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
The amendment filed on 5/26/2025 has been entered. All previous objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,268,646 (‘646) in view of Yan (CN206889963U) and in further view of Smith (US20120304447A1).
Claim 1: ‘646 discloses the limitations of claim 1 except for an additional outward facing flange arranged between the end flanges of each pipe section such that there is a distance between each outward facing end flanges and the additional outward facing flange of the pipe section to receive the inward facing flange of the clamp section. However, Yan (Figs. 2a/b and 3-4) teaches a bend restrictor which utilizes an additional outward facing flange (note additional trapezoidal flange of 1) arranged between the end flanges of each pipe section such that there is a distance between each outward facing end flanges and the additional outward facing flange of the pipe section to receive the inward facing flange of the clamp section (Fig. 2a). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to substitute the piping with the additional flange as taught by Yan for the piping from ‘646 so as to create a specific bend limit of the apparatus based upon the shape of the trapezoidal slope angle which would prevent the associated cable from being overbent and damaged. Modified ‘646 is not explicit about the pipe section being made of a rigid material. However, Smith teaches a bend restrictor arrangement (Figs. 1-2) whose pipe sections are made from rigid material (see paragraph 17, “the bend limiter units may be made of various types of hard plastics or other rigid structure materials”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize rigid tube material as taught by Smith into the modified apparatus of ‘646 as the tubing of the bend restrictor would have a minimal flex, preventing the bend limiter from bending too far and causing damage to the associated cable.
Claim 2: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the locking radius of the bend restrictor is equal to or over the minimum allowable bending radius of the cable (Examiner noting page 2, “also can ensure the inner flexible tube cable meets the designed curvature” which provides that the bend restrictor will allow for at least the minimum allowable bending radius for the cable).
Claim 3: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the distance between the outward facing end flange and the adjacent additional outward facing flange of the pipe section is larger than the width of the inward facing flange of the clamp section so that the axis of the pipe section and the axis of the adjacent clamp section can have an inclination relative to each other (as can be appreciated from Fig. 2a).
Claim 4: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the distance between the outward facing end flange and the adjacent additional outward facing flange of the pipe section is larger than the width of the inward facing flange of the clamp section (Fig. 2a), so that a position of the central axis of the pipe section to the central axis of adjacent clamp section can vary between a first and second positions wherein in the first position the axes are aligned (as shown in Fig. 2a) and in the second position the axes are inclined relative to each other (as can be appreciated from Fig. 2a, when the assembly is bended).
Claim 6: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the pipe section comprises an outward facing flange at each end (Figs. 3-4), and at least two additional outward facing flanges arranged between the end flanges (Figs. 3-4, note two outward extending protrusions/flanges on each half of the pipe shaped middle section).
Claim 7: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the pipe section is split in the longitudinal direction into at least two parts (Figs. 3-4).
Claim 8: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the at least two parts of the pipe section are connectable through bolt connections, or through locking pin connections or through straps (Figs. 3-4, note fastener/bolt holes shown in Figs. 3-4).
Claim 9: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the clamp section is split in the longitudinal direction into at least two parts (Figs. 3-4).
Claim 10: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the at least two parts of the clamp section are connectable through bolt connections, or through locking pin connections or through straps (Figs. 3-4, note fastener/bolt holes shown in Figs. 3-4).
Claim 11: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan and Smith further teach that the clamp section is made of a rigid material (page 3, note “polyurethane material” of Yan and paragraph 17 of Smith).
Claim 12: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the clamp section comprises a structural steel, a polymer (page 3, note “polyurethane material”) or a fibre-reinforced polymer material.
Claim 13: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the pipe shaped middle section of the clamp section features at least one aperture (Figs. 3-4).
Claim 14: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that the pipe shaped middle section of the clamp section comprises a plurality of elongated elements extending between the two inward facing flanges (Figs. 3-4, note two outward extending protrusions/flanges on each half of the pipe shaped middle section).
Claim 15: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that said pipe section has a pipe length LP and said clamp section has clamp length LC (Fig. 2a, Examiner choosing the pipe length as the portion of the pipe section between the end flange and the start of the trapezoid portion and the clamp length as the flange portion of the clamp which situates above this particular pipe length), the dimensional ratio LC/LP is set from 0.9 to 4.1 (as the overlap of these two portions are the same, the ratio would be 1).
Claim 16: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that said pipe section defines a distance DBPF between said outward facing end flange and said additional outward facing flange, said clamp section defining a thickness TCF of said inward facing flange of the clamp section, the dimensional ratio DBPF/TCF is set from 1.4 to 3.8 (Fig. 2a, Examiner notes the angled slope of the additional outward facing flange; were the top of this angled slope chosen as one of the distance points, the ratio appears satisfied at the lower boundary).
Claim 17: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that said clamp section has an inner diameter IDC and the pipe section has an outer diameter ODP, the dimensional ratio IDC/ODP is set from 1.02 to 1.3 (Fig. 2a, Examiner notes the slight enlargement of the clamp section over the pipe section, which appears to satisfy the ratio at the lower boundary).
Claim 18: ‘646, Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further teaches that said pipe section has an outer diameter ODP and pipe length LP, the dimensional ratio ODP/LP is set from 0.9 to 2.2 (Fig. 2A, Examiner notes the pipe section outer diameter appears just shy of the length parameter, appearing to meet the ratio near its lower value).
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 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 5,197,767A) in view of Ritchie-Bland (US20110226527A1).
Claim 1: Kimura (Fig. 2) discloses a bend restrictor for restricting the bending of a cable (4) comprising at least one pipe section (see Figure below) and at least one clamp section (see Figure below), wherein each pipe section comprises an outward facing end flange at each end (see Figure below), and at least an additional outward facing flange arranged between the end flanges (see Figure below), wherein the clamp section comprises an inward facing flange at each end (see Figure below), and a pipe shaped middle section therebetween (see Figure below), and wherein the distance between each of the outward facing end flanges and the additional outward facing flange of the pipe section is adapted to receive the inward facing flange of the clamp section (see Figure below). Kimura is not explicit about the pipe section being made of a rigid material. However, Ritchie-Bland teaches a bend restrictor arrangement (Fig. 2) having pipe sections (24) and clamp sections (26) and whose pipe sections are made from rigid material (see paragraph 62, “bed limiter 22 formed from a series of rigid tubes”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize rigid tube material as taught by Ritchie-Bland into the apparatus of Kimura as the tubing of the bend restrictor would have a minimal flex, preventing the bend limiter from bending too far and causing damage to the associated cable.
PNG
media_image1.png
431
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Kimura and Ritchie-Bland teach the previous limitations. Kimura further discloses that the distance between the outward facing end flange and the adjacent additional outward facing flange of the pipe section is larger than the width of the inward facing flange of the clamp section (see Figure above), so that the axis of the pipe section and the axis of the adjacent clamp section can have an inclination relative to each other (see Figure above).
Claim 4: Kimura and Ritchie-Bland teach the previous limitations. Kimura further discloses that the distance between the outward facing end flange and the adjacent additional outward facing flange of the pipe section is larger than the width of the inward facing flange of the clamp section (Fig. 2, above), so that a position of the central axis of the pipe section to the central axis of adjacent clamp section can vary between a first and second positions wherein in the first position the axes are aligned (as shown in Fig. 2, on right side) and in the second position the axes are inclined relative to each other (as can be appreciated from Fig. 2a, left side).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN206889963U) in view of Smith (US20120304447A1).
Claim 1: Yan (Figs. 2-5) discloses a bend restrictor for restricting the bending of a cable (Figs. 2-5) comprising at least one pipe section (1) and at least one clamp section (2), wherein each pipe section comprises an outward facing end flange at each end (Fig. 2b), and at least an additional outward facing flange arranged between the end flanges (Fig. 2b), wherein the clamp section comprises an inward facing flange at each end (Fig. 5), and a pipe shaped middle section therebetween (Fig. 5), and wherein the distance between each of the outward facing end flanges and the additional outward facing flange of the pipe section is adapted to receive the inward facing flange of the clamp section (Fig. 2a). Yan is not explicit about the pipe section being made of a rigid material. However, Smith teaches a bend restrictor arrangement (Figs. 1-2) whose pipe sections are made from rigid material (see paragraph 17, “the bend limiter units may be made of various types of hard plastics or other rigid structure materials”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize rigid tube material as taught by Smith into the apparatus of Yan as the tubing of the bend restrictor would have a minimal flex, preventing the bend limiter from bending too far and causing damage to the associated cable.
Claim 2: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the locking radius of the bend restrictor is equal to or over the minimum allowable bending radius of the cable (Examiner noting page 2, “also can ensure the inner flexible tube cable meets the designed curvature” which provides that the bend restrictor will allow for at least the minimum allowable bending radius for the cable).
Claim 3: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the distance between the outward facing end flange and the adjacent additional outward facing flange of the pipe section is larger than the width of the inward facing flange of the clamp section so that the axis of the pipe section and the axis of the adjacent clamp section can have an inclination relative to each other (as can be appreciated from Fig. 2a).
