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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments directed toward the width of element 12 traversed. First, Applicant’s assertion that element 12 does not involve the removal of material far from certain. The disclosure of Dominguez directed to element 12 states “…bring it to its optimal tightening position by means of pliers, or suitable wrenches, for instance by pressing and deforming its bridge (12) with some means or shaping (15), that provides more inertial resistance to said bridge…”, this does not require the bent flange asserted in Applicant’s arguments. Although the flange which is argued for is indeed covered by the disclosure of Dominguez, it is not exclusively required. Secondly, the arguments directed toward the width are also traversed. Applicant cannot redefine the width, which is understood to be measured in a single plane, to be defined in multiple planes. This violates the common cartesian reference plane understanding which is reflected, both generally and in this particular case, by colloquial terms such as length, width and height. The fact that element 12 can be formed by bending flanges out of the plane which defines the width does not mean the width is therefore maintained. This argument violates convention and is not convincing. Furthermore, if the flanges are bent into other planes this ABSOLUTELY behave differently under load as compared to the unflanged width. By bending the flanges to reduce the width the Second Moment of Inertia of the clamp band is altered in the bridge area. This will change the behavior under load. These concepts are considered utterly, completely and transcendently within the ordinary skill of those in the mechanical arts and require not further explanation to those skill in the art. Applicant’s disclosure also states, unequivocally, that the behavior under load changes, see above selection from the disclosure “…some means or shaping (15), that provides more inertial resistance to said bridge”
Applicant’s amendments do not traverse the product-by-process interpretation as “removal of material” is still a process.
No substantive arguments have been directed toward Haensli ‘545 or Oetiker ‘004.
The rejections are upheld.
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) 1-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Palau Dominguez, U.S. Patent 8,230,556 of Palau Dominguez ‘556 in view of Haensli, U.S. Patent 11,408,545.
Regarding Claim 1, Palau Dominguez teaches:
first and second end portions (see below) adapted to overlap each other as inner and an
outer clamping band portions when installing the clamp structure around an object to be fastened,
connecting means (14, 13, 6, 2, 3) operable to mechanically interconnect the inner and outer clamping band portions, and
tolerance compensation means (12, 15) to impart stretchability to the clamping band in its longitudinal direction (see Abstract, see Col 1, Lns 40-45),
characterized in that the tolerance compensation means includes the following adjacent band regions along the longitudinal direction of the clamping band:
a first band region (see below) in which the lateral band width decreases from a first band width to a second band width which is smaller than that first band width,
a second band region (see below) in which the lateral band width remains constant at the second band width, and
a third band region (see below) in which the lateral band width increases to a third band width which is larger than the second band width.
PNG
media_image1.png
224
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
281
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “adapted to overlap…to be fastened”, “operable to mechanically…clamping band portions” and “to impart stretchability…its longitudinal direction”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Palau Dominguez ‘556, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that these claims are considered to be product-by-process claims due to the limitations “defined by removal of material from the lateral band edges of the clamping band“. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966. See MPEP 2113.
Should Applicant disagree that Palau Dominguez ‘556 teaches the tolerance compensation means then Haensli ‘545 is introduced to teach:
tolerance compensation means (25, 26) to impart stretchability to the clamping band in its longitudinal direction (see Abstract, see Col 1, Lns 40-45),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Palau Dominguez ‘556 with a tolerance compensating means because that would provide for adaptive fastening in the case of temperature change or other needs for tolerance compensation.
Regarding Claim 2, see Palau Dominguez ‘556 drawing selection above and figs. 1-2.
Regarding Claim 3, Palau Dominguez ‘556 appears teach exactly the limitations of this claim, but does not disclose the sums of the first and third band regions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art barring any unforeseen result to provide Palau Dominguez ‘556 or Palau Donguez-Hainsli with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not stated any specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result stemming from the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
Regarding Claims 4-5, the prior art(s) is/are silent with regard to the specific angles claimed because the angles of Palau Dominguez are clearly between 90° and 180° and because Applicant has not stated any specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result stemming from the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
Regarding Claim 6, see Palau Dominguez drawing selection above and figs. 1-2, note location of elements 12, 15.
Regarding Claims 7-8, see drawing selection above and see fig. 2, elements 12, 15.
Regarding Claims 9-10, see drawing selection above and see fig. 2, elements 12, 15.
Regarding Claim 12, Palau Dominguez teaches:
wherein the connecting means (14, 13, 6, 2, 3) includes a tensioning hook (3) having a
window (5) formed by cutting-out band material in the lateral center portion of the clamping band (see Col 6, Lns 13-17)
the cut-out window is at least partially formed within the third band region (see 3, 13 and 14 and note that when the clamp is wrapped the cut-out window would reside at least partially overlapping the third band region which meets the limitation “within”)
Regarding Claim 13, Palau Dominguez teaches:
wherein the connecting means (14, 13, 6, 2, 3) includes a tongue portion (14) formed at
the first end portion (see drawing selection above) of the clamping band and a tongue receiving channel (13) formed at the second end portion (see drawing selection above) of the clamping band, and
at least a part of the tongue receiving channel is formed within the first band region.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palau Dominguez ‘556 or Palau Dominguez-Haensli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oetiker, U.S. Patent 4,492,004.
The prior arts are silent with regard to the limitations of this claim.
Oetiker teaches:
a radial step (33) is formed in the second end portion of a clamping band (10) to provide
a larger radial dimension for that part of the second end portion which is adapted to overlap the first end portion (31) of the clamping band (11) when the clamp structure is installed around the object to be fastened (fig. 8), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Palau Dominguez or Palau Dominguez-Haensli with the radial step as taught by Oetiker such that “the tolerance compensation means is formed between the radial step and the free end of the clamping band at the second end portion” because the radial step would accommodate the tongue portion and the radial step would be properly positioned between elements 12 and 13 of Palau Dominguez.
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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677