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Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026.
Status of claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 07/09/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 7-12 are withdrawn and claims 1-6 and 13-20 are being examined.
Furthermore, claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration. The only use of the clamping tool is directed to clamping embodiment 6000 (See instant application fig. 14 and paras. 58 and 59), which is not in in the applicant’s elected embodiments.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 8 and 9 should read –wherein the at least one tongue is arranged within the front wall tongue pathway, the wedge void, and the back wall tongue pathway while in contact with the wedge.--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“Clamping Assembly” in claim 1, line 6.
“Clamping Assembly”, in claim 20, lines 8 and 10-11.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bradandere (US 4399593 A) in view of O’Neil (US 20200088328 A1).
Regarding claim 1, De Bradandere (US 4399593 A) discloses a clamp (fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 27- 38) for encapsulating a piping element (col. 2, ll. 27- 43), the clamp comprising:
a housing (1; col. 2, ll. 27- 38), the housing defining a first end (defined as the transitioning portion between elements 1 and 2, wherein element 2 is seen as more linear and element 1 is circular, as annotated in fig. 2 below; col. 2, ll. 27- 43) and a second end (3; fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 27- 43); at least one tongue (2; fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 27- 43 ) connected to the housing (tongue is integrally connected to the housing; fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 27- 43) and extending proximate the first end ( fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 27- 43); and at least one clamping assembly (4; fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 53-63) coupled to the second end (fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 53-63), wherein each clamping assembly engages at least one tongue (fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 45-55 and col. 4, ll. 15-27).
PNG
media_image1.png
273
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, De Bradandere does not disclose a gasket arranged within and in contact with the housing and the gasket arranged to encapsulate the piping element. However, O’Neil (US 20200088328 A1), concerned with the art of a clamping apparatus, discloses a gasket (38; fig. 1A; para. 47) arranged within and in contact with the housing (fig. 1A; para. 47), the gasket arranged to encapsulate the piping element (the gasket is made to prevent water from leaking from the pipe, therefore it must encapsulate the piping element for it to be used with the clamp; para. 47). Both De Bradandere and O’Neil are concerned with the are of a clamping apparatus, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing, as taught by De Bradandere, to further include a gasket arranged within and in contact with the housing, as taught by O’Neil, as a means to create a water tight seal between piping elements (para. 47, O’Neil).
Regarding claim 2, De Bradandere in view of O’Neil disclose the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein at least one clamping assembly comprises a wedge housing (8; fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 5-14) and a wedge (17; fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 30-44) arranged within the wedge housing (fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 30-44).
Regarding claim 3, De Bradandere in view of O’Neil disclose the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further teach wherein the wedge housing comprises a front wall (defined perimeter of annotated region in figs. 2 and 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 4, ll. 8-15) , a back wall (defined perimeter of annotated region in figs. 2 and 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 4, ll. 8-15), a top (18, De Bradandere; fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 30-40), and a bottom ( 13 and 14, De Bradandere; fig. 3; col. 4, ll. 8-20), the wedge housing thereby defining two sides (9 and 10, De Bradandere; fig, 3; col. 3, ll. 5-14);
the front wall defining a front wall tongue pathway (defined as the opening created when the element 25 is formed, as annotated in fig. 2 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 5-14 and col. 4, ll. 4-14); the back wall defining a back wall tongue pathway (defined as the opening created when the element 25 is formed, as annotated in fig. 2 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 5-14 and col. 4, ll. 4-14); and the wedge housing defining a wedge void (the space between sidewalls 9 and 10 wherein the wedge is housed; fig. 2, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 30-44), the wedge void in communication with the front wall tongue pathway and the back wall tongue pathway (communicates via the openings of the housing; figs. 2 and 3, De Bradandere), wherein the at least one tongue is arranged within the front wall tongue pathway (fig. 2, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 33-42), the wedge void (fig. 2, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 33-42), and the back wall tongue pathway (fig. 2, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 33-42) while in contact with the wedge (fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 45-55 and col. 4, ll. 15-27).
PNG
media_image2.png
214
319
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
250
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, De Bradandere in view of O’Neil disclose the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further teach wherein the wedge can define a front wall (defined perimeter of annotated region in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere), a back wall (defined perimeter of annotated region in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere), a top (as annotated in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 30-46), a bottom (as annotated in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 30-46), and two side walls (as annotated in figs. 2 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 30-46), wherein the bottom of the wedge comprises a friction- inducing surface (De Bradandere teaches the wedges traction to grip the free end, 2 ; col. 3, ll. 45-60).
PNG
media_image4.png
353
375
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, De Bradandere in view of O’Neil disclose the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and further teach wherein the friction-inducing surface is a plurality of teeth (col 2, ll. 63-68 and col. 3, ll. 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, De Bradandere in view of O’Neil disclose the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teach wherein each tongue is integrated with a tongue attachment (the part where the tongue meets the housing, as annotated in fig. 2 below; col. 2, ll. 27- 43), where the tongue attachment is connected to the housing (as seen in annotated fig. 2 below; col. 2, ll. 27- 43).
PNG
media_image5.png
273
314
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13, 14, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bradandere (US 4399593 A).
Regarding claim 13, De Bradandere (US 4399593 A) discloses a clamp (fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 27- 38) comprising : a housing (1; col. 2, ll. 27- 38), the housing defining a first end (defined as the transitioning portion between elements 1 and 2, wherein element 2 is seen as more linear and element 1 is circular, as annotated in fig. 2 below; col. 2, ll. 27- 43) and a second end (3; fig. 1; col. 2, ll. 27- 43);
a first tongue connected to the housing and extending proximate the first end (fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 27- 43);
a first clamping assembly the first clamping assembly comprising a wedge housing (8; fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 5-14) defining a top (18, De Bradandere; fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 30-40) , a bottom (13 and 14, De Bradandere; fig. 3; col. 4, ll. 8-20), a front wall (defined perimeter of annotated region in figs. 2, Annotated 1 and 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 4, ll. 8-15), a back wall (defined perimeter of annotated region in figs. 2, Annotated 1 and 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 4, ll. 8-15), a first side wall (9, De Bradandere; fig, 3; col. 3, ll. 5-14), and a second side wall (10, De Bradandere; fig, 3; col. 3, ll. 5-14), the front wall being of a smaller dimension than the back wall such that the top is angled with respect to the bottom (fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 5-14), wherein the front wall defines a front wall tongue pathway (defined as the opening created when element 25 is formed, as annotated in fig. 2, Annotated 1 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 5-14 and col. 4, ll. 4-14), wherein the back wall defines a back wall tongue pathway (defined as the opening created when element 25 is formed, as annotated in fig. 2, Annotated 1 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 5-14 and col. 4, ll. 4-14), and wherein the wedge housing defines a wedge void (the space between sidewalls 9 and 10 wherein the wedge is housed; fig. 2, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 30-44) in communication with the front wall tongue pathway and with the back wall tongue pathway(communicates via the openings of the housing; figs. 2 and 3, De Bradandere);
a wedge (17; fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 30-44) arranged within the wedge void (fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 30-44), the wedge defining a top (as annotated in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 30-46), a bottom (as annotated in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 30-46), a front (defined by annotated region in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere), a back (defined by annotated region in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere), a first side (as annotated in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 30-46), and a second side (as annotated in fig. 4 below, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 30-46), wherein the top of the wedge is angled with respect to the bottom (fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 30-44), wherein the top of the wedge is in contact with a top of the wedge void (figs. 2 and 3; col. 3, ll. 30-44);
the first clamping assembly coupled to the second end (fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 53-63), wherein the first tongue is arranged within the front wall tongue pathway (fig. 2, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 33-42) and the back wall tongue pathway of the first clamping assembly (fig. 2, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 33-42), wherein the wedge of the first clamping assembly is in contact with a surface of the first tongue (fig. 2, De Bradandere; col. 3, ll. 45-55 and col. 4, ll. 15-27).
PNG
media_image6.png
273
314
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
224
319
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
352
421
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, De Bradandere (US 4399593 A) does not explicitly disclose wherein a second tongue is connected to the housing and extending proximate the first end and a second clamping assembly identical to the first clamping assembly; the second clamping assembly coupled to the second end, wherein the second tongue is arranged within the front wall tongue pathway and the back wall tongue pathway of the second clamping assembly, wherein the wedge of the first clamping assembly is in contact with a surface of the second tongue. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the first tongue and first clamping assembly and their respective structure and relationship as noted in the limitations above, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (Refer to: MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Regarding claim 14, De Bradandere teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches wherein the bottom of each wedge defines a plurality of teeth (col 2, ll. 63-68 and col. 3, ll. 1-5).
Regarding claim 17, De Bradandere teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches wherein the first wedge is connected to the first wedge housing by at least one spring (24, De Bradandere, considered of the likes of a leaf spring; fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 55-68 and col. 4, ll. 1-7) and wherein the second wedge is connected to the second wedge housing by at least one spring (24, De Bradandere, considered of the likes of a leaf spring. First and second wedges share identical components via duplication of parts; fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 55-68 and col. 4, ll. 1-7).
Regarding claim 19, De Bradandere teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches wherein the second end defines an end stop (15; fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 11-24) wherein the end stop is arranged within an end stop opening (the gap between clamps 13 and 14, prior to being clamped; figs. 2 and 3; col. 3, ll. 5-29) defined in each wedge housing (limitation met vis duplication of parts; figs. 2 and 3; col. 3, ll. 5-29).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bradandere (US 4399593 A) in view of an alternate embodiment.
Regarding claim 15, De Bradandere teaches the limitations of claim 14, as described above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the surface of each tongue is a friction-inducing surface. However, a second embodiment of De Bradandere teaches wherein the surface of each tongue is a friction-inducing surface (62; fig. 9; col. 6, ll. 5-28). De Bradandere is concerned with the art of a clamping apparatus, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each tongue, as taught by De Bradandere, to further include a friction-inducing surface, as taught by the second embodiment of De Bradandere, as a means to assist in gripping and prevent slippage from occurring (col. 5, ll. 49-68).
Regarding claim 16, De Bradandere teaches the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further teaches wherein the friction-inducing surface defines a plurality of teeth (62; fig. 9; col. 6, ll. 5-28).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bradandere (US 4399593 A) in view of Di Stefano (US 8348252 B2).
Regarding claim 18, De Bradandere teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, however does not explicitly teach wherein each spring is a stacked wave disc spring.
However, Di Stefano (US 8348252 B2), concerned with the use of springs in an apparatus, teaches the alternative use of both a leaf and a wave spring (col. 9, ll. 31-44). Both De Bradandere and Di Stefano are concerned with the use of springs in an apparatus, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the leaf spring, as taught by De Bradandere, to be that of a stacked wave disc spring, as taught by De Bradandere since it is a known alternative in the art (col. 9, ll. 31-44, Di Stefano).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T. FARRELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0401. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MICHAEL THADDUES FARRELL JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