Claim 4: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the distance between the outward facing end flange and the adjacent additional outward facing flange of the pipe section is larger than the width of the inward facing flange of the clamp section (Fig. 2a), so that a position of the central axis of the pipe section to the central axis of adjacent clamp section can vary between a first and second positions wherein in the first position the axes are aligned (as shown in Fig. 2a) and in the second position the axes are inclined relative to each other (as can be appreciated from Fig. 2a, when the assembly is bended).
Claim 6: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the pipe section comprises an outward facing flange at each end (Figs. 3-4), and at least two additional outward facing flanges arranged between the end flanges (Figs. 3-4, note two outward extending protrusions/flanges on each half of the pipe shaped middle section).
Claim 7: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the pipe section is split in the longitudinal direction into at least two parts (Figs. 3-4).
Claim 8: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the at least two parts of the pipe section are connectable through bolt connections, or through locking pin connections or through straps (Figs. 3-4, note fastener/bolt holes shown in Figs. 3-4).
Claim 9: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the clamp section is split in the longitudinal direction into at least two parts (Figs. 3-4).
Claim 10: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the at least two parts of the clamp section are connectable through bolt connections, or through locking pin connections or through straps (Figs. 3-4, note fastener/bolt holes shown in Figs. 3-4).
Claim 11: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the clamp section is made of a rigid material (page 3, note “polyurethane material”).
Claim 12: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Modified Yan further teaches that the clamp section comprises a structural steel, a polymer (page 3, note “polyurethane material” of Yan in light of paragraph 17 of Smith) or a fibre-reinforced polymer material.
Claim 13: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the pipe shaped middle section of the clamp section features at least one aperture (Figs. 3-4).
Claim 14: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that the pipe shaped middle section of the clamp section comprises a plurality of elongated elements extending between the two inward facing flanges (Figs. 3-4, note two outward extending protrusions/flanges on each half of the pipe shaped middle section).
Claim 15: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that said pipe section has a pipe length LP and said clamp section has clamp length LC (Fig. 2a, Examiner choosing the pipe length as the portion of the pipe section between the end flange and the start of the trapezoid portion and the clamp length as the flange portion of the clamp which situates above this particular pipe length), the dimensional ratio LC/LP is set from 0.9 to 4.1 (as the overlap of these two portions are the same, the ratio would be 1).
Claim 16: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that said pipe section defines a distance DBPF between said outward facing end flange and said additional outward facing flange, said clamp section defining a thickness TCF of said inward facing flange of the clamp section, the dimensional ratio DBPF/TCF is set from 1.4 to 3.8 (Fig. 2a, Examiner notes the angled slope of the additional outward facing flange; were the top of this angled slope chosen as one of the distance points, the ratio appears satisfied at the lower boundary).
Claim 17: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that said clamp section has an inner diameter IDC and the pipe section has an outer diameter ODP, the dimensional ratio IDC/ODP is set from 1.02 to 1.3 (Fig. 2a, Examiner notes the slight enlargement of the clamp section over the pipe section, which appears to satisfy the ratio at the lower boundary).
Claim 18: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan further discloses that said pipe section has an outer diameter ODP and pipe length LP, the dimensional ratio ODP/LP is set from 0.9 to 2.2 (Fig. 2A, Examiner notes the pipe section outer diameter appears just shy of the length parameter, appearing to meet the ratio near its lower value).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (CN206889963U) in view of Smith (US20120304447A1) and in further view of Fischer (US 3,813,477).
Claim 5: Yan and Smith teach the previous limitations. Yan teaches the previous limitations but is not explicit about a maximum angle between adjacent clamp and pipe sections is comprised between 1.5 and 9 degrees wherein the angle is measured between the central axis of the pipe section and the central axis of the adjacent clamp section. However, Yan is open to design changes to the angle shape of the trapezoidal flange to suit working conditions (see page 3). Additionally, Fisher teaches using a bend restrictor with angle bend constraints between 5 and 10 degrees (see col. 3, lines 50-53). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the constraints as mentioned by Fischer into the apparatus of Yan so as not to cause damage to the associated cable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has introduced the Smith and Ritchie-Bland references to read upon the new claim limitations relating to the piping section rigidity. Applicant argues that Yan is purposely intended to flex by deformation and therefore would not be made from a rigid material. Examiner disagrees with this assessment and believes that the bending described by Yan is meant for the angled articulation between components of Yan’s bend restrictor. Yan’s piping materials are thick-walled and not meant for deforming. Further, any sort of repeated cycling of the bend restrictor flanges being repeatedly deformed would lead to material fatigue and quick failure at that joint, especially if a polymer material was involved. Examiner notes that provision is already provided in the form of clearances between the flange components, which allow for adjacent components to form an angle between one another with material. Examiner has attached a newly updated English Machine Translation of 963’ for Applicant’s reconsideration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights