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Claims 5, 6 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species A-B and D-E, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Furthermore, claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn as they are dependent on withdrawn claim 6. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/23/2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/21/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: “the length of the latter being considered along ZZ’ axis, and thus the force applicator has variable thickness, maximum in a plane of symmetry passing through” (lines 2-4) presents confusing language. It is unclear as to what “the latter” is referring and it is assumed, but not clear, that “maximum” is referring to thickness. Furthermore, “thus the force applicator has variable thickness” is redundant with the inclusion of the limitations describing the variable thickness with respect to the plane perpendicular to the ZZ’ axis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9-10 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 9 recites the limitation "the upper part and edges" in line 2, “the central and lower part” in line 3, “the hardness of the elastomer” in line 5, “the lower faces” in line 6, “the lower face” in line 7, “the location” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is rejected by its dependency on claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boulet D'Auria (US 8978709), hereinafter Boulet ‘709.
Regarding claim 1, Boulet ‘709 teaches: A sealing device for sealing a leak in a pipe or reservoir wall having an opening, comprising an elastomer plate applied to said wall at the site of the opening (elastomer plate 14 applied to wall at site of opening 12 [Col. 2, line 15-20 and Fig. 1]), a force applicator and a force distributor applied to the elastomer plate (force applicator and distributor 16 [Fig. 1 and 3-4]) and means for applying a clamping torque to said force applicator such as a strap forming a clamping belt (strap 20 and 22 applies clamping torque [Col. 2, lines 30-32 and Fig. 1]), wherein the force distributor has an inner face intended to be placed onto the elastomer plate, the inner face having an active zone corresponding to a protuberance and an inactive zone situated around said protuberance (active zone created by rib 50 and inactive zone located around the ribs [Fig. 4]), in such a way that, when the clamping torque is applied to the force applicator, the active zone generates a pressure on the elastomer plate greater than the pressure generated by the inactive zone of the distributor on the elastomer plate (Pressure placed on active zone ribs 50 would result in a greater pressure when clamping torque is applied [Fig. 1 and 4]).
Regarding claim 2, Boulet ‘709 teaches: The sealing device according to claim 1, wherein the force applicator comprises slots in two directions on its outer face, a first series of slots in planes perpendicular to a ZZ' direction, the ZZ' axis representing the longitudinal direction of the pipe, and a second series of slots in directions parallel to the longitudinal ZZ' axis, said slots defining a plurality of protrusions (force modules 42, 44, and 46 are placed in openings 41 on a grid 40 which would result in slots in perpendicular directions between each force module [Col. 2, lines 63-67 and Fig. 3-4]).
Regarding claim 3, Boulet ‘709 teaches: The sealing device according to claim 2, wherein the protrusions of the force applicator have a difference in thickness across the width of the applicator, the length of the latter being considered along the ZZ' axis, and thus the force applicator has a variable thickness, maximum in a plane of symmetry passing through the ZZ' axis and which decreases towards the lateral (shows a difference in thickness across width [Col. 3, line 25-29 and Fig. 4]).
Regarding claim 12, Boulet ‘709 teaches: The sealing device according to claim 1, wherein the material used to manufacture the force applicator and the force distributor is chosen from rigid plastic materials such as polyamide, polypropylene or polycarbonate (Col. 2, lines 53-62).
Claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saylor et. al. (US 4391300).
A sealing device for sealing a leak in a pipe or reservoir wall having an opening, comprising an elastomer plate applied to said wall at the site of the opening (Sealing plate 22 made of resilient material, such as rubber [Col. 3, lines 11-20] applied to the a leak/opening 23 in a pipe 11 [Fig. 2]), a force applicator and a force distributor applied to the elastomer plate and means for applying a clamping torque to said force applicator such as a strap forming a clamping belt (the clamp 10 acts as a force applicator and distributor to the sealing plate 22 with a means for applying the clamping torque via the bolt 17 [Fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 44-59]), wherein the force distributor has an inner face intended to be placed onto the elastomer plate (has inner face 21 with a protuberance between grooves 20 to be placed on the sealing plate 22 [Figs. 1-2 and Col. 2, lines 64-Col.3, line 6), the inner face having an active zone corresponding to a protuberance and an inactive zone situated around said protuberance, in such a way that, when the clamping torque is applied to the force applicator, the active zone generates a pressure on the elastomer plate greater than the pressure generated by the inactive zone of the distributor on the elastomer plate (The sealing plate 22 is taught to be convexly curved so that the spacing between sides 24 and 26 are substantially greater in relaxed condition than in the compressed condition and therefore would indicate a higher pressure at the protuberance between grooves 20, or active zone, than in the grooves 20, or inactive zone [See Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, lines 33-40]).
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.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulet D'Auria (US 8978709) in view of Boulet D'Auria (US 6334465), hereinafter Boulet '465.
Boulet ‘709 teaches the sealing device according to claim 2 but fails to teach the further limitations of claim 4.
Boulet ‘465 teaches: A sealing device wherein the depth of the slots of the force applicator located opposite the protuberance is greater than that of the other slots (force applicator 18 placed on a force distributor 16 wherein depth of slots 50 decrease away from protuberance over opening 12 [Col. 2, lines 16-22 and Fig. 4]).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sealing device of Boulet ‘709 with the force applicator of Boulet ‘465 in order to improve the efficiency of the leak stopping device by distributing the forces over the device (Boulet ‘465 - Col. 3, lines 16-30).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boulet D'Auria (US 8978709).
Boulet ‘709 teaches: The sealing device according to claim 12, wherein the protuberance of the force distributor made of polyamide has a stiffness (Col. 2, lines 53-62) but fails to teach the stiffness of between 1400 N/m and 1700 N/m.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an appropriate range of stiffness for the polyamide material used in the device in order to meet operational and manufacturing requirements as issues with excessive stiffness have been found to impact operational capacity of similar sealing (Boulet ‘709 – Col. 1, lines 35-39). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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:
The prior art of record does not disclose or reasonably suggest the sealing device for sealing a leak in a pipe or reservoir comprising the combing the features set forth in dependent claim 9.
US 8978709 to Boulet D’Auria, US 6334465 to Boulet D’Auria, and US 4391300 to Saylor et. al. may be seen as close prior art in certain aspects but fail to expressly teach the sealing device comprising an elastomer plate with at least two materials wherein a first material makes up the upper part and edges while second material makes up the central and lower part of the plate as described in dependent claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lew (US 6296021) teaches: a leak repair device using an elastomeric seal and a semi-rigid cover member for compressing the seal over a portion of the wall of a pipe using a strap (abstract and Fig. 1).
Meinerding (US 5706862) teaches: a repair device with an elastomer sealing member pressed against the wall of a pipe using a force distributing body and a strap (abstract and Fig. 1).
Savard (US 5199464) teaches: a pipeline repair sleeve for sealing a leak in a side wall with a recess to confine the sealing element (abstract and Fig. 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. If Craig Schneider cannot be reached, please contact Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881. 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.
/JOSHUA D LEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights