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 .
Amendment filed 12/29/2025 has been entered with claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 13-21 remain pending in the present application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pair of arms,” “first channel”, “second channel” in claims 1, 7, 11, 13 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-21 of copending Application No. 18/101,882 in view of Konoshita US 6305868. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-21 in the present application are the same as claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-21 in US 18/101882 except for the presence of the limitation “a (first) spring configured to bias the second clamp member toward the closed position” in claims 1, 11 and 18. As set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 8/28/2025, Konoshita discloses a clamp assembly (Fig. 2) which includes a first clamp member (4) and a second clamp member (5) rotatable secured to the first clamp member (via 7) and adapted to be positioned between an open and closed configuration; and a (first) spring (6, Fig. 2) configured to bias the second clamp member toward the (their) closed position (see Fig. 2-3). The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the spring of Kinoshita since Kinoshita states that such a modification biases the second clamp member (hook) toward a slipping-off preventing position (Abstract, Lines 1-5).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-21 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the specific limitations of “a first clevis, the first clevis adapted to be coupled to a first horizontal pipe, wherein the first clevis comprises a pair of arms and defining a first channel extending through the first clevis, wherein said first flange is adapted to be inserted between the arms of the first clevis such that the first slot portion is aligned with the first channel extending through the first clevis; and (d) a wedge adapted to be inserted into the first slot portion to hold the second clamp member in the closed position around a second horizontal pipe that is received between the first clamp member and the second clamp member, and thereby locking the first flange to the first clevis” in the combination of claims 1 and 11 and “a first clevis comprising a pair of arms and defining a first channel extending through the first clevis, wherein the first flange is adapted to be inserted between the arms of the first clevis such that the first slot portion is aligned with the first channel extending through the first clevis; a first wedge adapted to be inserted into the first slot portion and the first channel to lock the first and second clamp members in the closed position and the first flange to the first clevis;” in the combination of claim 18 is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art of record. Known prior art reference Tada JP 2013194461 discloses a clamp assembly (Fig. 9) which includes a first clamp member (12) having a c-shaped jaw (see interior of 12, Fig. 9), a first flange (19b, Fig. 9), and an elongate slot through a portion of the first flange (see Fig. 9, where 11 is located), a second clamp member (11) comprising an arm adapted to reside with the slot and pivotally coupled to the first clamp member and adapted for rotation between an open and closed position (see Fig. 9-10). Similarly, Brinkmann US 9133634 discloses a known scaffolding clamp and Kinoshita US 6305868 discloses a clamp assembly which includes a flange. These references were discussed in the Non-Final Rejection dated 8/28/2025 as being applicable to Applicant’s previously claimed invention. The use of a clevis in a scaffolding assembly is known and discloses in prior art references Stringer US 2006/0039746 and Kreller US 8978823 for instance, however these references do not employ a wedge close both the first and second clamp members and lock the first flange to the clevis as now required in the claimed. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the claims define over the prior art of record and would be in condition for allowance with the filing of an approved terminal disclaimer or otherwise amending the claims to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth above.
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
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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632