective plugging of a fluid path within a conduit (Figs. 1-15), comprising a driver handle (10) comprising a motive chamber (21/31) attached to the driver handle, wherein the motive chamber defines a passage (Fig. 2, note interior of 21/31); a shaft-like plugging device comprising a bar (22) connected to a rod (23); wherein the bar is driven by the driver handle via a driving chamber (note chamber for 22 within 21/31) in the motive chamber, and guided and supported by the motive chamber via the passage (see Figs. 2 and 6); an expandable seal (17) disposed around the rod; first and second flanges (34) disposed around the rod, wherein the first flange (34) is attached near a distal end of the rod and contiguous with one end of the expandable seal, and wherein the second flange (other of 34) is attached contiguous with another end of the expandable seal (Fig. 6); a fastener (33) contiguous with the rod and abutting the first flange; and a rigid sleeve (one or some or all of 15/19/18/35) disposable around the rod adjoining and interposed between the motive chamber and the second flange, wherein the rigid sleeve is slidable over the rod (Fig. 6).
Claim 2: Larkin further discloses an abutment surface on the motive chamber surrounding the passage at one end of the motive chamber (note abutment at end of 21); and wherein an outer diameter of the rigid sleeve is greater than an opening dimension of the passage (Fig. 6).
Claim 3: Larkin further discloses a rigid ring (35) disposed around the shaft-like plugging device and interposed between the motive chamber and the rigid sleeve (Fig. 6); wherein an outer diameter of the rigid ring is greater than an opening dimension of the passage (Fig. 6); and wherein the rigid sleeve is interposed between the rigid ring and the second flange (Fig. 6).
Claim 13: Larkin discloses a method for selectively plugging a bore in a conduit (see Figs. 1-4) comprising the steps of driving a bar (3) via a trigger engaged driving chamber (note chamber 11 which trigger is viewed broadly as the associated tool/wrench shown in Fig. 3 or the clasped bent end of 25), and simultaneously guiding and supporting the bar via a passage (note passage for 3 in 11), into the bore of the conduit (Figs. 3-4); and expanding a seal (21) within the bore of the conduit by sliding a sleeve (9) over a rod of the bar into a flange (13/17) contiguous with an end of the seal; and by engaging the sleeve at one end by interference with an abutment surface (note end of 11 which abuts with 9) on the motive chamber as the bar is driven via the motive chamber (Fig. 1; see col. 3, lines 20-67).
Claim 14: Larkin further discloses the step of releasing the seal within the bore of the conduit by releasing engagement between the motive chamber and the bar (Figs. 3-4; see claim 3).
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) 1, 5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2,977,992) in view of Miller (US 7,140,582).
Claim 1: Jensen discloses a conduit bore plugging apparatus for rapid selective plugging of a fluid path within a conduit (see Figs. 1-4), comprising a driver handle (46/48/42/38) and a passage (note passage for 43); a shaft-like plugging device comprising a bar (40) connected to a rod (30); wherein the bar is driven by the driver handle via a driving chamber (12), and guided and supported by the motive chamber via the passage (Fig. 3); an expandable seal (26) disposed around the rod; first and second flanges (28) disposed around the rod, wherein the first flange (note one of 28) is attached near a distal end of the rod and contiguous with one end of the expandable seal (Fig. 3), and wherein the second flange (note other of 28) is attached contiguous with another end of the expandable seal (Fig. 3); a fastener (32) contiguous with the rod and abutting the first flange (Fig. 3); and a rigid sleeve (10) disposable around the rod adjoining and interposed between the motive chamber and the second flange (Fig. 3), wherein the rigid sleeve is slidable over the rod (see Figs. 1 and 3).
Jensen is not explicit about a motive chamber with an interior passage and attached to the driver handle and leaves the actuator components exposed, a situated which would allow debris and contaminants to negatively affect the actuator joints, whose lubrication could be jeopardized. Often, though, many clamping style tools utilize an outer housing (or motive chamber) that can protect the inner working components. Miller (Fig. 1), for example teaches a clamping tool that involves a driving bar and driver handle and which also utilizes a motive chamber (30) with an interior passage space and which encloses the actuator components and can prevent ingress of debris or contaminants that could negatively impact the actuator. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a housing/motive chamber as taught by Miller into the apparatus of Jensen if only to protect the inner working components from debris/contaminants. As incorporated into Jensen, the overlay of Miller’s driving chamber would necessarily preserve the presence of a driving chamber (12) in the motive chamber and the rigid sleeve (10) would still be disposable around the rod adjoining and interposed between the motive chamber and the second flange.
Claim 5: Jensen and Miller teach the previous limitations. Jensen further discloses that the bar is attached to the rod, and wherein the fastener comprises the rod integrated at a distal end as a bolt (see Fig. 3).
Claim 10: Jensen and Miller teach the previous limitations. Jensen further discloses that the driver handle further comprises a squeezable trigger (51/52) for engaging the driving chamber and driving the bar; and a release trigger (62/66) for releasing the bar from the motive chamber.
Claim 11: Jensen and Miller teach the previous limitations. Jensen further discloses that the expandable seal is a rubber plug (col. 2, line 19).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2,977,992) in view of Miller (US 7,140,582) and Yang (CN209948098U).
Claims 8 and 15: Jensen and Miller teach the previous limitations. Jensen is not explicit about an electrical grounding line or connecting it at one end to the bar and connecting it at another end to a ground surface. However, Yang teaches a clamping tool which utilizes an electrical grounding line connected at one end to the tool and connected at another end to a ground surface (see Fig. 1, note grounding wiring 201 and which, as incorporated into Jensen would be in electrical connection with the bar). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a grounding wire as taught by Yang into the apparatus of Jensen for keeping human operators safe from electricity dangers present.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2,977,992) in view of Miller (US 7,140,582) and Yang (CN209948098U) as further evidenced by Bertolami (US20040165333A1).
Claim 9: Jensen, Miller and Yang teach the previous limitations. Modified Jensen (via Yang) is not clear on the electrical grounding line further comprises a first magnet attached to a first end of the electrical grounding line for connecting to the bar and a second magnet attached to a second end of the electrical grounding line for connecting to a grounding stake in the ground surface as not specific details are present in the wiring attachment; however, as some kind of attachment will necessarily be in place, Examiner notes the teachings of Bertolami, which utilizes a magnet (1) to attach a grounding wire (2). Such connection would readily be available at both ends of the grounding line in Jensen and prevent the need for more complicating fastening means. As such, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a grounding wire as taught by Bertolami into the modified apparatus of Jensen in order to provide for a simplified attachment means.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin (US 5,884,668) in view of Cox (US20080128039A1).
Claim 16: Larkin discloses the previous limitation but is not explicit about the step of expanding the seal within the bore of the conduit by sliding the sleeve over the rod further comprises squeezing the trigger engaging a driving chamber of the motive chamber once for selectively plugging the bore as it involves the rotational motion of a trigger. A more simplified approach would involve a short, single squeeze. Cox teaches this kind of plugging arrangement by using a squeezing device in which the step of expanding the seal within the bore of the conduit by sliding the sleeve over the rod further comprises squeezing the trigger engaging a driving chamber (note driving chamber of 35) of a motive chamber (note motive chamber of 10/31/21) once for selectively plugging the bore (see Figs. 1 and 3). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a squeezing device as taught by Cox in place of the actuation in Larkin as it would provide a much quicker plugging response over the rotational approach of Larkin.
Claim 17: Larkin and Cox teach the previous limitations Cox further teaches that the step of expanding the seal within the bore of the conduit by sliding the sleeve over the rod further comprises squeezing the trigger engaging the driving chamber of the motive chamber once more twice for selectively plugging the bore (Figs. 1-3, Examiner noting the repeated squeezing of the trigger can occur at different levels by way of the adjustment screw on the tool end 30) thereby allowing the additional squeezing of the trigger to selectively plug the bore (see Fig. 8) or with differently sized seals (as shown in Fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 12, the prior art of record discloses or reasonably teaches in combination a conduit bore plugging apparatus for rapid selective plugging of a fluid path within a conduit, comprising a driver handle comprising a motive chamber attached to the driver handle, wherein the motive chamber defines a passage; a shaft-like plugging device comprising a bar connected to a rod; wherein the bar is driven by the driver handle via a driving chamber in the motive chamber, and guided and supported by the motive chamber via the passage; an expandable seal disposed around the rod; first and second flanges disposed around the rod, wherein the first flange is attached near a distal end of the rod and contiguous with one end of the expandable seal, and wherein the second flange is attached contiguous with another end of the expandable seal; a fastener contiguous with the rod and abutting the first flange; a rigid sleeve disposable around the rod adjoining and interposed between the motive chamber and the second flange, wherein the rigid sleeve is slidable over the rod; wherein the driver handle further comprises a squeezable trigger for engaging the driving chamber and driving the bar, and a release trigger for releasing the bar from the motive chamber; and an electrical grounding line connected at one end to the bar and connected at another end to a ground surface; however, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination an abutment surface on the motive chamber surrounding the passage at one end of the motive chamber; wherein an outer diameter of the rigid sleeve is greater than an opening dimension of the passage. As can be appreciated from Applicant’s disclosure (see paragraph 8), this kind of arrangement allows for rapid selective plugging.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 4-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination that the motive chamber further comprises a guiding and supporting brace; wherein the guiding and supporting brace further defines the passage; and wherein the rigid sleeve is interposed between the guiding and supporting brace and the second flange.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination that the bar is welded to the rod, and wherein the rod is threaded at a distal end to the fastener.
Claim 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.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not further disclose or reasonably teach in combination an adaptor defining a passage disposable around the threaded rod and wherein the adaptor is connected between the bar and the rod.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746