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 .
The following correspondence is a Final Office Action for application no. 18/738,060 for a BEAM CLAMP, AND A MOUNTING ASSEMBLY, filed on 6/10/2024. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12-19 and 26-31 are pending. This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 3/17/2026. Claims 10, 12-19, 26, 30 and 31 are withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/627,859, filed on 1/18/2022.
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
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 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "the direction from the leading edge" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddock (U.S. Pub. 5,228,248) in view of Haddock et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,502,457).
Regarding clam 1, Haddock (‘248) teaches a beam clamp (54) for attachment to a flange (14) of a structural building member and from which to support or brace a service component, the beam clamp comprising: a clamp body, the clamp body includes including: a first jaw section that includes at least one mounting through hole, a second jaw section that has a pair of lateral faces (sides, one shown below), a joining section that interconnects the first and second jaw sections, the first and second jaw sections, and the joining section of the clamp body being formed of a single piece of material, a transverse opening that is to receive the flange, the transverse opening being defined by the first and second jaw sections and the joining section, and a contact surface on the second jaw section, the outer peripheral edges of the contact surface being defined on two sides by vertices (edges) formed with the lateral faces and on a third side by a leading edge of the second jaw section, wherein in use of the beam clamp, the contact surface is in contact with the flange of the structural member; and at least one set screw that is to be installed in the mounting through hole, the set screw having a tip with a leading end with a cross sectional area that is less than the cross sectional area of the shank of the set screw, the cross sectional areas being in planes that are transverse to the longitudinal direction of the shank, whereby, in use of the beam clamp, the flange is secured within transverse opening between the tip of the at least one set screw and the contact surface, but does not teach that the clamp body is made of hardened steel that has a minimum hardness of 150 BHN and wherein the contact surface has surface irregularities formed on at least a portion of the contact surface that extends the width between the vertices and from the leading edge, providing a roughness that enhances engagement of the second jaw section with the flange.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the invention of Haddock (‘248) where the clamp body is made of hardened steel that has a minimum hardness of 150 BHN, in order to provide a strong and durable structural member and further, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, Haddock (‘457) teaches a clamp (142) wherein the contact surface has surface irregularities (Fig. 152) formed on at least a portion of the contact surface, providing a roughness that enhances engagement of the contact surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the invention of Haddock (‘248) wherein the contact surface has surface irregularities formed on at least a portion of the contact surface that extends the width between the vertices and from the leading edge, providing a roughness that enhances engagement of the contact surface second jaw section with the flange in order to securely grip the flange and prevent undesired movement, in view of Haddock (‘457).
[AltContent: textbox (Mounting through hole)][AltContent: textbox (Mounting through hole)][AltContent: textbox (Joining section)][AltContent: textbox (Clamp body)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Tip with leading end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd jaw section)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
190
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1st jaw section)][AltContent: textbox (tip)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal direction)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lateral face )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Mounting through hole)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Contact surface)][AltContent: textbox (Set screw)]
[AltContent: textbox (shank)][AltContent: textbox (Leading edge of 2nd jaw section)]
[AltContent: textbox (Transverse opening)]
Regarding claim 2, Haddock (‘248) and Haddock (‘457) teach the clamp of claim 1, wherein Haddock (‘457) teaches that the surface irregularities are in the form of one or more sets of alternating ridges and furrows that are formed in the contact surface (see Fig. 8A).
Regarding claims 5-7, Haddock (‘248) and Haddock (‘457) teach the clamp of claim 1, but do not teach that the amplitude of the surface irregularities is less than 1 mm, the ratio of the width of the second jaw section between the pair of lateral faces to the minimum separation of the first and second jaw sections is at least 1.25:1 or that the ratio of the depth of the second jaw section to the minimum separation of the first and second jaw sections is at least 1.5:1. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the invention of Haddock (‘248) and Haddock (‘457) wherein the amplitude of the surface irregularities is less than 1 mm, the ratio of the width of the second jaw section between the pair of lateral faces to the minimum separation of the first and second jaw sections is at least 1.25:1 and the ratio of the depth of the second jaw section to the minimum separation of the first and second jaw sections is at least 1.5:1 in order to provide a gripping surface with a firm hold, and further, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 27, Haddock (‘248) and Haddock (‘457) teach the clamp of claim 1, wherein Haddock (‘248) teaches that the second jaw section includes at least one mounting through hole (see figure above).
Regarding claim 28, Haddock (‘248) and Haddock (‘457) teach the clamp of claim 27, wherein Haddock (‘248) teaches that there is provided a contact surface on the first jaw section, but does not teach that the contact surface is formed with surface irregularities providing a roughness that enhances engagement of the contact surface with the flange. Haddock (‘457) teaches a contact surface has surface irregularities (Fig. 152) providing a roughness that enhances engagement of the contact surface with the flange in order to prevent slippage. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the invention of Haddock (‘248) and Haddock (‘457), wherein the contact surface on the first jaw section is formed with surface irregularities providing a roughness that enhances engagement of the contact surface with the flange in order to securely grip the flange and prevent undesired movement.
Although claim 29 contains purely functional limitations, it is nonetheless rejected because as best understood, Haddock (‘248) and Haddock (‘457) teach the clamp of claim 28, wherein Haddock (‘248) teaches that the clamp body can be mounted in either of two orientations (through one of the first or second jaw sections) on the flange and a set screw extends through either mounting through hole, depending on which of the two contact surfaces is to be in contact with the flange.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7 and 27-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights